June 22, 2009
NYT/CBS Stuffs Pro-Obamacare Poll With Obama Voters

Surprise! A NY Times/CBS poll finds increased support for Obama's takeover of the US medical care system when everyone else finds it to be dropping. Politico - Fox News How did they find that?

NewsBusters.org: [quote]

Realizing that Barack Obama's healthcare initiative has hit some roadblocks in Congress, the good folks at CBS News and the New York Times figured they'd help it along by creating a new poll on the subject that WAY oversampled people who voted for Obama.

Although the then-junior senator from Illinois received 53 percent of the votes last November, NYT/CBS surveyed almost twice as many Obama voters as McCain voters.

Before we get to the hilarious inner-workings of this truly disgraceful deception, here's how the Times reported its rigged findings Saturday.

Americans overwhelmingly support substantial changes to the health care system and are strongly behind one of the most contentious proposals Congress is considering, a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The poll found that most Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes so everyone could have health insurance and that they said the government could do a better job of holding down health-care costs than the private sector.

Actually, as Bruce Kesler cleverly discovered, what the poll really found was that most Obama voters support substantial changes to healthcare and are willing to pay higher taxes for a government run system:
[A]ccording to the actual poll data, of the 73% of respondents who said they voted in 2008 only 34% voted for McCain and 66% for Obama.
As can be plainly seen on page 7 of the poll's data, only 73 percent of respondents divulged who they voted for last November. 48 percent said Obama, 25 percent McCain.

What this means is this poll surveyed 66 percent Obama supporters versus 34 percent McCain.

As the final tally last year was 53 percent to 46 percent, this poll WAY oversampled Obama voters.

And you wonder why the survey found so much support for Obamacare?

Honestly, stuff like this should be illegal and any news organization found doing it should be significantly fined.

In any industry you could name, such deception of the public would meet with very serious consequences.

Why are so-called news outlets allowed to get away with such obvious deceit with total impunity? [end quote]

Also American Thinker Blog

Posted by Ron Hebron at June 22, 2009 07:19 AM | Email This
Comments
1. What this means is this poll surveyed 66 percent Obama supporters versus 34 percent McCain.

It doesn't mean that at all. All you know is that 48 percent of those polled claim to have supported Obama in November and 25 percent claim to have supported McCain. You don't know how they really voted and you don't know who 27 percent of those polled support.

The total percentage of Obama supporters could be anywhere from 48 to 75 percent and the percentage of McCain supporters could be anywhere from 25 to 52 percent. There's nothing strange about this result since random sample polls routinely put Obama's favorability ratings in the low-to-mid 60s, right in the middle of the range this poll indicates.

As the final tally last year was 53 percent to 46 percent, this poll WAY oversampled Obama voters.

Again, not true, for reasons given above. You also need to consider that people frequently lie to pollsters. When asked who they voted for last November, there is a tendency to claim one voted for the winner or to claim one voted for the person one now supports. Many polls show that support for Obama has increased since the election, so it wouldn't be surprising if a higher percentage of people claim to have voted for Obama than the actual election results show. Of the respondents who claim to have voted (people frequently lie about this in polls), 61 percent claim to have voted for Obama. Given the sampling error and the revisionism described above, this is not a remarkable result.

Overall, looking at the other questions and demographic data, the poll looks like it sampled a fairly typical cross-section of Americans. Claiming that the pollsters deliberately sought out Obama supporters to distort the results on healthcare questions just sounds desperate on your part.

Posted by: scottd on June 22, 2009 08:05 AM
2. Take a look at teh stock price NYT on the big board. Since their little treasonous episode in 2003 they have not had a significant uptick. They are toast and I am laughing at the people who invested in them.

Posted by: JDH on June 22, 2009 08:11 AM
3. @2: Because, you know, investors are concerned about the petulant whining of far-right-wingnuts as opposed to plain ol' bad business decisions?

Posted by: demo kid on June 22, 2009 08:15 AM
4. DK: Of course! Studies have shown that companies who have tanked in the stock market are liberal while conservative companies soar! Who could've knowed that so many corporations are liberal?

Posted by: scottd on June 22, 2009 08:19 AM
5. scottd;
"You also need to consider that people frequently lie to pollsters"
"there is a tendency to claim one voted for the winner or to claim one voted for the person one now supports"
"(people frequently lie about this in polls),"

How do you justify these comments? Where is your proof that people do these things, or is this something you might do and you beleive others would act just like you?

dk;
The relevancy being?

Posted by: REBEL on June 22, 2009 08:38 AM
6.

I am going to take a survey in the name of reporting factual information.

Then I am going take those facts from the survey and stack them up just the way I want them. I will be completely disregarding enough of the facts which I do not agree with to suit my cause. Also leaving enough there to smoke screen the public.

Finally I will cite the survey and stake a claim that I have information from the survey which indicates the public supports my cause.

Posted by: Pollster on June 22, 2009 08:42 AM
7. "What's black and white and red all over"?

"The New York Times' balance sheet"

* credit "The Daily Show"

Seriously, the Times has chosen to design its product to be enjoyed by liberals. They mostly write what liberals want to read, and craft polls to reflect what liberals want to believe.

To prove this I will ask two simple questions:

Do the conservatives on this board like the Times?

Do the liberals on this board like the Times?


Posted by: Gary on June 22, 2009 08:55 AM
8. You guys need to get ready for socialzed medicine because it will be here in a couple of years. We'll probably have a pretty good first-aid system and good primary care, but the bad illnesses will likey go under-treated.

Oh well, life is fatal if you live long enough!

Posted by: Politically Incorrect on June 22, 2009 09:12 AM
9. Ron Hebron, you continue to mislead the readership on this blog. Is it really that hard to tell the truth? For you, I assume, yes it is.

Your very first paragraph is a completely fabrication. The two stories you linked to include absolutely NO POLLING DATA backing up your claim that "everyone else finds [support to be dropping." Further, neither CBO estimate contained a public plan -- so those articles have nothing to do with the public plan! If you are unable to process the basic facts surrounding the health care debate, you should not post about it.

You are also unable to process basic facts about polling. See this article debunking your entire wingnut conspiracy theory:

When respondents were asked by the WSJ whom they voted for in the 2008 presidential elections, 41 percent said they voted for Obama, compared with 32 percent for McCain. Factor out the 18 percent who said they didn't vote, and you've got Obama beating McCain by 11 points, 50 percent to 39 percent.

The gap in the New York Times poll is even wider. In it, 48 percent of respondents said they voted for Obama, compared with 25 percent for McCain. Again, subtract the 19 percent who say they didn't vote, and you've got Obama winning by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, with 60 percent to McCain's 32 percent.

What gives? Are people really lying about having voted for Obama?

Yes, they are. It's common for more people to claim they voted for a president than actually did. In the 1930s, George Gallup found that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was more popular in post-election polls than he was on Election Day. The same was true after the 2000 election, in which George W. Bush lost the popular vote. By 2004, polls showed Bush having won in a landslide.

But the disparity between declared Obama voters and actual Obama voters is especially wide. The gap is usually in the single digits, and it waxes and wanes with the president's popularity. The New York Times poll, conducted periodically since Obama's inauguration, shows the gap between Obama and McCain steadily growing. In February, he led McCain 42 percent to 28 percent. In April, it was 43-25. By June, his lead had grown to 48-25. "Even by the standards of historical numbers, that's a large gap," says Adam Berinsky, a political science professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The main explanation for the gap, say pollsters, is people who didn't vote at all saying they did. These people tend to say they picked the winning candidate. Just look at the Times and Journal polls, where about 80 percent of respondents said they voted in the 2008 election. In fact, turnout was about 61 percent. (A 20 percent gap is pretty standard.) Pollsters attribute the disparity to the social discomfort of having to admit, even to a stranger on the phone, that you didn't vote. Exacerbating the discomfort is the fact that the question "Who did you vote for?" usually comes at the end of a survey—after you've just spent 30 minutes telling the pollster what you think of Obama. What are you going to do, admit you never voted?


Other evidence be damned, Ron wants to feel oppressed by the liberal media.

If only a conservative newspaper, like the Wall Street Journal did a poll... Wait, they did: There was also support for the Democratic push to let people sign up for a public health-care plan that would compete with private companies, one of the toughest issues in the health-care debate. Three in four people said a public plan is extremely or quite important. -Wall Street Journal. Support dropped after more details were provided, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. This statistic compares favorably to the NY Times number, showing that your wingnut conspiracy theory is wrong.

Are you even trying, Ron, or is partisan hackery more important then conveying the real facts to your audience? It's easier to complain about the big-bad liberal media (and the WSJ) than to take real action, I suppose. It's a dumb game you play, to convince conservatives that the country isn't in support of a public plan when in fact they are. The Republicans are losing the PR war and instead of re-adjusting you want to change the metric? That's a plan for not having the debate you want, and potentially losing it.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 09:45 AM
10. John,

You're being ignorant again... I bet you $100 we can go and do a survey around Broadway and Pike and we'll find that 80% of those surveyed voted for Obama.

You can most definitely skew the results of your poll just by location of where the poll is conducted! The balance would not reflect the overall area (or in this case, national) result but would be skewed towards the pre-determined outcome.

Remember Pauline Kael's utterly moronic statement about Nixon's election in 1972:

"How can that be? No one I know voted for Nixon!"

I have no doubt the NYT polled in a heavily Democrat area to get the results they wanted, knowing that the media - and thus most people - would only care about the results, not whether it was a good poll or not.

If only a conservative newspaper, like the Wall Street Journal did a poll... Wait, they did: There was also support for the Democratic push to let people sign up for a public health-care plan that would compete with private companies, one of the toughest issues in the health-care debate. Three in four people said a public plan is extremely or quite important. -Wall Street Journal. Support dropped after more details were provided, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. This statistic compares favorably to the NY Times number, showing that your wingnut conspiracy theory is wrong.

Wait, you mean people who were NOT educated about the plan simply took the platitudes and "it's good for you" statement from the MSM and the White House? And once educated about some of the facts, that support drops by 33%?

Only a Machiavellian liberal would state "Support dropped after more details were provided, but that is irrelevant to this discussion." No, it is ENTIRELY relevant. It shows that once again bias is in the poll, and once it's corrected the results are completely different.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 22, 2009 10:19 AM
11. What's even more interesting from that WSJ poll:

When asked what the most important economic issue facing the country is, 24% cited the deficit, vs. just 11% who named health care.

So what does this Administration do? Blows the deficit to 12 times the last GOP/Bush deficit, and then tries to take over healthcare.

Hey Slavers, you were so much about "give the people what they want", how about you shout the same now and demand the Administration to drop the irrelevant issue of healthcare and get on deficit reduction?

Nationalization of healthcare is simply a power-grab, nothing more.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 22, 2009 10:22 AM
12. It's called "decision-based evidence making". Get used to it.

Oh, wait, we already are used to it (cf., global warming. . .errr, I mean, climate change. . .errr, I mean climate crisis).

Posted by: Frank Black on June 22, 2009 10:26 AM
13. There goes Jensen again with his long winded diatribes. God, can't you say anything without writing a damn book about it? Maybe if you concentrated on the gist of what you had to say instead of the 'wingnut' comments you might shorten it up a bit and people might actually finish reading what you have to write.

What you write is so typical of a self-important liberal.

Posted by: REBEL on June 22, 2009 10:42 AM
14. Dan, No, it is ENTIRELY relevant. It shows that once again bias is in the poll, and once it's corrected the results are completely different.

A poll's job is not to educate the people being polled, but to conduct a sampling of opinions -- whether those opinions are based on ignorance or fact is completely irrelevant. The initial NY Times question and the initial WSJ question both did a sample of opinions without defining progressive arguments for the plan nor conservative arguments against the plan. It is apples-to-apples. And there was no significantly statistical difference.

So the NY Times/CBS poll and the WSJ poll found similar results -- where is the attack on the WSJ poll from Ron?

If the conservative messaging was working then it'd effect the initial response on both polls. Should conservatives work to get their message across or should they whine about bias where none exists?

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 10:45 AM
15. REBEL, great contribution to the search for the truth. Keep them coming.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 10:50 AM
16. John,

Then a poll of uneducated people is worthless, because their opinions will change as they learn more... Why not learn what the public will want as the process goes forward (and they learn more about what will be the impact of policy).

Unless you want to dictate policy and keep the proletariat fat, dumb, and happy?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 22, 2009 11:15 AM
17. Dan, Why not learn what the public will want as the process goes forward (and they learn more about what will be the impact of policy).

Both the NY Times and WSJ have more detailed questions to may do what you suggest. And of course, the media should continue to poll as the conversation goes forward. But I think it is more valuable to measure how people feel about things, not how people would feel about things IF they listened to GOP talking points. One is reality, one is a hypothetical.

Polls are not about policy as much as they are about framing that policy. If Democrats frame this as competition with unpopular insurance companies, who are already between you and your doctor, then they may win. If Republicans frame this as a government take-over, or a bureaucrat between you and your doctor they may win.

But either right now the Democrat frame is working or general trust in Democrats on health care is helping. The poll is useful for Republicans in that respect: your arguments are not penetrating. To disregard polling data as biased or "stuffed" loses the opportunity to find out why these arguments aren't penetrating and what can change.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 11:29 AM
18. Here is more evidence of wide-spread public option support. That NY Times poll isn't looking so rigged, after-all. Hmm.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 11:38 AM
19. So let me get this straight... the President, and both houses on Congress are in solid Democrat hands, and an overwhelming majority (according to the NY Times) wants nationalized health care.

So where is it?

Posted by: Gary on June 22, 2009 11:46 AM
20. Lies are the only way they can get this stuff through.

Posted by: Michele on June 22, 2009 11:47 AM
21. John Jensen writes:

The poll is useful for Republicans in that respect: your arguments are not penetrating.

Hey, when you get the media censoring your message it's awfully hard to get it out there.

I suppose you'd like to see little "protest camps" and "approved dissent outlets" as well for your political opponents too, right comrade? After all, that evil Fox News keeps our Obamassiah up at night, worried because a single cable outlet simply does not adore him but does the actual task of performing unbiased journalism!

The fact that the Obama Administration needs to keep the facts hidden to maintain support is very telling about the quality of the plan. The fact you're OK with that is even more revealing about your own partisanship...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 22, 2009 12:02 PM
22. Oh great, so you lose a public opinion poll and all of a sudden you think you're living in a communist gulag. A bit dramatic.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 12:23 PM
23. Mark Steyn mentioned a british nurse who was here in some southern state who noticed that an 80-yr-old guy was getting surgery here that he wouldn't be getting back in UK because he would be deemed too old. What the freak???? The elderly are not valued in socialized medicine. Our system DOES give needed surgeries to 80-yr-olds. Thank goodness!

Posted by: Michele on June 22, 2009 12:26 PM
24. Michele, Our system DOES give needed surgeries to 80-yr-olds.

An 80-year-old man is covered under Medicare. Medicare is a single-payer, government-run insurance company.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 12:31 PM
25. #24 "Medicare is a single-payer, government-run insurance company."

-

How is it doing?

Posted by: Gary on June 22, 2009 12:35 PM
26. An 80-year-old man is covered under Medicare. Medicare is a single-payer, government-run insurance company.

It's not that simple, Jensen. If we get Government run health care, it will be rationed in the future for people like that. Medicare will be affected too. It's the progressive way - get the Government's nose under the tent.

Progressivism = Marxism with a happy face.

Posted by: KDS on June 22, 2009 12:36 PM
27. Hi John,

I'm sure you're writing ABC to complain about their locking out the GOP from the debate? Or do you take the approach of the White House that "we won"?

Have to maintain the smoke-and-mirrors lies to stay in power, because any time the American people really learn the truth of what the Obamassiah promises to bring, they reject him.

But that's OK, because you have HOPE AND CHANGE!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 22, 2009 12:46 PM
28. Gary wrote:

How is it doing?

Therein lies the rub! Medicare is broke - it's spending more than it takes in. Meaning either taxes are increased, or service is cut back.

The Obama Administration is promising to cover just 1/3rd of the number they claim do not have healthcare, and do it at a cost of $823 per person - $10,000 per year. Compare that to the $4,700 spent per single person, and $12,700 per family of four that is spent right now.

Essentially, the Obama Administration wants to leave 30+ million people uninsured, and do it at a rate of 2 to 3 TIMES the cost that is paid right now. Yet that constitutes universal coverage and cost savings... Go figure!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 22, 2009 12:52 PM
29. I'm convinced...someone mentioned someone that noticed something.

Clear, specific and verifiable.

Meets every test of factual information to inform.

Posted by: BA on June 22, 2009 01:01 PM
30. #24 "Medicare is a single-payer, government-run insurance company."

How is it doing?

In FY08, Medicare covered 45.2M people at an average cost of $10,358 per person. That sounds expensive, but bear in mind that Medicare clients represent the oldest and some of the sickest people. So the real question is, could private insurance provide the same coverage at lower cost?

The answer is, apparently no. Private insurers have attempted to do this through Medicare Advantage programs. These programs have consistently required additional subsidies above and beyond their pro rata share of Medicare spending. In 2009, these subsidies will represent an additional $1138 in cost for each person enrolled in Medicare Advantage. Even with the additional funding, some insurers have found that they can't make enough profit, so they are closing their Medicare Advantage plans, either outright or to new members.

Posted by: scottd on June 22, 2009 01:36 PM
31. Medicare is going broke. That's how it's doing. Did they tell us when they started it that was going to cost *way* more than they told us it would, and that would it go broke?

Why not?

Posted by: Gary on June 22, 2009 01:45 PM
32. Gary: So, what's your solution. Turn Medicare over to private insurance so it can cost even more?

Posted by: scottd on June 22, 2009 01:46 PM
33. Scott, in this thread we are being told that a poll said everybody wants nationalized health care. John mentioned how Medicare is a government-run single-payer system.

I'll tell you what my solution *isn't*... to nationalize *all* health care and turn all of it into Medicare.

Leaving Medicare aside, I think when we get the patient and the doctor closer together financially, and stop mandating that private health insurance cover things that it should not, like check-ups, we'll see progress. Make it more market-like, not less.

A solution certainly should not be to wreck what works for almost all Americans already.

How many Americans don't have health insurance because they are unable to afford it?

It ain't nowhere near 50 million people. Not even close.

Posted by: Gary on June 22, 2009 01:56 PM
34. Gary: I mentioned Medicare because you brought it up. It is a government program that manages to provide healthcare to the oldest and sickest Americans. It is expensive, because caring for old and sick people is expensive. I was wondering if you thought private insurers could do a better job. The evidence so far is, they can't. I'm not clear how you think these people could be covered more efficiently.

You did mention something about "get[ting] the patient and the doctor closer together financially." I'm not sure what you meant or how that would work. Could you be a little clearer? Are you suggesting that costs would go down if 80-year-old grandmothers would only negotiate the cost of treating their fractured hips while they were in the emergency room? Health providers already complain about low reimbursement rates from Medicare but many put up with them. Are you suggesting that individual senior citizens can negotiate even lower payments?

Personally, I think it would be great if more Republicans would run on privatizing or eliminating Medicare!

Posted by: scottd on June 22, 2009 02:06 PM
35.
#35

I said "Leaving Medicare aside" before talking about making things more market-driven. Medicare is here. I'm not talking about getting rid of it.

I'm talking about (and the poll is) the *rest* of the health care system. I mentioned Medicare only to ask how well it's doing since it was used as an example of a government run single-payer system, which is going to to broke in a few years.

As for reducing insurance costs, does your automobile insurance for tune-ups, or tire rotations? Imagine what it would cost if it did.


Posted by: Gary on June 22, 2009 02:14 PM
36. Dan, Essentially, the Obama Administration wants to leave 30+ million people uninsured

Not true. The CBO analyzed two incomplete Senate plans, neither of which were proposed by the Obama administration. The bill is not done, and it is cynical of you to try to derail the process as the bill is developing. Clearly, a plan with 30+ million uninsured would have no Democratic nor Republican support.

I'm sure you're writing ABC to complain about their locking out the GOP from the debate?

It's not a "debate." ABC doesn't accept political advocacy advertising, why would it start now? It the GOP wants to have a health care forum on NBC, go right ahead. In the mean time, we need health care solutions, not whining about process and politics.

Therein lies the rub! Medicare is broke - it's spending more than it takes in.

And health care reform is the only way to bring down the cost curve. That's why we need to do it.

KDS, If we get Government run health care, it will be rationed in the future for people like that. Medicare will be affected too.

Medicare is government-run, that's my point. Are seniors being denied procedures left and right? Are there waiting lines? No.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 02:16 PM
37. Medicare is here. I'm not talking about getting rid of it.

Wise choice. Medicare isn't going anywhere because people like it better than any alternative. The reason conservatives fear health care reform for the rest of us is because they worry that people will like it, too. According to recent polling, they are right.

Posted by: scottd on June 22, 2009 02:19 PM
38. #37. So I ask again... where is the plan?

What is the President's plan?

Posted by: Gary on June 22, 2009 02:21 PM
39. Scott, you want a single-payer system, then?

Posted by: Gary on June 22, 2009 02:25 PM
40. First of all, let's not too far off-topic. Ron's original post was full of misleading assertions and claims that do not match up with reality? There is no evidence the NY Times poll was "rigged," and it's embarrassing that a wingnut conspiracy theory is sitting on the main page of a decent local political blog.

Gary, Medicare has sustained itself for fifty years. Increased taxes would make it last even longer, of course. But instead of increasing taxes, we should change the cost curve and fix the problem. All of the various health care reform plans making their way through congress identify significant savings in Medicare. So people are working on fixing it, and we should all hope that they do because -- as you said -- Medicare ain't going away.

However, a public option is not like Medicare. Medicare is a single-payer plan, a public insurance option gives people the choice to use a low-overhead, a care-driven instead of profit-driven insurance company. Medicare is funded through taxes, a public option would be funded through consumer choice like any other insurance company. It is not nationalized health care.

And this is what the GOP response is: tell blatant lies and scare people. The lies and scare tactics aren't working, according to all the polling data we've seen. That's why some right-wingers resort to saying that polls are rigged: They can't accept that they're losing a policy debate in the public's eyes.

Instead of screaming nationalization, or that this is a conspiracy to force single-payer, or that this is socialism, or a variety of other scare-tactics, why doesn't the GOP level with voters and explain why a public plan is a bad idea? "It'll cut into insurance company profits by providing strong competition, and those insurance companies fund GOP re-election campaigns."

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 02:27 PM
41. The problem with Jensen's rambling is this:

If the poll was close to accurate (and leftists rarely deal in facts... just read Jensen to see that) then you wouldn't have people like Feinstein saying Obama doesn't have the votes.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aBheSK3x3BPI

One has to wonder: besides anything concerning common sense... what d'ya suppose they know that our erstwhile leftist propagandist Jensen doesn't?

With overwhelming support like that lied about by CBS and the NYT, you'd expect that getting the votes would be easy. Except, of course, CBS and the NYT are lying, and Jensen's just acting as their resident shill.

Posted by: Hinton on June 22, 2009 02:29 PM
42. John, doctors are dropping Medicare patients. Medicare isn't paying them enough. Medicare patients are having fewer alternatives. The waits for service will be coming as more doctors ditch Medicare.


Posted by: Gary on June 22, 2009 02:30 PM
43. Gary, So I ask again... where is the plan? What is the President's plan?

Gary, what is your point? The health care plans are going through congress and a bill hasn't been written yet. I don't need to explain the legislative process to someone as intelligent as you, so please stop asking dumb questions and make your point.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 02:34 PM
44. #41. Fine. Why not fix Medicare first?

And where is the plan? Why haven't they just done this yet if the polls are as right as you believe they are?

The poll is B.S. and even a lot of Democrats in Congress know it.

Posted by: Gary on June 22, 2009 02:37 PM
45. Scott, you want a single-payer system, then?

I think one would be an improvement over our current system, but I'm open to other options.

What do you have in mind?

As you've pointed out, the topic of this thread is that recent polling has shown strong support for a government-run insurance plan that would compete with private insurers. Given the mess private insurers have made of health care, I'm not surprised. Ron tries to comfort himself and others by denying this widespread support and relying on bogus analysis to try to convince himself that the poll was rigged. But our widespread dissatisfaction is a fact, and most of us aren't afraid of government involvement if that's what it takes.

Posted by: scottd on June 22, 2009 02:39 PM
46. #44. Sorry, John. Again... I will not stop asking questions just because you don't want me to.

What is the President's plan? He has one, doesn't he?


Posted by: Gary on June 22, 2009 02:41 PM
47. PS: Obama isn't proposing a single-payer plan, nor or any of the congressional committees who are working on legislation.

Posted by: scottd on June 22, 2009 02:41 PM
48. John, doctors are dropping Medicare patients. Medicare isn't paying them enough. Medicare patients are having fewer alternatives. The waits for service will be coming as more doctors ditch Medicare.

Doctors drop patients all the time, and they sometimes refuse to see new patients. This is true for Medicare patients and for privately insured patients. Can you show that the situation is worse for Medicare patients? Also, you have surely heard of doctors complaining about reimbursement rates from private insurance, so how is this different for Medicare?

BTW, I thought you didn't want to discuss Medicare...

Posted by: scottd on June 22, 2009 02:46 PM
49. #49. Okay. I'll limit any Medicare discussion with John.

I can ask you though, with Democrats in complete control, where is the plan?

Posted by: Gary on June 22, 2009 02:56 PM
50. I can ask you though, with Democrats in complete control, where is the plan?

Sure, I'll take a crack at that.

Last I heard, they were working on one :-)

When we hear what it is, I suppose we can debate the relative merits. For now, we're just left with the knowledge that most Americans want to see reform, and they are not afraid of a government-run insurance plan. As I recall, that was the topic of this thread.

Posted by: scottd on June 22, 2009 03:03 PM
51. Gary, the plans are being worked on in Senate and House right now. Do you really need us to explain the legislative process? I hope not.

The key points are universal health care with a health insurance exchange that has community premiums, subsidies for poor families, an individual mandate, and large Medicare cost savings. There is easily bipartisan consensus on these goals. A bill like this would get 70+ votes in the Senate. The controversial points are to whether to include a public insurance option in the exchange to keep insurance companies, whether there should be an employer mandate so those that don't provide insurance help pay for universal care, and how to raise revenues/taxes to pay for the subsidies for the poor.

Again, what is your point? The plans are being worked on. We're not just jumping head first into some hodgepodge set of ideas -- fundamental health reform must be done right the first time.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 03:35 PM
52. Gary, Why haven't they just done this yet if the polls are as right as you believe they are?

I'm getting tired of your petty way of debating. I've shown that there are six other polls showing similar results, and you frame it as I "believe" something? No, the original post was wrong. Ron shouldn't have copy and pasted it. He should have done his homework, and the poor standards for what appears with his byline needs to concern all readers.

The answer to your question is that NY Times polls are not the same thing as votes in Senate. The Senate is not a proportionally representative body, a state with 200,000 people has the same representation as one a hundred times as large. And you need 60 votes to pass something in the Senate.

Your argument is this: "Obviously the NY Times poll is wrong, otherwise this health care plan would have already passed!" You cannot possibly believe that this is how the legislative process works.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 03:46 PM
53. Screwed

Isn't it ironic that even the right is using common abuses attributed to private insurance companies to scare people into not supporting a public option? Right now, there's an insurance adjuster between you and your doctor -- this is the status quo that Republican lawmakers seek to protect.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 03:53 PM
54. Okay, so... no plan. Let me know when you have one so neither we or Congress will have any time read it.


Posted by: Gary on June 22, 2009 03:58 PM
55. John Jensen wrote:

Not true. The CBO analyzed two incomplete Senate plans, neither of which were proposed by the Obama administration. The bill is not done, and it is cynical of you to try to derail the process as the bill is developing. Clearly, a plan with 30+ million uninsured would have no Democratic nor Republican support.

Great, then what is the Obama plan? He keeps talking about it, is there any place we can read the details? Or is it just going to be more vague platitudes?

Barring the President's own plan, we have what his party (you know, he IS the titular leader of that den of thieves) is pushing and that does leave 30+ million uninsured and costs $10,000 per person per year. Both of which are abominations.

ABC doesn't accept political advocacy advertising, why would it start now?

Oh, that's right, they are just donating the time to the Obama Administration, so it's not an "ad". So where's the hour of prime-time coverage relating to the GOP plan? Anywhere at all? ABC willing to put that up?

And health care reform is the only way to bring down the cost curve. That's why we need to do it.

OK, you disavow the plans put forward as "not the President's plans". Even though they would bankrupt us even faster.

So what is the plan? What are "we" going to do? What's the plan, Stan?

And this is what the GOP response is: tell blatant lies and scare people.

Please name the lies, or are you yourself lying?

Gary, the plans are being worked on in Senate and House right now.

Yes, and the CBO says that - so far - those plans will leave a vast majority of the unisured still uninsured, and will cost at least twice - if not triple - what private insurance costs.

Oh, but that's right, these plans are the real plans, so we can't look at them right now as they're being put together. Just wait until they're done then we can have a hour to look at them before they're crammed through Congress, right?

We're not just jumping head first into some hodgepodge set of ideas -- fundamental health reform must be done right the first time.

OK, where is this information that you're pulling coming from? Any references, links? Anything to back up? Or does the Obamassiah speak to you when you genuflect to the White House?

Scottd wrote:

Obama isn't proposing a single-payer plan, nor or any of the congressional committees who are working on legislation.

Can you point us to the President's plan? Because no one's been able to find it, yet alone identify what's in it. How do you know it's not single-payer, have you seen the plan? For all we know it could be everyone gets an apple a day and a gold star!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 22, 2009 04:00 PM
56. hellpig, NOT being covered under and getting SCREWED by Obamacare is the point...

If the public option doesn't work, you can switch to any other insurance company in the nation, since "pre-existing conditions" will no longer be allowed to be denied. That's why it's competition.

Gary, no plan. Let me know when you have one so neither we or Congress will have any time read it.

I just outlined a plan in post #53, fool.

Here's more:
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/tri.pdf
http://help.senate.gov/Maj_press/2009_06_09.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/health_care_reform_draft_proposal_061809.pdf

Of course there's a plan. What the hell do you think we're talking about?

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 04:05 PM
57. John Jensen wrote a laugher when he put down:

Right now, there's an insurance adjuster between you and your doctor -- this is the status quo that Republican lawmakers seek to protect.

Funny, last time I went to my doctor I called the office, scheduled a visit for a few days in the future, showed up, filled out a single form (confirmed address, etc), sat for 5 minutes, had my physical exam, and was on my way.

Two weeks later I got a bill from my insurance company for $20 - my copay - which I paid online.

Never saw an insurance adjuster anywhere in the process, and never talked to a single insurance person. And I'm sure if I contacted my doctor's office, they'd say the same thing - just sent in some paperwork and a check showed up a little while later.

Where do all these mythical insurance adjusters reside within the hospital or doctor's office? Do they wear different colored lab coats? Or are they the ones without stethoscopes and tongue depressors in their pockets?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 22, 2009 04:06 PM
58. Dan: I said that Obama hasn't proposed a single-payer plan. To prove me wrong, all you would have to do is show us the single-payer plan Obama has proposed. I'll wait right here while you dig it up...

Posted by: scottd on June 22, 2009 04:06 PM
59. #60. You outlined a plan? Or did you mention a number of different options? How can #53 be your plan with quotes such as "...whether there should be an employer mandate...". Well, will there be a mandate or not? A plan would explain this.

I have yet to see the plan. Where can I read the President's plan?

Thanks.

Posted by: Gary on June 22, 2009 04:11 PM
60. Dan, those plans will leave a vast majority of the unisured still uninsured

False. The finance committee bill scored by the CBO would cover the majority of those uninsured, except illegal immigrants. Of course, the GOP would block any bill that provided coverage for illegals.

The point is that the bills ARE evolving. The CBO process is a way to improve the bill, not just trash it on partisan on terms.

Where do all these mythical insurance adjusters reside within the hospital or doctor's office?

They deny coverage for important medical procedures and cite pre-existing conditions. It was clearly a metaphor.

This recent meme that Gary and Dan are jumping on about there being "no plan" has to be the most immature delusion I've seen on this site yet. Again, what are we talking about? What is "Obamacare"?

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 04:13 PM
61. Alright John, I read this that you linked me to:

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/tri.pdf

It's very short and I saw no dollar figures.

That's a plan?

Posted by: Gary on June 22, 2009 04:15 PM
62. Scottd,

"If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system," Obama told some 1,800 people at a town-hall style meeting on the economy.

Also from that article:

His plan includes one small step toward single payer...

But Obama repeated that he rejects an immediate shift to a single-payer system. "Given that a lot of people work for insurance companies, a lot of people work for HMOs. You've got a whole system of institutions that have been set up," he said at a roundtable discussion with women Monday morning after a voter asked, "Why not single payer?"

"People don't have time to wait," Obama said. "They need relief now. So my attitude is let's build up the system we got, let's make it more efficient, we may be over time - as we make the system more efficient and everybody's covered - decide that there are other ways for us to provide care more effectively."

So he's not for single-payer RIGHT NOW, but as the final destination of where he wants to take healthcare, and he fundamentally supports it on principle as the best solution.

Hey, it may take five or ten years to get there, but in HIS OWN WORDS he wants to move our nation to that plan.

But I'm still wondering where his plan IS, so that we can see exactly what he IS proposing. You seem pretty confident about what's in it, care to share how you know?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 22, 2009 04:15 PM
63. So he's not for single-payer RIGHT NOW

My point exactly -- he has not proposed a single-payer plan. Speculate all you want about what may happen in the future, but that's just your guess. It's not on the table now.

Posted by: scottd on June 22, 2009 04:21 PM
64. You seem pretty confident about what's in it

Really?

I haven't said anything about what Obama may propose other than he isn't proposing single-payer -- and you've agreed with that.

Posted by: scottd on June 22, 2009 04:25 PM
65. Scott, when the government succeeds in destroying the private health insurance industry, it will automatically become a singe-payer system. The "public option" is the trojan horse by which they will do this. They will "compete" with the private health insurance industry with a bottomless pit of money, and regulatory hurdles all meant to squeeze out the private insurers. And they will give the Secretary of HHS the power to regulate the insurance company profits. Imagine if you had the power to regulate the profits of a business competitor.

The honest government officials have admitted this is the goal.


Posted by: Gary on June 22, 2009 04:26 PM
66. John spewed forth:

False. The finance committee bill scored by the CBO would cover the majority of those uninsured, except illegal immigrants. Of course, the GOP would block any bill that provided coverage for illegals.

Really? False? I think you're being a bit delusional John:

The Congressional Budget Office's first cost estimate... [would] end up reducing the number of uninsured people in the U.S. by around than a third, providing just 16 million more people with health insurance.

Oops. Seems you've stepped in your own lies here, pal! The CBO says that only a third of those without insurance would be covered. Seems like I was right and you are - once again - shown to be either a simpleton or prevaricator. The choice I will leave to you!

The point is that the bills ARE evolving. The CBO process is a way to improve the bill, not just trash it on partisan on terms.

Where are these bills, John? You keep talking about them like you know where they are, and you get upset when we make "wrong statements" about them, so where are they?

Because the bill as last reviewed and presented, covered 1/3rd of the uninsured and it's gonna cost at least $1.6 trillion, meaning $830 per month, per person, well beyond what private healthcare costs.

So where's the plan, John? Anything you can point to? You speak with authority about it - so how about showing where you are getting your details? Or do we just trust you?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 22, 2009 04:29 PM
67. Gary, It's very short and I saw no dollar figures. That's a plan?

What are we talking about?

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 04:30 PM
68. Scottd,

What HAS he proposed? Can someone, somewhere, tell us what the President is going to propose?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 22, 2009 04:32 PM
69. #71... the one at the Ways and Means Committee that you linked me to. That committee is all about dollars and cents, and yet that pdf did not explain any dollar figures... any costs. It wasn't a plan, just a wish list.

Where is the President's plan? Any link you can direct me to so I can read it?

Thanks.

Posted by: Gary on June 22, 2009 04:34 PM
70. Gary, if there isn't a health care plan, what are we talking about right now?

What is this conversation about?

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 04:39 PM
71. #74 We were talking about polling. We are most certainly not talking about a plan, cuz there ain't one.

Unless you can direct me to it.

Posted by: Gary on June 22, 2009 04:42 PM
72. Dan @72: Why are you asking me this question?

All I've posted is that Ron is kidding himself if he doesn't think most Americans want to see a significant reform of the health care system and that they aren't afraid of a government sponsored option. And I said that Obama isn't proposing a single-payer system.

You've agreed with the latter point -- did you have something you wanted to say to me regarding the former?

Beyond that, I'm not interested in speculating about what Obama may propose, or even whether he will propose anything. He may just leave it up to Congress.

Posted by: scottd on June 22, 2009 04:45 PM
73. John,

It's about the plan that the CBO says will cost $1.6 trillion to insure 1/3rd of those not currently covered, at a rate of $10,000 per year per person.

You know, the plan you claim is not a plan, and is not the President's plan because he has his own plan that no one but you seem to be able to find.

The plan - as it exists, in the open today - is for $1.6 trillion to cover 1.6 million people for 10 years.

But I forget, that's not a plan, because you don't like it, and the Obamassiah has not revealed it to you during your last meditation ceremony!

And if it's not the plan, then we certainly can't have a poll about it because it doesn't exist. Except it does, because most people support it, even though it's been reviewed but is not real.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 22, 2009 04:46 PM
74. Scottd,

most Americans want to see a significant reform of the health care system

Hey, most Americans would love a new car and an all-expenses trip to Disneyland, too! But guess what: most Americans would put healthcare as a low priority. In fact:

When asked what the most important economic issue facing the country is, 24% cited the deficit, vs. just 11% who named health care.

So it seems that health care is down the list, and in fact people are more than twice as concerned with Obama's massive deficit than with health care reform.

And I said that Obama isn't proposing a single-payer system.

You've agreed with the latter point

No I haven't; he's proposing a system that will end up - per his own desires - at single-payer. Or maybe he's not. You and John keep talking about what Obama's plan really IS, but no one can actually point to it.

What IS the Obama plan? How do you know he's not proposing single-payer health care? He's said he would think it's best, and wants to set up a system that will eventually lead to single-payer, but no one can show that his plan doesn't include single-payer. Unless he doesn't have a plan?

In which case why the big rush to get "something done" when most people consider it much less of an issue than the deficit, and the President doesn't even have a plan...

He may just leave it up to Congress.

He very well may have to do that (and follow the Constitution of the Congress proposing and writing bills!). Of course, then the current CBO estimates are fair game, and we can talk about spending $10,000 per person to cover just 1/3rd of the uninsured, and how that is the way way he'll deal with health care.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 22, 2009 04:56 PM
75. Oh, and John? According to your own supplied reference, I will have no choice in my health care. I will be forced into the Government Medicaid plan. Good to know that is what you and the President consider choice!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 22, 2009 04:59 PM
76. the plan that the CBO says will cost $1.6 trillion to insure 1/3rd of those not currently covered, at a rate of $10,000 per year per person.

False. The CBO says that the Finance draft will insure 40 million more Americans. You are confusing the CBO scores for two different bills.

The plan - as it exists, in the open today - is for $1.6 trillion to cover 1.6 million people for 10 years.

The Finance bill will be changed because the costs are too high, so your hypothetical is impossible. The CBO is being used to guide the writing of the bill to keep costs down. That's how it should be done! Are you against the bill getting improved?

Also, 1.6 million people is still wrong. It's 40 million people. How did you screw that up?

But I forget, that's not a plan, because you don't like it, and the Obamassiah has not revealed it to you during your last meditation ceremony!

It is one of three bills in congress. You and Gary are either completely ignorant of the legislative process or you are trying to mislead people. The reason this isn't the "White House plan" isn't because I dislike it, but because it is factually inaccurate: Congress writes laws.

Now, obviously, Obama is campaigning on health care reform. The broad strokes of universal coverage and other themes outlined in post #53: The key points are universal health care with a health insurance exchange that has community premiums, subsidies for poor families, an individual mandate, and large Medicare cost savings. There is easily bipartisan consensus on these goals. A bill like this would get 70+ votes in the Senate. The controversial points are to whether to include a public insurance option in the exchange to keep insurance companies, whether there should be an employer mandate so those that don't provide insurance help pay for universal care, and how to raise revenues/taxes to pay for the subsidies for the poor.

What do you want? A finalized bill that congress is voting on tomorrow? That isn't how the legislative process works, and arguing like little kids about there being no plan doesn't change anything.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 05:00 PM
77. Oh, and John? According to your own supplied reference, I will have no choice in my health care. I will be forced into the Government Medicaid plan. Good to know that is what you and the President consider choice!

Not true. You are obviously misreading something, which isn't a stretch given your record today.

Of course, then the current CBO estimates are fair game, and we can talk about spending $10,000 per person to cover just 1/3rd of the uninsured, and how that is the way way he'll deal with health care.

You are still wrong about this claim. Even with the draft CBO score, it's $4,000 per "person" (you were wrong by 250% -- your math is terrible). And calculating it "per person" is idiotic, since many of the costs are for health care modernization, one-time setup costs, etc. And that number is going to go lower, since no one wants a $1.6 trillion bill.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 05:07 PM
78. You've agreed with the latter point

No I haven't; he's proposing a system that will end up - per his own desires - at single-payer. Or maybe he's not. You and John keep talking about what Obama's plan really IS, but no one can actually point to it.

Dan, you are arguing in circles and making yourself look silly.

If Obama is proposing a single-payer system, please show it to us.

I haven't said anything about what Obama's plan is -- all I've said is he isn't proposing single-payer. Sometimes you seem to be saying he has a plan that you think will end up as single-payer -- but that's just your own speculation. Other times, you are saying you haven't seen a plan. Please make up your mind!

If he hasn't proposed a plan, then he also hasn't proposed a single-payer plan. Now, if I have that wrong, just show me the single-payer plan he has proposed.

Posted by: scottd on June 22, 2009 05:08 PM
79. John,

Not true. You are obviously misreading something, which isn't a stretch given your record today.

Nope. Please see page 6 of this document. So much for my choice... Thanks, Obama!

Even with the draft CBO score, it's $4,000 per "person" (you were wrong by 250% -- your math is terrible).

Let's do the math:

1. $1 trillion for 16 million covered for 10 years = $6,250 per person per year
2. $1 trillion for 32 million covered for 10 years = $3,125 per person per year
3. $1.6 trillion for 16 million covered for 10 years = $10,000 per person per year
4. $1.6 trillion for 32 million coveref for 10 years = $5,000 per person per year

Hey, my number ($10,000) is in there. Your number ($4,000) is nowhere to be seen. Guess your calculator must not be too good, eh John?

Scottd wrote:

If Obama is proposing a single-payer system, please show it to us.

I showed where he desires a single-payer solution, ultimately. And it's in his plan, I know it. In fact, if you put the reference up to his plan, I'll point it out to you - I promise!

If he hasn't proposed a plan, then he also hasn't proposed a single-payer plan. Now, if I have that wrong, just show me the single-payer plan he has proposed.

WHAT? NO PLAN? Then why all the huffing and puffing and speed to implement it? Why the rush to push his plan all over the TV, and take endless polls about how important and good his plan is?

You mean, there isn't a plan at all?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 22, 2009 05:22 PM
80. And more details are finally coming out. I especially like this part:

Additional employer mandates that will require some small businesses to offer employee coverage would cost another 4.7 million jobs according to a model from the President's own economic advisors.

So the plan to insure everyone will cost at least 4.7 million jobs, raising unemployment by another 3.5%. Hey, the best way to cover people is to enroll them in unemployment! Of course they'll have to go on the Government plan (no choice - or job - for them). But that's OK, they will be in good company:

The Congressional Budget Office issued a report last week on the similar plan authored by Senate Democrats that would force at least 23 million people out of their private health care coverage.

Nothing like forcing 4.7 million into unemployment and forcing at least 28 million total to switch insurance whether they want to or not. That's some CHANGE you can believe in!

Speaking of change (what's left in your pocket):

House Ways and Means Committee ranking Republican Dave Camp of Michigan expressed concerns about the cost of this undertaking.

"The Democrats are refusing to reveal the price tag of this bill or how they will pay for it, but it is obvious it will cost well over a trillion dollars,"

So we'll toss millions out of work, force tens of millions more to change their health care plan, and not tell you how much it'll cost or how we'll pay for it, but it will be in the trillion dollar range...

Yep, I see lots of HOPE in here too!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 22, 2009 05:30 PM
81. Dan, you're an idiot, but an entertaining one.

You claim that Obama is proposing a single-payer health plan, you just can't show us where. You know it's in his plan, but you haven't seen it.

Or maybe he doesn't have a plan -- you're just not sure...

But you are sure it's single-payer.

Earlier, you acknowledged that Congress drafts legislation, not the president. But you seem to think that the fact that the president hasn't drafted legislation means there is no plan. And, of course, the plan he hasn't drafted is definitely single-payer.

Priceless! Please continue...

Posted by: scottd on June 22, 2009 05:32 PM
82.
Hey, my number ($10,000) is in there. Your number ($4,000) is nowhere to be seen. Guess your calculator must not be too good, eh John?

That's because 40,000,000 new people would have insurance according to the Wall Street Journal. So, my numbers are right for the Senate Finance bill that you're talking about and yours are wrong. Your cost still is off by 250% per person. :)

Not true. You are obviously misreading something, which isn't a stretch given your record today.

Nope. Please see page 6 of this document. So much for my choice... Thanks, Obama!

You said, "I will have no choice in my health care. I will be forced into the Government Medicaid plan"

You are wrong, of course. More people will be ELIGIBLE for Medicare, not forced into it. If someone who is eligible for Medicare can afford a private or public insurance plan, they can enroll into one.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 05:41 PM
83. Scottd,

Hey, show me his plan and I'll show you where it says it's a single-payer. Really!

John,

The Senate is now claiming that there are 55 million unemployed? The "40 million" covered, and another 15 million not covered? Note that the WSJ doesn't say it, some Senate aide (unreferenced) made the claim...

And I would be forced into Medicaid. According to the plan, if your income (income, not actual cash flow) is under $10,800 and you're self-employed then you have to get Medicaid. So much for choice...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 22, 2009 05:51 PM
84. Hey, show me his plan and I'll show you where it says it's a single-payer. Really!

I haven't said he's proposed a plan. I have said he hasn't proposed a single-payer plan. You seem to take issue with that.

If you can show me a single-payer plan that Obama is proposing, I'll stand corrected. Otherwise, you're just spewing noise -- but it is entertaining noise!

Posted by: scottd on June 22, 2009 05:56 PM
85. Scott,

At least you're entertained... Maybe we can both impose on John to show us the Obama plan since he's arguing that we're misrepresenting his plan, which means it must exist somewhere!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 22, 2009 05:59 PM
86. And I would be forced into Medicaid. According to the plan, if your income (income, not actual cash flow) is under $10,800 and you're self-employed then you have to get Medicaid. So much for choice...

No, you are completely wrong. No where is that mentioned in the document you linked to. If you can afford insurance, then you can buy it instead of getting Medicaid.

But if your income is less than $10,800 then there is absolutely no way you can afford health insurance anyway, so what is your point?

The "40 million" covered, and another 15 million not covered? Note that the WSJ doesn't say it, some Senate aide (unreferenced) made the claim...

The HELP committee draft bill had some errors and only covers 15 million people. The Finance draft bill covers 40 million. They were two different CBO scores, two different committees, and two different draft bills. Time to pay attention, Dan.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 06:01 PM
87. Dan, Maybe we can both impose on John to show us the Obama plan since he's arguing that we're misrepresenting his plan

I have never said you are "misrepresenting his plan," you idiot.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 06:08 PM
88. Dan@89: Has John said anything about an Obama plan? I must have missed that. Please point me in the right direction.

Still entertaining...

Posted by: scottd on June 22, 2009 06:10 PM
89. I have never said you are "misrepresenting his plan," you idiot.

Yes, but an entertaining idiot -- sort of like the site jester!

Posted by: scottd on June 22, 2009 06:15 PM
90. He's entertaining and a kind soul, for sure!

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 06:20 PM
91. John,

But if your income is less than $10,800 then there is absolutely no way you can afford health insurance anyway, so what is your point?

My point is that you're wrong. My income is well under $10,800 yet I have no problem buying insurance - a private plan at that! So much for choice for those of us who legally arrange our affairs so as to minimize our taxes.

I have never said you are "misrepresenting his plan," you idiot.

I'm sorry, dolt, you certainly seem to be quite adamant that Gary and I were misrepresenting it. So why the vehement opposition to our claims?

It's a single payer plan that will throw millions out of work, force tens of millions to switch plans, and will cost trillions.

Those are solid claims, unless you can point otherwise?

Scott,

Please see post 53, and again in post 60 where John says:

I just outlined a plan in post #53, fool. ... Of course there's a plan. What the hell do you think we're talking about?

See, John's CONVINCED there's a plan, and he's insistent that Gary and I were misrepresenting it, but so far no one's been able to actually point to it unless they do, in which case the plan doesn't exist or is not correct even when you look at what's written down because that's not the plan.

Got that? It's pretty clear, at least in John's world...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 22, 2009 06:20 PM
92. Dan, My point is that you're wrong. My income is well under $10,800 yet I have no problem buying insurance - a private plan at that! So much for choice for those of us who legally arrange our affairs so as to minimize our taxes.

You must mean Adjusted Gross Income. The point is, you will not be forced into Medicare and off of a plan you buy personally. Any assertion to the contrary is completely wrong, but you can try to present evidence.

I'm sorry, dolt, you certainly seem to be quite adamant that Gary and I were misrepresenting it. So why the vehement opposition to our claims?

Because you two are lying about various things.

See, John's CONVINCED there's a plan, and he's insistent that Gary and I were misrepresenting it, but so far no one's been able to actually point to it unless they do, in which case the plan doesn't exist or is not correct even when you look at what's written down because that's not the plan.

I have said repeatedly that Obama's proposal is outlined in post #53. You choose to ignore it.

Gary later decided the definition of a "plan" meant a piece of legislation completed and scored by the CBO. This, of course, means that not even legislators who are working on a health care plan right now have a "plan." And since Obama is not a legislator, this is an impossible standard.

This is why your game is sophomoric. While you're jerking everyone around screaming "THERE IS NO PLAN" actual legislators are crafting components of a bill that are likely going to be law in less than four months.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 06:30 PM
93. Hmmm... I missed the part where he said that was Obama's plan -- but I did see where described plans being drafted in the House and Senate!

Let me know where he mentions Obama's plan. I really want to see it so you can show me that it's a single-payer plan!

Posted by: scottd on June 22, 2009 06:31 PM
94. I was going to write a quick note, but scottd explained myself for me. I was talking about the three congressional plans, which I linked to immediately after I wrote, "of course there's a plan." Yep, never said "Obama's plan" because I am aware of how laws are written.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 06:35 PM
95. John,

The point is, you will not be forced into Medicare and off of a plan you buy personally. Any assertion to the contrary is completely wrong, but you can try to present evidence.

Please see page 6 of that 10 page PowerPoint you referenced as "the plan". If you earn under $10,800 per year a single person and you aren't employed by another company, then you must use Medicaid. Wonderful!

I have said repeatedly that Obama's proposal is outlined in post #53. You choose to ignore it.

So just to make sure (because even Scottd couldn't understand your claim of a plan that you were adamant we were lying about) the plan is:

- a health insurance exchange that has community premiums
- subsidies for poor families
- an individual mandate
- large Medicare cost savings
- potentially a public insurance option in the exchange to keep insurance companies
- potentially an employer mandate so those that don't provide insurance help pay for universal care
- potentially raise revenues/taxes to pay for the subsidies for the poor

That about right? So the plan right now consists of 7 bullet points, with nothing about the number of people covered, how much it'll cost, how people will get bumped off their existing plans?

Individual mandate - I have to buy insurance whether I want it or not. So much for choice.

And we may or may not get a public insurance option to keep private insurance. Meaning if there isn't a public insurance option then there isn't any private insurance (Government insurance only - single payer perhaps?)

And we may or may not have to increase taxes, so we're not sure how much it'll cost or even how we'll pay for it.

That about right? That's one solid plan - one you can take to the bank!

While you're jerking everyone around screaming "THERE IS NO PLAN" actual legislators are crafting components of a bill that are likely going to be law in less than four months.

Where is the plan? I see 7 bullet points - 3 of which are optional - as the plan. NOTHING about costs, or coverage. Other than what you infer. And somehow your inference is superior to everyone else's.

So you on the health board? You a Government worker so you get the inside scoop on what's going on behind-the-scenes? Because I gotta tell ya, what I see from those 7 (3 optional) bullet points is coming up like a whole bunch of fluff.

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 22, 2009 06:41 PM
96. John wrote:

Yep, never said "Obama's plan" because I am aware of how laws are written.

Then this deficit is Obama's deficit since - as a Senator - he helped write it AND he voted for it.

You agree to this - that Obama owns 100% of this deficit - and I'll concede he hasn't even issued a health care plan yet. Deal?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 22, 2009 06:45 PM
97. Dan -- you may be an idiot, but you seem to be a prescient one!

So, @89 and @95 you were, of course, referring to something John would say @96.

Or maybe he just mis-spoke. He seems to have corrected himself @98. So for the most part, you are just babbling and making stuff up. It's pretty clear that John has been talking about plans being drafted in Congress.

Still waiting for you to show me Obama's single-payer plan...

Posted by: scottd on June 22, 2009 06:50 PM
98. No, I knew where John would go - it was his only potential route after the corner he's painted himself into.

Just like he'll now have to admit that this current $2 trillion deficit is Obama's to own 100%, it's not from George W. Bush.

As far as the single payer nature of Obama's plan, hey I'm still trying to find out what his plan is! You're positive it's not a single-payer plan, yet we can both agree on the following:

1. There IS no Obama health care plan
2. Obama thinks that - ideally - single-payer is the best solution

I'm just betting that if/when a plan comes out, it will lead to a single payer in the long-run.

But, if you can show me his plan, I'll find it in there somewhere!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 22, 2009 07:04 PM
99. Dan, I said "Obama's proposal," not "plan." (If you're playing stupid games, I'll join you.) I am well aware by now that your definition of the word "plan" is an impossible standard by which no President in any way can meet since they are not a legislator. "Plan" or proposal, neither are single-payer. None of the bills in Congress are single-payer. Your ignorance is very apparent.

The reason Obama or Seantors aren't publicly saying this will cost X or Y is that the only figures that matter are the final CBO estimates. And the only way to identify new taxes or revenues will be to see how much the plan costs, get it? So when the $1.6T estimate came down, Finance Senators decided it was too expensive and are changing things around as we speak. In other words, they are using facts and numbers to shape their plan -- which is exactly what we'd hope Senators to do.

Hmm, allowing facts to shape what one writes... Sounds like you could learn a bit from these Seantors.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 07:05 PM
100. dan: Since you can't make a logical argument from what I've said, I suppose you're reduced to just arguing with stuff you make up.

In case you've missed it, all I've said is that Obama isn't proposing a single-payer plan. So far, you haven't shown me to be wrong. But I'm a patient guy!

In the meantime, you may continue to argue with your imaginary friends...

Posted by: scottd on June 22, 2009 07:11 PM
101. Hi John,

So what's the difference between a proposal and a plan? Can you have one without the other? Playing semantic games, are we?

Good to know that Obama has neither a plan or proposal. Unless of course he does?

Scott,

Cool, no single-payer in Obama's plan or proposal since he has made neither!

So why the heck are we even polling a non-existing plan/proposal? And why all the concern over this non-existent plan/proposal when the American people consider Obama's deficit to be over twice as important as this figment of everyone's imagination?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 22, 2009 07:44 PM
102. Gary, Shanghai, etc.:

There are what you call "socialized medicine" systems all over most of Europe. And Canada. And Australia and NZ. And I believe, Japan. In any event, in lots and lots of democracies.
And many times, the Conservative party wins power.
Like, in France right now.
Yet they never do away with the "socialized medicine" system.

Question for you all:

If they don't throw it out doesn't it mean the voters want to keep those systems?

The same way Republicans here won't throw out Medicare.

Joe Scarborough even said he's just a Burkean conservative, which means that he's against the minimum wage, medicare, unemployment insurance and so on, until they're enacted, they're you're for keeping them after they are in place.

Very oppotunistic and shallow wouldn't you say?

Now here's another quiz for you. what politician put together England's first unemployment insurance scheme?

This is one of those single payer schemes you hate so much. So, which politician put it together?

Thank you and enjoy your debate. Isn't free speech wonderful? I am glad we have it.

Posted by: Torture Lawyer on June 22, 2009 07:53 PM
103. Hi torture,

Good thing that our Creator-given rights aren't subject to the whims of the majority, huh?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 22, 2009 08:09 PM
104. Cool, no single-payer in Obama's plan or proposal since he has made neither!

I would think that would be logically self-evident. If you don't think Obama is proposing any plan, then it follows that he isn't proposing a single-payer plan. But, please, continue babbling incoherently if you must!

Posted by: scottd on June 22, 2009 08:22 PM
105. If you don't think Obama is proposing any plan

Is he proposing a plan, or planning a proposal? I'm so confused!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 22, 2009 08:38 PM
106. Dan, So why the heck are we even polling a non-existing plan/proposal?

This is what you and Gary are doing:


Idiot: OBAMA'S PLAN IS SINGLE-PAYER.

John Jensen/scottd: Not true.

Idiot: WELL THE CBO SAID NO ONE WOULD BE COVERED UNDER OBAMA'S PLAN.

John Jensen: The CBO does not score Presidential plans, it scores bills from Congress. That bill was in draft form and isn't finalized. The bill didn't include significant proposals from the Obama administration, such as a strong individual mandate, an employer mandate, and a public insurance option. It's not accurate to say that this was Obama's plan since it's missing many components from his proposal in the budget. (#37)

Idiot: SO WHAT IS OBAMA'S PLAN?

John Jensen: Here are the principles that he laid out to Congress. Right now various bills are being crafted in Congress. (#53)

Idiot: A PLAN NEEDS EVERY DETAIL FILLED IN. EVERYTHING MUST BE FINALIZED. THIS IS NOT A PLAN. SO THERE IS NO PLAN. BUT IF THERE WERE IT WOULD BE SINGLE-PAYER.

John Jensen: Again, here is the outline of goals he sent to Congress. Here are the draft bills floating around Congress, none of which are single-payer. (#60)

Idiot: WHERE IS EVERY FINALIZED DETAIL IN THIS BILL? NO PLAN? JUST WHAT I THOUGHT.

John Jensen: If there is no health care plan, then what are we talking about? (#74)

Idiot: WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ABOUT THE PLAN (#77). BUT OBAMA DOES NOT HAVE A PLAN. WHERE ARE THE FINAL NUMBERS FROM THE FUTURE?!

John Jensen: Okay, if you think a "plan" is a finished product, then let's say that Obama had a "proposal." (#96)

Idiot: A PROPOSAL IS THE SAME THING AS A PLAN. IF THERE IS NO HEALTH CARE PLAN, THEN WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 08:57 PM
107. I'm so confused!

Well, that's to be expected -- and part of the fun of watching you prattle on!

I can say, you've really delivered on this thread!

Posted by: scottd on June 22, 2009 09:03 PM
108. Nope, not true. No illegal aliens are covered.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 22, 2009 10:49 PM
109. When Michelle, Malia and Sasha (as well as the children of members of Congress) are covered under this failed plan, then we can talk about whether or not It's preferable to the existing healthcare system. Until then, I'd like to see a supposed "leader" in D.C. to actually put their money where their mouth is and lead by example. Obama opposes school choice vouchers, but sends his children to a private school (i.e.the school of THEIR choice). Hypocrisy?

Rest assured, you will not see this kind of leadership exhibited under this administration.

Posted by: Rick D. on June 23, 2009 06:39 AM
110. #114. Right. And he can set his thermostat anywhere he damn well pleases also, while expecting everyone else to do with less and cost more (cap and trade). And that will include health care. Less for more.

Let them eat ice cream.

Posted by: Gary on June 23, 2009 07:50 AM
111. So...

What's the plan or proposal?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 23, 2009 08:38 AM
112. #116 Now, now... we can't ask Him hard questions. He has a hot dog picnic to attend with the Iranian Nazis.

Posted by: Gary on June 23, 2009 10:28 AM
113. Shanghai Dan wrote: ...you mean people who were NOT educated about the plan... (#10)

...and they learn more about what will be the impact of policy... (#16)

...very telling about the quality of the plan. (#21)

The Obama Administration is promising to cover... (#28)

the Obama Administration wants... (#28)

...the President's own plan... (#57)

Shut the fuck up, Dan.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 23, 2009 10:46 AM
114. So, today Obama say a government-run health insurance system "makes sense" and goes on further to say that private health insurance companies need to find way to compete for clients.

Gee, I guess if private insurers could use the force of law to make people give them money, then maybe they could compete. As it is, they cannot do that like the government can, and the government will tell them how much profit they can make.

The goal of Obama is to destroy the private health insurance industry and go a single-payer plan.


Posted by: Gary on June 23, 2009 10:58 AM
115. Gary, any public insurance option would have to sustain itself through premiums like a private insurance company. Just like how the Post Office doesn't get tax revenue.

So your argument is wrong and misinformed, which is consistent with the rest of your posts about health care.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 23, 2009 11:13 AM
116. Hey John,

Temper, temper! You sure seem defensive about a plan (or is that a proposal) that you claim doesn't exist! Why the anger, John? Is there a plan or isn't there?

If there is, then where is it - why can't we see it/talk about it, and why are all the statements so far about it (here and by the CBO and many other sources) "wrong"?

And if there isn't a plan/proposal (which seems to be the way you're drifting now), then why the concern and anger over how an imaginary thing is being treated?

So, just for the record John: is there a plan?

Oh, and John? HOPE AND CHANGE!

-------------------------------------

Gary wrote:

The goal of Obama is to destroy the private health insurance industry and go a single-payer plan.

Exactly. His "plan" (can we use that word without offending John?) can run in the red every year, because the taxpayers will bail it out. And with $10,000 (or even $5,000) per person in expenses, it's WAY beyond 99.9% of all private insurance plans, meaning it'll not only be wasteful, but gold-plated and cover everything with zero costs.

So the Government plan will not only be cheaper to the consumer (because of back-door taxation and forcing the private insurance companies to subsidize the plan), it'll offer things that the others can't (because it can lose money).

It'll kill private insurance, if they're not outright banned in a few years as being "wasteful".

And then we're left with a single, Government plan...

But don't call it single-payer! Oh, and don't call it a plan, because it's not one yet (I think - still not clear on if it's a plan or a proposal)...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 23, 2009 11:15 AM
117. Oh, so when they say they'll seed it with $10 billion dollars, that just comes from someone's ear?

Does Amtrak sustain itself?

Posted by: Gary on June 23, 2009 11:17 AM
118. AP:

" President Barack Obama says some employers might choose a government-run health care plan over private insurance, a major fear of the industry. "

-
What a minute. This can't be right because he told me I could keep my current plan. And if it turns I can't keep my plan, that would make him a liar, we know he's not a liar.

Posted by: Gary on June 23, 2009 11:35 AM
119. An honest politician. Says they're (Congress) gonna kill the private insurance industry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_MtLyDfXJA

Posted by: Gary on June 23, 2009 11:42 AM
120. And with $10,000 (or even $5,000) per person in expenses, it's WAY beyond 99.9% of all private insurance plans, meaning it'll not only be wasteful, but gold-plated and cover everything with zero costs.

The estimate for the Finance bill was $4,000, and that cost WILL go down for the bill to pass.

$4,000 is a cheap insurance plan.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 23, 2009 12:01 PM
121. John - Why do you not care if you mortgage future generations with the increasing costs that a Government insurance plan will bring ? Sound bytes won't cut it for an answer and stick to the topic for a change.

Do you have any proof that the CBO estimate is incorrect ? If not, you're assumptions are wrong. Before you go any farther, there are other estimates that show clearly that Health care will have to be rationed after the Fed drives the private companies out of business - I know you don't want to admit you know about that. You are barking up the wrong tree, but progs. like you don't want to get it.

I don't believe Pres.Obama with his agenda of progressivism to bring about Democrat dominance. He is economically incompetent and also has a problem with the truth, but he is one slick SOB.

Posted by: KDS on June 23, 2009 12:28 PM
122. Oh, so when they say they'll seed it with $10 billion dollars, that just comes from someone's ear?

That number is in flux, it'll probably be something like $4bn and will be repaid.

Does Amtrak sustain itself?

Do highway systems? No. Does mass transit? No. Do airlines? No (publicly owned airport infrastructure). There is not a single mode of transportation that is self-sustaining.

But does the Post Office? Yes. A public plan will be self-sustainable by law. You can make up whatever scare tactics you need to justify your position, but please recognize that we live by the rule of law in this country.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 23, 2009 12:54 PM
123. The estimate for the Finance bill was $4,000, and that cost WILL go down for the bill to pass.

Citation please. Everything I've found points to AT LEAST $5,000 to cover AT MOST 2/3rds of those not covered.

$4,000 is a cheap insurance plan.

Can I have mine in cash? Because I pay $1700 per year. I figure I could save the Government $2300 by not being forced out of my current plan, and I would get the choice to stick with what I have.

But that's right, I'm not allowed to stay with my current plan, and I will have to cost the US Federal Government $4,000 a year for a plan I don't want.

Yeah, that's some CHANGE all right!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 23, 2009 12:57 PM
124. Thanks Hellpig for that link! I really liked this one:

I’ve got a health plan and a plan to get it implemented. (Jun 2008)

I wonder if we can see that plan, and see how it will be implemented? He's had it for more than a year now, so it should be available... Maybe John - with his inside scoop on the White House - can share it with us?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 23, 2009 01:14 PM
125. Come now, people... we must believe what the government tells us. After all, they told us if we didn't pass Stimulus, we'd soar to an 8% unemployment level. They didn't tell us that was a *good* thing, because they didn't tell us that we'd go over 10% if we *passed* Stimulus.

So, you know... they always know what they're talking about.

And there are people who want to hand over their health care to them. Once you give up managing your health care, that's it. Senator Dodd even said so today. They will make you modify your behavior after they take over your health care.


Posted by: Gary on June 23, 2009 01:24 PM
126. Everything I've found points to AT LEAST $5,000 to cover AT MOST 2/3rds of those not covered.

I'm tired of explaining the same thing repeatedly, so listen this time: YOU ARE CONFUSING TWO DIFFERENT CBO ESTIMATES

The FINANCE BILL covers 40,000,000 million people and costs $1.6T. Everyone think this is too high and the bill is being improved. I linked to a WSJ article about this bill before.

The HELP BILL covers 16,000,000 million people and costs $1.0T. It is WIDELY KNOWN that communication errors between the HELP committee and CBO are responsible for the dire estimates. "The CBO analysis covers only a part of the HELP plan (the parts for which the Committee gave CBO detailed specifications) and does not include major elements of the plan that would further substantially reduce the number of uninsured." -source

You are ignorant of the process and you really should go read some news articles so you know what you're talking about.

I figure I could save the Government $2300 by not being forced out of my current plan, and I would get the choice to stick with what I have. But that's right, I'm not allowed to stay with my current plan, and I will have to cost the US Federal Government $4,000 a year for a plan I don't want.

No one will be "forced" off of their plan. Everyone will be able to keep their current plan. Stop making this baseless claim which I have refuted many times, unless you have actual evidence to back up your claim. (Slide 6 does no such thing, idiot.)

Again, taking the cost and dividing by the number insured misses the point. There are many other sane health care reforms that cost money to implement that will be funded by any health care reform package.

Gary, What a minute. This can't be right because he told me I could keep my current plan. And if it turns I can't keep my plan, that would make him a liar, we know he's not a liar.

Are you suggesting that the government control which insurance plan your company enroll in? Do you hate freedom?

Companies have the freedom to choose whatever insurance provider they want. This is no different than today. You'll have just as much choice to keep your current insurance provider today as you will after he signs the law.

hellpig, The Marxist Regime of Comrade Obama does and always has included the 20 million plus illegal aliens as part of his healthcare reform

False. It's a lie.

KDS, Why do you not care if you mortgage future generations with the increasing costs that a Government insurance plan will bring ?

A public option will have to be self-sustainable, by law, just like a private insurance company is. People will pay premiums to enter the public option. No one will get free coverage.

Do you have any proof that the CBO estimate is incorrect ?

They're not "incorrect," they're just based on draft bills that will change significantly.

The HELP bill in particular didn't have a public option, an employer mandate, a strong individual mandate, Medicaid expansion, and more.

The Finance bill didn't have a public option or an employer mandate, and is going to change since the estimates came back too high.

Using the CBO estimates to say that the plan is bad misses the point. The CBO estimates are being used to create the plan!

Before you go any farther, there are other estimates that show clearly that Health care will have to be rationed after the Fed drives the private companies out of business - I know you don't want to admit you know about that.

There are "other estimates"? Yet you cite none.

CBO estimates will include data about how many people or companies will switch to the public option after ten years. Some small insurance companies may not be able to compete, but that means they're part of the problem of soaring health care costs and should either optimize themselves or stop being a burden on our economy.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 23, 2009 01:27 PM
127. Your scare tactics aren't working, Gary. See the poll in this OP (and see my earlier posts about how six other polls have similar numbers and that the accusations of this poll being rigged are completely wingnut conspiracy bullshit).

Posted by: John Jensen on June 23, 2009 01:32 PM
128. #133 "Are you suggesting that the government control which insurance plan your company enroll in?"

What I'm telling you is that this may cause many employers to ditch their plans ad he acknowledges, causing further harm to the insurance companies, which may in turn go out of business, and then I won't be able to keep my plan, will I? Did he say I can keep my plan?

Can I? He said I can. Can I, John?

Posted by: Gary on June 23, 2009 01:32 PM
129. John, how many Americans do not have health insurance?

Posted by: Gary on June 23, 2009 01:39 PM
130. What I'm telling you is that this may cause many employers to ditch their plans ad he acknowledges, causing further harm to the insurance companies, which may in turn go out of business, and then I won't be able to keep my plan, will I? Did he say I can keep my plan?

Wait, you're afraid your health care costs will be too cheap because of competition? Your scare tactics aren't working, Gary. The super-majority of voters want a public option.

hellpig, I clearly linked the Obamacare plan that includes illegal aliens....

You linked to a Google search which had no evidence of your claim.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 23, 2009 01:40 PM
131. Here's what the President says about your qualms, Gary.
OBAMA: Now, let me go to the -- the broader question you made about the public plan. As I said before, I think that there is a legitimate concern, if the public plan was simply eating off the taxpayer trough, that it would be hard for private insurers to compete. If, on the other hand, the public plan is structure in such a way where they've got to collect premiums and they've got to provide good services, then, if what the insurance companies are saying is true, that they're doing their best to serve their customers, that they're in the business of keeping people well and giving them security when they get sick, they should be able to compete.

Now, if it turns out that the public plan, for example, is able to reduce administrative costs significantly, then you know what, I'd like the insurance companies to take note and say, hey, if the public plan can do that, why can't we? And that's good for everybody in the system. And I don't think there should be any objection to that. Now, by the way, I should point out that part of the reform that we've suggested is that, if you want to be a private insurer as part of the exchange, as part of this marketplace, this menu of options that people can choose from, we're going to have some different rules for all insurance companies, one of them being that you can't preclude people from getting health insurance because of a pre-existing condition. You can't cherry-pick and just take the healthiest people.

So there are going to be some ground rules that are going to apply to all insurance companies. Because I think the American people understand that, too often, insurance companies have been spending more time thinking about how to take premiums and then avoid providing people coverage than they have been thinking about how can we make sure that insurance is there; health care is there when families need it. But, you know, I'm confident that, if -- you know, I take those advocates of the free market to heart when they say that, you know, the free market is innovative and is going to compete on service and is going to compete on, you know, their ability to deliver good care to families. And if that's the case, then this just becomes one more option. If it's not the case, then I think that that's something that the American people should know.

TAPPER: I'm sorry, but what about keeping your promise to the American people that they won't have to change plans even if employers...

OBAMA: Well, all right -- when I say if you have your plan and you like it, and your doctor has a plan -- or you have a doctor and you like your doctor, that you don't have to change plans, what I'm saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform. Now, are there going to be employers right now, assuming we don't do anything -- let's say that we take the advice of some folks who are out there and say, "Oh, this is not the time to do health care. We can't afford it. It's too complicated. Let's take our time," et cetera.

So let's assume that nothing happened. I can guarantee you that there's the possibility for a whole lot of Americans out there that they're not going to end up having the same health care they have. Because what's going to happen is, as costs keep on going up, employers are going to start making decisions. We've got to raise premiums on our employees. In some cases, we can't provide health insurance at all. And so there are going to be a whole set of changes out there. That's exactly why health reform is so important.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 23, 2009 01:46 PM
132. hellpig, you are unable to cite any sources because what you're saying is based on hatred not fact.

Please let the adults talk for now.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 23, 2009 01:49 PM
133.
So, when he said I can keep my plan, he wasn't being honest, was he? Because he is going to undercut, and bury the private insurers.

Which, is what the liberals want, so why do some dispute it?

Posted by: Gary on June 23, 2009 02:02 PM
134.
So let's assume that nothing happened. I can guarantee you that there's the possibility for a whole lot of Americans out there that they're not going to end up having the same health care they have. Because what's going to happen is, as costs keep on going up, employers are going to start making decisions. We've got to raise premiums on our employees. In some cases, we can't provide health insurance at all. And so there are going to be a whole set of changes out there. That's exactly why health reform is so important.
Posted by: John Jensen on June 23, 2009 02:06 PM
135. How many Americans don't have health insurance?

Posted by: Gary on June 23, 2009 02:20 PM
136. "A public option will have to be self-sustainable, by law, just like a private insurance company is. People will pay premiums to enter the public option. No one will get free coverage."

A half truth. There are always ways to do that like ration health care. That claim is a red herring and anyone is able to say and show that it will be mitigated. There is no law about the means to an end. That is where your strawman blows apart.

You have provided no reason why I should not heed the cost estimate from the CBO - just alot of flatulence and attempting to put lipstick on that pig ! You don't mind insuring illegal aliens, huh - NIMBY.

Posted by: KDS on June 23, 2009 02:37 PM
137. KDS, I've explained multiple times why those CBO estimates do not represent the final bill. The facts are self-evident: there is no final bill so the CBO cannot estimate its impact.

hellpig, Hatred of Obama. You have not cited a SINGLE source for your claim about illegal immigrants. You linked to Google. Link to ONE page (and I'll destroy it because it is a lie). If you're not going to cite something, then go away and let the adults talk.

Gary, Shut up.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 23, 2009 03:14 PM
138. John, sorry. I know my question was hard. Don't worry about it.

Posted by: Gary on June 23, 2009 03:22 PM
139. C'mon Gary, he's still denying the President has a plan when the President - 12 months ago! - claims to have one. Of course, that means anything we say about it must be wrong, because we're contradicting what a non-existent plan that the President had a year ago says.

Makes perfect sense, if you're a Slaver!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 23, 2009 04:07 PM
140. #149. I know. I understand how hard this must be for him. So, I'll let him slide. I mean, "Gary, Shut up" is not really the answer I was looking for.

When it gets to a certain point, he will either ask me to shut up, with or without the F word, or he will call me a name, usually with the F word, or he will claim to no longer want to discuss it.

Posted by: Gary on June 23, 2009 04:26 PM
141. Dan, he's still denying the President has a plan when the President

I never said the President didn't have a plan, idiot. I said, quite accurately, that the plans the CBO scored aren't the President's plan since they don't include a public option, a strong individual mandate, a strong employer mandate, and Medicare expansion -- all things that he has previously spoken out for.

Gary, the reason I don't show Dan or you much respect is that you make a full-time game out of misrepresenting my views. I have to repeat myself a dozen times for someone like Dan to understand my well-articulated points.

You, on the other hand, purposefully wiggle around creating edge arguments that you have no interest in following up on. And then it gets to the point, typically near the end, wherein you ask me to do basic research for you. In lieu of actually presenting your own arguments with citations, you want me to do your research and then respond with your argument.

I'm not the Googler-in-chief, so stop being an annoying fool and asking me repeatedly "How many people are uninsured?" as if it's a matter of opinion. If I don't respond to your the first time that means I'm not interested in making your argument for you.

So when you ask me a practically rhetorical question over and over instead of actually making your argument: Yeah, shut up and let the people who are actually stating their views talk.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 23, 2009 04:46 PM
142. John,

Post 103: Dan, I said "Obama's proposal," not "plan." (If you're playing stupid games, I'll join you.)

Post 153: I never said the President didn't have a plan, idiot.

Post 153: I have to repeat myself a dozen times for someone like Dan to understand my well-articulated points.


So well-articulated includes contradicting yourself?

It's really easy John, so easy I dare say a 2nd grader could understand it:

If the President has a plan, can you point to it?

HOPE AND CHANGE, JOHN, HOPE AND CHANGE!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 23, 2009 04:52 PM
143. hellpig, as I stated in my orginal post the 46 million number of uninsured Americans being thrown around includes illegal aliens..

This was not your original claim. Your claim was that Obama's plan would provide coverage health care to illegal immigrants (Once again WTF should we pay for the criminals and their families???). Now you're changing the argument. That's the smart thing to do, since your original claim was false.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 23, 2009 04:54 PM
144. #153 You suggested that I asked "How many people are uninsured?"

That isn't what I asked. I asked how many Americans are uninsured. I've already said you don't have to answer it, though, so don't sweat it.

Posted by: Gary on June 23, 2009 05:05 PM
145. Dan, note how I said you were playing stupid games. You were, and you still are. I'm not playing your stupid games anymore.

Dan & Gary: Does Obama have a health care plan, yes or no?

My answer: yes. Again, yes or no only.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 23, 2009 05:06 PM
146. Gee, if Obama said he wants to insure 46 million, then yes, that means he wants to insure non-Americans who are in the country illegally.

John, do you support that?

Posted by: Gary on June 23, 2009 05:38 PM
147. Hellpig, the President has said he want to cover all Americans. You are unable to cite a single source that says illegal immigrants would receive health care coverage for free or subsidized by the government. That plan does not exist.

Gary, does Obama have a health care plan, yes or no?

Posted by: John Jensen on June 23, 2009 05:45 PM
148. I asked you first. But, I can answer a question. I have yet to see his plan. I've just heard talk about vague notions of what he may want. So I would say 'no'. He has no plan.

If he said he wants to insure "46 million uninsured", then one of his wishes is to insure illegal aliens, it appears.

Now you can answer me. How many Americans don't have health insurance? And, more recently, do you support insuring illegal aliens?

Thanks.

Posted by: Gary on June 23, 2009 06:01 PM
149. Gary, So I would say 'no' [Obama doesn't have a plan].

If there's no health care plan, there's nothing to criticize. So stop whining so much.

If he said he wants to insure "46 million uninsured",

Not a single person here is claiming the President said that. He didn't say it.

But some slip of the tongue is irrelevant: any plan will have to pass Congress which would never fund coverage for illegal immigrants.

How many Americans don't have health insurance?

Ten. Just ten people.

And, more recently, do you support insuring illegal aliens?

Not with government money, no. I don't think Medicare, Medicaid or subsidized health care should be provided for illegal immigrants.

I do think the mandate should still apply to illegal immigrants who can afford health insurance. In other words, if an illegal immigrant is making $60,000 a year, he should have to health insurance just like anyone else.

I'm not certain if the mandate would apply to illegal aliens under any of the bills in congress, but certainly no free or subsidized health care will be provided in any bill.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 23, 2009 06:57 PM
150. "The President has said he want to cover all Americans. You are unable to cite a single source that says illegal immigrants would receive health care coverage for free or subsidized by the government. That plan does not exist."

To anyone who believes that - I have a bridge across Lake Washington along I-90 that I'd like to sell you. Just let me know.

If ignorance is bliss, Jensen is one of the blissful ones around.

Posted by: KDS on June 23, 2009 07:15 PM
151. John wrote:

I'm not certain if the mandate would apply to illegal aliens under any of the bills in congress, but certainly no free or subsidized health care will be provided in any bill.

You certain about that? How about the Waxman bill? You do know that Waxman voted NO on HR3722 (which ultimately failed) that would require determining the status of the person being treated. Meaning that Waxman didn't want hospitals to check the immigration status of illegal immigrants, and didn't want hospitals to refuse treatment to them.

I bet if we dig into the Waxman bill we'll find that illegal immigrants are shielded by making it illegal for hospitals and doctors to check on the immigration status of their patients...

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 23, 2009 08:11 PM
152. Good summary of the current House and Senate bills. This is charming, too:

The bill defines an “eligible individual” as “a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence or an alien lawfully present in the United States.”The House bill outline is silent on this point.

So at least ONE of the bills doesn't bar illegal immigrants. I guess ol' Johnny was wrong now, wasn't he?

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 23, 2009 09:41 PM
153. #163: "Not a single person here is claiming the President said that. He didn't say it."

Yes, he did.

"At a townhall meeting in Green Bay, Wis., last Thursday, President Obama twice referred to "46 million" people who lack health insurance, although in neither case did he describe those "46 million" as "Americans"--in one instance referring to them as "46 million people who don't have health insurance" and in another instance as "46 million uninsured.""

Posted by: Gary on June 23, 2009 09:47 PM
154. #168 - Good catch. The word-parser in chief once again tried to conceal his true intention.

Posted by: KDS on June 23, 2009 09:52 PM
155. Good find, Gary! I guess with the Obamassiah wanting to insure illegal immigrants, and the House bill not saying a thing about a lawfully present check, we'll probably go ahead and insure all those illegals...

I predict John comes back, says something like "well it will never pass like that, you're all wrong and liars and stupid" and then try to change the subject.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 23, 2009 10:01 PM
156. Gary proved absolutely nothing. Obama said there are 46 million who are uninsured in this country. That is a fact, no one here disagrees with it.

What Gary claimed that President said we should cover all of those people, including illegal aliens. Gary is lying and the President never said that. He was unable to find a quote to back up his fictional claim, so he found an unrelated quote that has nothing to do with anything.

Dan, So at least ONE of the bills doesn't bar illegal immigrants.

Jesus. Christ. You have absolutely no evidence for this claim: The House bill outline is silent on this point.

OUTLINE

It's a three page outline. It doesn't have as much detail as a 171 page draft bill.

No bill will pass the House or the Senate with the same coverage to illegal immigrants. Obama has never proposed it and Democrats have never proposed it. You guys are simply making shit up to argue for the take of arguing.

Meaning that Waxman didn't want hospitals to check the immigration status of illegal immigrants, and didn't want hospitals to refuse treatment to them.

Entirely irrelevant to the conversation at hand. There is a large gap between denying someone emergency treatment and paying for their health insurance. But Dan, I hope that if anything happens to you your citizenship papers are on hand. (Assuming you still have a hand at the time.)


I guess with the Obamassiah wanting to insure illegal immigrants

No evidence. No citations of the President. False claim.

the House bill not saying a thing about a lawfully present check

No evidence. No citations from the bill. False claim.

we'll probably go ahead and insure all those illegals...

No evidence. No citations of democratic leaders. False claim.

You're all wrong and liars and stupid.

hellpig, please! The adults are speaking to one another! Shh!

Posted by: John Jensen on June 23, 2009 11:55 PM
157.
And...

"On June 2, the White House released "The Economic Case for Health Care Reform," a report by the president's Council of Economic Advisers. In making the case for Obama's health-care reform plan, this report repeatedly asserted that there are 46 million uninsured "Americans.""

Posted by: Gary on June 24, 2009 06:34 AM
158.
From his "The Economic Case for Health Care Reform"

"Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance."

The link for this document is here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf

You can just search through for the word "Americans" and see how often they refer to the number of Americans without health insurance. Since they consider illegal aliens "Americans", they must be including them in whatever it is they want to do.

Posted by: Gary on June 24, 2009 06:41 AM
159. Hi John,

How's that HOPE AND CHANGE working out for you? After all, the President doesn't have a plan (but he's had one since June 2008 per his own words), and it doesn't cover illegals (yet they're included in the count of those without health insurance). And it'll be revenue neutral (but the CBO says otherwise, and the House and Senate refuse to address how to cover the shortfall).

Spin, spin away! I think you get a new nick-name: Centrifuge John...

Oh, and HOPE AND CHANGE!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 24, 2009 08:24 AM
160.
In other news... Massacre in Iran:

In a cry of help, a woman from Tehran tells CNN: "This is genocide, this is a massacre, this is Hitler."

-

The President:

"Please, can't I have my ice cream and my 4th of July hot dog picnic with the Iranian Nazis without all of this distraaaaction about the *debate* going on in Iran?"

And, Max Baucus, who is in charge of the monstrosity in the Senate, also refers to "46 million Americans". So, we are going to have to pay via a tax on our health care benefits (but ont union employees!) for the health insurance of illegal aliens.

Now, I know liberals are in favor of this, and yet they will deny that it's happening. They are also in favor of destroying insurance companies, but will deny that is the intent also.

It's almost like they're not honest or something.


Posted by: Gary on June 24, 2009 08:35 AM
161. Hey Gary, that's a great link! I'll make it easy for Centrifuge John to get:

The White House Health Care Report.

From the Executive Summary section WHERE WE ARE AND WHERE WE ARE HEADED (PDF page 3):

Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance.

And even better, from the actual report, in the opening paragraph of the INTRODUCTION (PDF page 6):

In addition, nearly 46 million Americans are currently without health insurance, and this number is projected to rise substantially.

And in fact, if you do a word search in that PDF, you'll find the word illegal and the word undocumented are never used. Neither are the words immigrant or immigrants.

Now, the word resident does appear, on page 12 of the PDF:

About one out of every six U.S. residents under the age of 65 is currently without health insurance.

That comes from US Census Bureau's Current Population Survey. Which - for purposes of enumeration - breaks down citizenship this way:

There are five categories of citizenship status: 1) Born in the United States; 2) Born in Puerto Rico or another outlying area of the U.S.; 3) Born abroad of U.S. citizen parents; 4) Naturalized citizens; 5) Non-citizens.

Hey, nothing about illegal or undocumented immigrants in there! Illegal immigrants are simply lumped in with non-citizens (meaning people here legally).

So if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it's a duck. And in the case of health care it says it's for all uninsured residents, it does not exclude illegal immigrants, and it bases itself on the number uninsured which includes illegals, it includes illegals...

Oh, and John?

HOPE AND CHANGE!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 24, 2009 08:59 AM
162.
Can any Obama supporters tell me what his opinion is of an individual health insurance mandate?

Thanks.

Posted by: Gary on June 24, 2009 09:23 AM
163. Back to the poll. Originally, the sample contained many more Republicans and Independents. But then the Times weighted it to reduce the number of Republicans. Nobody knows what the Times' exact weight methodology is.

I think I know what it is.

Posted by: Gary on June 24, 2009 10:40 AM
164. I work in healthcare and I know alot of nurses (RN's to be precise) that are all about the g'ment funding healthcare for all. It gives them the warm fuzzies to think about how all of the poor little kids in America that are dying for lack of healthcare now will finally be taken care of. (sigh)

These same RN's make an average of $35.00 an hour. I know, they deserve the same amount of worship that school teachers do, don't they? What happens when the g'ment cannot run the printing presses fast enough to pay for healthcare anymore? What happens when people start complaining about the lack of healthcare because the beaurocrats say you can't have whatever procedure you need becomes so loud the professional politicians have to take heed? Well, if any of you RN's read this site and are in favor of G'ment run healthcare try this on for size. Do you think that it will get by the politicos that if they give RN's a pay cut or a freeze on all new hires they will save alot of money? I think they will see that. Do you guys have a powerful enough lobby to keep that from happening? You understand I hope that pay will be set by the g'ment and it wont matter where you work, that is what you will get, so there is no hopping from, say Virginia Mason to TG for instance, because you will make the same at either place (you would probably need permission from some g'ment agency to do that). Oh, I know, you will quit and do something else. Like what? What else are you qualified to do? I doubt you would want to work on an assembly line.

In short, most of you will suck it up because working for less pay in a hospital still beats whatever else you might be qualified for. Uncle knows this.

Posted by: REBEL on June 24, 2009 11:18 AM
165. Good point, REBEL. Mass. is having to cut health care budgets, and ration care right now.

Posted by: Gary on June 24, 2009 11:24 AM
166. Dan, And it'll be revenue neutral (but the CBO says otherwise, and the House and Senate refuse to address how to cover the shortfall).

wtf? None of the estimates from the CBO have scored ANY savings or revenue increases. You are flat out LYING.

Hey, nothing about illegal or undocumented immigrants in there! Illegal immigrants are simply lumped in with non-citizens (meaning people here legally).

Yes, you idiot, to encourage illegals to participate in the census. What does that have to do with anything?

So if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it's a duck. And in the case of health care it says it's for all uninsured residents, it does not exclude illegal immigrants, and it bases itself on the number uninsured which includes illegals, it includes illegals...

Every single bill released has excluded illegals.

The fact that some White House reports have had a slip of the tongue does not change the LAW. The President has never made that slip of the tongue. You guys are desperate liars.

I'm done talking about illegal immigrants. You guys are being fuckwits and purposefully lying. "Well, since no where does it say illegals are being included, that MUST MEAN that illegals are being full paid for."

Gary, Can any Obama supporters tell me what his opinion is of an individual health insurance mandate?

He was against it during the primaries, but has said that everything is on the table as long as there is an exclusion for those who cannot afford health insurance. The fact is fact individual responsibility is happening on a bipartisan basis. Insurance companies are okay with it, Republicans recognize its value, and Democrats want it. It's not even an issue of controversy -- which is why no one is talking about it. If Republicans decide to vote against the bill no matter what, then certainly it'll be an issue with the right-wing fringe here -- but it's not a controversial issue amongst the public either.

REBEL, no one is proposing that the government own hospitals or hire doctors or nurses. The government would be unable to set wages on anyone.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 24, 2009 12:03 PM
167. #182 "slip of the tongue". A slip of the tongue, over and over in a document?

You're done talking about illegal immigrants because you lost. Cool.

So, he was against the mandates during the campaign, and now he's for them?

Since when does *mandating* equal "individual responsibility is happening on a bipartisan basis."?

Glad you're not talking about the illegal immigrant component of this anymore.

Posted by: Gary on June 24, 2009 12:22 PM
168. JJ;
You are truly naive if you don't see the direction this is going, or you are more likely dishonest or should I say, using your words, a liar.

Posted by: REBEL on June 24, 2009 12:23 PM
169. Gary, So, he was against the mandates during the campaign, and now he's for them?

I addressed your question in comment 182. Either make your point or stop question-baiting.

REBEL, not a single country in the world has ever switched from a single-payer system (public insurance) to a socialized system (public doctors/hospitals). And this isn't even a single-payer system, since there will be over a thousand private insurance companies. We have public insurance companies right now -- they're called Medicare and Medicaid -- and since 1965 the government has hired no doctors or nurses nor purchased any hospitals. Your fears are delusional and unfounded.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 24, 2009 12:50 PM
170. The government didn't purchase general motors either.

Posted by: REBEL on June 24, 2009 01:06 PM
171. #185. "thousand private insurance companies. "

Not for long. The government (which would be violating anti-trust laws if they had to abide by them) will simply undercut the insurance companies long enough to kill 'em. The government never has to worry about where it will get money.

Even the President admitted that this is a valid concern. Said so yesterday.

Posted by: Gary on June 24, 2009 01:06 PM
172. REBEL, The government didn't purchase general motors either.

The federal government owns more car companies than it does public hospitals, or will after health care reform passes.

Gary, Even the President admitted that this is a valid concern. Said so yesterday.

Yes, it is a concern, which is why a public option shouldn't charge Medicare rates, must be self-sustainable and not cost taxpayers anything, and other limits. Without a public option, however, there will be no incentive for insurance companies to cut costs beyond denying (or rationing) health care. If the government is so poor at running companies, then the public option will not provide strong competition and private insurers have nothing to worry about.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 24, 2009 02:04 PM
173. The government (which would be violating anti-trust laws if they had to abide by them) will simply undercut the insurance companies long enough to kill 'em.

So a cheaper product constitutes anti-trust violations? No.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 24, 2009 02:06 PM
174. Sure, if a cabal got together to undercut a competitor the way the government is, it would be illegal.

And you honestly think that if the government's own insurance wasn't self-sustainable, that it would die? Or would the government more likely just bail itself out? The government doesn't have to concern itself with running a business. What business' do you know that can put a gun to person's head and just take their money?

Look, the honest ones have already told us (I can provide more videos if you like) that the goal is to wipe out the private health insurance industry and enact single-payer. Do you deny that is their intention?

Posted by: Gary on June 24, 2009 02:48 PM
175. Does anybody here know how the CBS/Times poll is weighted? Technically?

Posted by: Gary on June 24, 2009 02:59 PM
176. And you honestly think that if the government's own insurance wasn't self-sustainable, that it would die?

It would raise premiums or reduce payments, just like any private insurance company. How often does the Post Office need a bailout?

Posted by: John Jensen on June 24, 2009 03:20 PM
177. Centrifuge John wrote:

Every single bill released has excluded illegals.

I'm sorry ol' Johnny boy, that's a flat-out lie (you can't feign ignorance because you were corrected back in post 167 with this link. See point 14:

The bill defines an "eligible individual" as "a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence or an alien lawfully present in the United States." The House bill outline is silent on this point.

Hmmm, the House bill ignores the concept of illegal immigrants, and so does the White House synopsis!

John, you are in fact a liar. Moron, ignoramous, idiot cannot be used because you've been corrected, and refuse to learn.

No liar it is!

Spin away, Centrifuge John!

Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 24, 2009 06:37 PM
178. And you honestly think that if the government's own insurance wasn't self-sustainable, that it would die?

"It would raise premiums or reduce payments, just like any private insurance company. How often does the Post Office need a bailout?"

The post office serves as a miniscule model of what the cost of free health care would bring. Which would lead to rationing health care or an astronomic rise in taxes to sustain it. A losing proposition.

"You thought health care was expensive ? Wait until it's free".

Canada and the UK will vouch for this. The American version will have its differences, but in the long term the same basic concepts. How many times do I have explain this to you, Jensen ?
You're thick as a brick and then some...

Posted by: KDS on June 24, 2009 07:38 PM
179. Dan, Hmmm, the House bill ignores the concept of illegal immigrants, and so does the White House synopsis!

False. The House bill OUTLINE doesn't mention it. The OUTLINE. The full bill has not been released. You are wrong and were corrected already.

KDS, Canada and the UK will vouch for this. The American version will have its differences, but in the long term the same basic concepts. How many times do I have explain this to you, Jensen ?

Canada is single-payer, the UK is socialist. Obama's plan is neither. We already spend the most per capita on health care -- and what has it got us? 38+ million Americans uninsured, ranked 37th by WHO, lower life expectancies, and higher infant mortality.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 24, 2009 11:35 PM
180. I'm sure government-run health care will work just as well as the Stimulus:

"New jobless claims rise unexpectedly to 627K"

John, can I keep my current plan? If yours sucks, buy another. Mine is great. Will I be 100% able to stay in my current plan? Guaranteed?

Thanks.


Posted by: Gary on June 25, 2009 08:07 AM
181. Perhaps we should fix the government-run health care systems we already have:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/24/va-medical-shambles-veterans-groups-say/

Posted by: Gary on June 25, 2009 08:51 AM
182. And the President suggested last night that it's better to just give old people pain killers, instead of surgery.

So, the government will decide whether you are worth saving.

No, thanks.

Oh, and that's for *us*. None of this will apply to him, or to Congress.

Posted by: Gary on June 25, 2009 09:15 AM
183. Gary, Will I be 100% able to stay in my current plan? Guaranteed?

That guarantee can't made today, and as long as your employer provides your insurance it can never be made. The point is that absolutely no company nor any individual purchaser will be forced toward the public option.

And the President suggested last night that it's better to just give old people pain killers, instead of surgery.

Right now, of course, insurance companies do anything they can do block procedures: Denying claims, saying pre-existing conditions existed, finding trivial errors on your insurance form, jacking up premiums and forcing people off of their plan.

The system right now is broken. The biggest aspects of health care reform have nothing to do with the public option, but ending the ability to jack up premiums, to deny coverage pre-existing conditions, and ending retroactive denials based on trivial errors on your insurance form. And yes, medical malpractice should be addressed as well.

If surgery is effective, and the doctor is pushing for it, then any insurance company should approve it. That isn't the case today, but a public option would have no profit motive to deny coverage. And if a pain killer would be more effective than surgery (and safer!) -- which is the scenario that the President outlined -- then why would we risk surgery? More people die from surgeries every year than car accidents. It is dangerous to cut someone open, but right now doctors have financial incentives to perform more procedures: More MRIs, more Xrays, more surgeries, more everything. And if you don't understand that, then you have don't understand why health care costs grow at such a rapid clip in this country and should really engage in some reading.

However, if the government denied your claim, one could just switch to another insurance company. There are community premiums, so your rates won't skyrocket, and no pre-existing conditions, so you'll get coverage. Finally, there will be limits for out-of-pocket costs so you don't go bankrupt fighting for your life.

More and more you defend the status quo with scare tactics. What you don't understand is that the status quo is the scariest option of them all. I'm happy you've never had to deal with a critical medical issues, but both my parents had cancer and I'll tell you right now: The older one on Medicare got his coverage without hassle.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 25, 2009 10:50 AM
184. How dare you claim I've never had to deal with *BOTH* of my parents dying from cancer.


Posted by: G on June 25, 2009 10:53 AM
185. Apologies. I'll only relate my personal experience:

Of my two parents who got cancer, my father on Medicare got the coverage he needed. My mother, who had breast cancer, had to fight hard to get even basic treatments as the insurance company waxed about whether the condition was pre-existing. Eventually, they denied a handful of forms of chemotherapy that the doctor wanted and had used with many other patients because the treatments were "experimental."

She had no option. She could not leave for another insurance company that'd approve these treatments. She could not leave for a public option, if it were better. Her premiums skyrocketed. This is not how we should treat our ill.

If she lived in a post-health reform society, she could have switched insurance companies to one of her choosing and she wouldn't have faced skyrocketing premiums. And, perhaps, since a public plan is more likely to err on the side of provided coverage since it has no profit motive, private insurance companies may be forced to compete by providing care and not denying it.

I can only speak to my experience.

Posted by: John Jensen on June 25, 2009 11:06 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?