KING5 Up Front did a story on health care reform this weekend, and featured a portion of an interview with Governor Christine Gregoire.
In between sophomoric catchphrases like "it's a sick system, not a health care system," she was asked by reporter Meg Coyle about Obama's public health option running out of money, and Gregoire responded that the public option would be paid for only by those who subscribe to it, and not taxpayers' dollars.
She actually said this. Not only does it deny what Obama says in his own plan -- Obama would give tax credits to pay for the health insurance plan for people who can't pay for themselves, which is effectively the same as paying for it out of the general fund -- but it defies common sense anyway. No sane and intelligent person can believe that this won't continue to be expanded to include every person who wants it and can't pay for it. Just like every other government program, it will inevitably become a welfare program. That's the whole point.
Gregoire said in the interview that some critics say government can't do it. "If government can't do it, what's everybody afraid of?" She said if it doesn't work, it doesn't work; that people are afraid it WILL work, and that's the source of their criticism.
But we know for a fact (because he said so himself) that the ultimate Obama plan is single-payer health care: any deficiencies in the system will just be an excuse to further expand the scope of the system. And once we are in single-payer, it will be almost impossible to go back, even if it isn't working.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at July 06, 2009 05:13 PM | Email ThisOf course she thinks we are naive. We elected her after all.
Posted by: pbj on July 6, 2009 07:00 PMYou know how I could tell?
Their lips were moving.
Posted by: Andy on July 6, 2009 07:01 PMhaving lived in canada, belgium, germany and switzerland - i really hope so. unfortunately, obama's plan doesn't go far enough.
our current system is ridiculous. w/ single payer it would cost the country significantly less. i don't understand why wingnuts don't understand this. conservative selfishness is ridiculous. do you really enjoy being taken advantage of by corporate insurance tools?
hellpig, you do realize most of the people that need healthCARE can't get treatment in the emergency room, right? cancer, diabetes, coronary heart disease, diabetes, obesity and several other fatal diseases aren't treatable in the ER. maybe you should spend some time w/ doctors instead of listening to faux news.
what is SP's take on the patient who's $40m settlement was upheld, when his heart had to be replaced due to faulty equipment frying him from the inside out?
Posted by: mike on July 6, 2009 07:37 PMLet's see... you want my tax money. I don't want any of yours, and *I'm* the selfish one?
please don't depend on the socially funded military, public roads, public transportation, public utilities, regulating agencies that keep my (water, toys, food, etc) safe (safer, anyway - at least til conservatives repeal those regs),police, fire, weather, internets, etc. etc. etc.
your argument is ridiculous.
Oh, wait. That will be no problem, as people will DIE under govmint ObamaCare. At least you'll want to die with the diminished quality of life.
Posted by: yaddacubed on July 6, 2009 08:00 PMOther than that you are babbling total nonsense.
"our current system is ridiculous. w/ single payer it would cost the country significantly less."
False. It would plunge us deeper into debt and cost more - that has been demonstrated by the CBO. I can see that you are mathematically challenged and ignorant like a majority of the leftwing progressives are.
Posted by: KDS on July 6, 2009 08:03 PMgary doesn't want to pay taxes. well, i don't either, but i realize that the country wouldn't function without them.
false, CBO hasn't priced a single payer plan. if they did it, then americans would finally see how gullible and easy they are to steal from.
And *I'm* the selfish one?
Alright, mike... tell me. How much more taxes would you like me to pay before you stop asking for more? Just give me a percentage of how much of my labor you want.
Thanks.
Posted by: Gary on July 6, 2009 08:46 PMcalifornia is it's own problem. i'm all for getting rid of waste, but a single payer plan would actually save money in the long run. you'd think that'd be something fiscal conservatives would be for, but they seem to like being owned tools. why is that?
gary, i don't know how much you pay in taxes, i don't really care. i'm not talking about adding taxes, i'm talking about shifting where out tax money already goes (medicare/medicaid/tricare/VA/SCHIP) if we can afford 500 billion dollars for a wasted war, we should be able to afford as much to secure the life and health of our citizens.
Posted by: mike on July 6, 2009 08:54 PMIt would cost ME more, and I would get LESS for my money. Not to mention that I would also have to give up a significant amount of liberty.
So tell me why I should be for it? And don't tell me it is for the sake of others, because I don't believe it would benefit them, either, more than a more competitive and free system would (which we don't have, especially in THIS state).
please don't depend on the socially funded military, public roads, public transportation, public utilities, regulating agencies that keep my (water, toys, food, etc) safe (safer, anyway - at least til conservatives repeal those regs),police, fire, weather, internets, etc. etc. etc.
None of this makes ANY sense, mike. You're comparing a welfare program -- taking from Peter to give it to Paul -- to services that benefit everyone. You're being -- as usual -- very dishonest.
gary doesn't want to pay taxes.
Maybe, but he didn't SAY that, and you're lying -- as usual -- by implying he did.
Posted by: pudge on July 6, 2009 08:59 PMYeah, I know. It shows.
Posted by: Gary on July 6, 2009 09:08 PMThe cost between patient doctor was removed years ago. It's time they came closer together. nly then will prices drop.
Idiots. Don't #*!% up my excellent health care!
Posted by: yaddacubed on July 6, 2009 09:32 PMtaxes pay for weather forecasting/radar
Really? And here I thought Steve Pool and the KOMO 4 Weather RADAR system was paid for by advertisers on KOMO... Good to know it's the State paying for all that news and reporting and forecasting and RADAR!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 6, 2009 09:34 PMa. the current system doesn't work. it's going to change. the present course is unsustainable. without a public option, we'll just end up paying even more money to healthcare denying insurance CEOs. we already have single payer for a large chunk of the country vis-a-vis medicare/schip/the VA/etc. should we end that, too?
b. there isn't any competition now, whole regions are dominated by single private health insurance cos. you think they'll honestly allow competition with other insurance cos? ever heard of racketeering?
c. so what if canadians come down here, engineer lady. i believe more americans go there. americans go to third world countries to get operations they can't afford here in the states. this doesn't bother you? holy cr*p.
d. gary, i don't care how much you pay because no matter what it is (50%/20%/2%) you'll cry and whine and throw a tantrum.
e. pudge, unless you're on the gov't dole, i'd like to know how your care $$ would go up... and why exactly would you have to give up liberties? seriously, you guys didn't seem to mind needlessly handing over liberties after 9/11. wtf.
f. real single payer lets you choose doctors. you guys should really look into other programs and educate yourself. my experiences w/ the german system were amazing. and all the germans i know would kill themselves if they had to put up with the crap half-a**ed system we have here.
g. dan, you really don't know about the NOAA/NWS/OAR? obviously you can read... guys like you really scare me. especially when you have guns.
h. gary, health INSURANCE doesn't insure anything. for most people, it's junk insurance. for those that are covered, they could (and do) find themselves being dropped by their provider. please tell me how this improves health CARE for all americans? or do you really think we aren't all in this togethor?
Nor the ability.
the current system doesn't work. it's going to change. the present course is unsustainable.
NO ONE has voiced support for the current system, so this is a straw man fallacy and a red herring all wrapped up in one.
we already have single payer for a large chunk of the country vis-a-vis medicare/schip/the VA/etc. should we end that, too?
Yes.
there isn't any competition now, whole regions are dominated by single private health insurance cos.
Due almost entirely to excessive government regulation! It is not the free market that has shrunk choices in Washington state down to a half dozen or so, it's our legislature and insurance commissioners that are to blame.
so what if canadians come down here, engineer lady. i believe more americans go there.
Your belief is irrelevant. Facts are what matter.
americans go to third world countries to get operations they can't afford here in the states. this doesn't bother you?
Yeah, they go to third world countries where doctors are not qualified, where facilities are substandard, where equipment is obsolete ... and surprise! It costs less! The stupid thing here is that you are arguing for massive deregulation, because the only way it will cost that little here is if we lower our standards, through deregulation, to match theirs.
gary, i don't care how much you pay because no matter what it is (50%/20%/2%) you'll cry and whine and throw a tantrum.
Oh please, mike, don't be such a child. He is making a valid point (that he dislikes the fact that you are advocating taking his property by force, to just give to someone else) and YOU are the one who is whining about it.
pudge, unless you're on the gov't dole, i'd like to know how your care $$ would go up
Um. I would be the one paying for the people who can't pay for themselves. That's how it works.
and why exactly would you have to give up liberties?
Um. That is what single-payer requires: I would have no real choices, I would have to fit into whatever system the government requires me to fit into. How is that NOT a loss of liberty? Pull your head out.
seriously, you guys didn't seem to mind needlessly handing over liberties after 9/11.
You're a liar. And a pathetic one, too. See, when you complain about First Amendment abuses, I can rightly point out that you disdain other liberties, like the Second Amendment, and the rights to liberty and property. Because we've seen you deingrate those rights, just as you did in this discussion. But when I complain about abuses of my liberty, you cannot point out any time when I have denigrated any rights. Ever. So you just make it up and pretend I did.
Not that I need to prove anything to you, but mere days after the news about warrantless wiretapping came out, I criticized Bush for it. I was against the use of NSLs. I was in favor of providing full legal rights to all U.S. citizens, even enemy combatants held abroad. You are just lying about me, because you thought that this tu quoque fallacy would help your case. But that fallacy never helps one's case, even less so when it's based on a lie.
Or, shorter: just because YOU are obviously selective in your respect of rights and liberties, doesn't mean I am. And I'm not.
real single payer lets you choose doctors.
It is true that SOME single-payer systems allow you to choose doctors. But some do not. And saying "real" single-payer allows you to choose is a damned lie.
Further, it's not just about doctor choice, it's also about treatment choice. Government would be telling us what treatments we can't have. This is necessarily true. Don't pretend it's not.
all the germans i know would kill themselves if they had to put up with the crap half-a**ed system we have here.
You don't know very many Germans, then. Indeed, I met a German a few years back -- she was volunteering for the Rossi campaign in 2004 -- who hated the German system, and while she wasn't a big fan of the U.S. system, she preferred it. And, of course, if you really understood the issues, you would know that many Germans opt out of the public system ... about 10 percent.
dan, you really don't know about the NOAA/NWS/OAR? obviously you can read... guys like you really scare me. especially when you have guns.
Obviously, you CANNOT read, since Dan didn't imply those organizations don't do forecasting.
And yes, it's no surprise that you hate the fact that we have guns ... you have shown a complete disdain for ALL liberty.
gary, health INSURANCE doesn't insure anything.
False. You're just lying again.
for most people, it's junk insurance.
You're lying.
for those that are covered, they could (and do) find themselves being dropped by their provider.
You're lying. For MOST people, no, they can't and don't find any such thing happening.
please tell me how this improves health CARE for all americans? or do you really think we aren't all in this togethor?
Fine, I'll pay for your health care if you pay for my satellite dish and PlayStation 3. After all, we're all in this "togethor."
Do all of us have access to VA hospitals?
Do all of us have access to Medicare?
Do all of us get monthly Social Security programs?
Do all of us use the GI Bill to get a free education?
Do all of us get food stamps? Free school lunches for our kids? Medicaid?
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
Great argument pudge. Your typical lack of evidence is a becoming a given.
The public option would be in health care exchanges which in some versions of the bill will only be available to those who work for small companies or otherwise have no insurance. In other words, the vast majority of Americans won't even have the ability to join the a public option with this so-called firewall measure.
And it is a lie to say that taxpayers are funding the public option. Tax credits would assist folks with premiums toward any insurance plan, private or public. Those premiums/subsidies can just as easily be for Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
But we know for a fact (because he said so himself) that the ultimate Obama plan is single-payer health care
False. He said if we were starting from scratch, he would do single-payer. Are we starting from scratch? No. It is not his "ultimate plan." Obviously you are unable to form a cohesive argument without completely distorting the truth.
Pudge, how does one get from barely passing a health care reform bill to magically getting enough votes for a single-payer system? How do we get 60 votes for that? Magic? Prayer? Hope?
Posted by: John Jensen on July 7, 2009 12:45 AMYes, I know about NOAA and all the other alphabet-soup departments that duplicate the services provided by the private sector. Seems kind of a waste of taxes (perhaps better spent covering a few more uninsured folks?) to pay to do the EXACT SAME THING the private sector does, doesn't it?
I mean, it doesn't cost me anything to turn on channel 13.2 and watch the weather 24/7 if I want, does it? How about those alphabet departments getting scaled WAY back so they don't duplicate services already being provided?
I know, you won't like that, probably because it would also scale back the size of Government, and that's just not acceptable now, is it?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 7, 2009 12:47 AMFalse. This is not how every single-payer system works. You can either pay out of pocket for a treatment or, like in France, you can have supplemental coverage. We already have a uniquely American system (except it's terrible), I'm certain any future health care reforms will be uniquely American.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 7, 2009 12:48 AMFalse, and you have no evidence of this claim. Health insurance companies have been merging left and right, according to the Kaiser Group. Larger insurance companies have more bargaining power and can get cheaper rates for hospitals, again pressuring smaller insurers.
And, of course, if you really understood the issues, you would know that many Germans opt out of the public system ... about 10 percent.
Wow... 10 percent!! That system must be a failure, pudge.
The stupid thing here is that you are arguing for massive deregulation, because the only way it will cost that little here is if we lower our standards, through deregulation, to match theirs.
False. Health care in this country is more expensive than any other Western nation by far, yet we have the least regulated health care insurance industry in the Western world. You provide no evidence, of course, that France or Germany have dirty operating rooms of "low standards." In fact, they do not. What you're saying is bull.
Your belief is irrelevant. Facts are what matter.
And you have presented exactly no facts, no citations, NOTHING to back up your most outrageous of claims. Mike managed to be honest and use the word "believe." You omit that word, and substitute that honesty for the arrogance of assuming the truth is merely what you say.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 7, 2009 12:57 AMFalse, and you have no evidence of this claim. Health insurance companies have been merging left and right, according to the Kaiser Group. Larger insurance companies have more bargaining power and can get cheaper rates for hospitals, again pressuring smaller insurers.
And, of course, if you really understood the issues, you would know that many Germans opt out of the public system ... about 10 percent.
Wow... 10 percent!! That system must be a failure, pudge.
The stupid thing here is that you are arguing for massive deregulation, because the only way it will cost that little here is if we lower our standards, through deregulation, to match theirs.
False. Health care in this country is more expensive than any other Western nation by far, yet we have the least regulated health care insurance industry in the Western world. You provide no evidence, of course, that France or Germany have dirty operating rooms of "low standards." In fact, they do not. What you're saying is bull.
Your belief is irrelevant. Facts are what matter.
And you have presented exactly no facts, no citations, NOTHING to back up your most outrageous of claims. Mike managed to be honest and use the word "believe." You omit that word, and substitute that honesty for the arrogance of assuming the truth is merely what you say.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 7, 2009 12:57 AMplease check it out.
Posted by: will on July 7, 2009 01:41 AMSo shouldn't food be a right?. What about a place to live? Car?
I take it you've never been to Europe to see their 'great' system. O-yeah, they have places to live. That is if you call living with mom & dad way past your 18th birthday because you can't fine any place to rent. Or say the great paying jobs. That you can't find either. Try checking out their un-employed and get a real shock.
Yeah they may have one month off and 35 hr work week. But what good is it, if you can't find a job.
If you even think EU is doing so great. Please check out how many from the EU and other areas are working for Boeing and MS.
Posted by: Medic/Vet on July 7, 2009 06:21 AMNope.
It is time to 'Change' the notion of the public health as a fundamental human right
Nope.
and install 'a safety system for all' like all of the other industrialized nations, I think.
Nope.
Don't worry though, I hear Edward Kennedy still has full access to whatever he wants, and will *never* be a part of any plan he crafts in the Senate for the rest of us.
And people just take it...
mike, how much more tax would you like me to pay? You never answered that question. At what percentage will you be happy and not ask for more?
Thanks.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Actually. Everyone who is of a certain age, or who served in the military, or is "needy," gets access to those programs. Just like what I am talking about with the public plan: it will "be expanded to include every person who wants it and can't pay for it."
The public option ... in some versions of the bill will only be available to those who work for small companies or otherwise have no insurance. In other words, the vast majority of Americans won't even have the ability to join the a public option with this so-called firewall measure.
In Obama's plan, it would be open to everyone, so let's stay rational, shall we? Until we actually have a bill, we only have Obama's plan to work off of. And all I am saying is what is obviously true: Obama wants to expand this to include everyone who "needs" it.
His goal is universal care. That necessarily means that taxpayers will end up paying for people who can't pay for themselves, because there's no other way to do it, except through charity, and you know Obama won't push that, because he's all about government.
And you also know he won't perpetually use SCHIP and Medicaid to close the gap, because those will have -- according to Obama's plan -- substandard coverage compared to the public option. It won't be "fair." So the public option absolutely will grow to include everyone who is on other forms of medical welfare.
There's no serious doubt this will happen under Obama's plan, and you're playing the fool by pretending otherwise.
And it is a lie to say that taxpayers are funding the public option. Tax credits would assist folks with premiums toward any insurance plan, private or public.
Funny how you say it's a lie, and then you go on to demonstrate it to be fact.
But we know for a fact (because he said so himself) that the ultimate Obama plan is single-payer health care
False. He said if we were starting from scratch, he would do single-payer.
You're wrong as usual. He said he wants single-payer, and that it will take some time to get there. He has never in any way stated or hinted that this is not still his goal. He has said he would accept other forms of universal care if we can't get there, but he still wants to try. Yolu need Obama's own Fact Check: "Over time it may be that we end up transitioning to such a [single-payer] system."
And this is not significantly different from what he said several years ago, in 2003: "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program...And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House."
It is not his "ultimate plan."
Yes, it is. As Obama has repeatedly said.
Pudge, how does one get from barely passing a health care reform bill to magically getting enough votes for a single-payer system?
Over time. As Obama has repeatedly said.
Government would be telling us what treatments we can't have. This is necessarily true. Don't pretend it's not.
False. This is not how every single-payer system works. You can either pay out of pocket for a treatment or, like in France, you can have supplemental coverage.
As usual, you're wrong. Semantics aside -- is it single-payer if there's more than one payer? -- you're still just agreeing with me: in order to get additional coverage I'd have to go OUTSIDE the system. Government would be telling me what treatments I can't have in the system they force me into. Under single-payer I would pay more to get less, and then have to pay EVEN MORE to get what I actually want, because government is telling me what I can't have.
And don't you dare compare this to private insurers who "do the same thing." It's obviously different when government forces you into a system, and even worse when they make you pay for being in a system and then you have to pay out of pocket to actually get the care you want.
False, and you have no evidence of this claim.
I am just shaking my head at you right now. There's a ton of health insurers in this country, and only a handful are ALLOWED to do business in this state. Learn something about the state you live in!
Wow... 10 percent!! That system must be a failure, pudge.
As usual, you reach straight for the straw man fallacy. I wasn't even attempting to show it was a failure. I was only proving the fact that many Germans aren't happy with it, in direct response to Mike's claim that the Germans HE knows would "kill themselves" if they had to use the American system.
False. Health care in this country is more expensive than any other Western nation by far, yet we have the least regulated health care insurance industry in the Western world. You provide no evidence, of course, that France or Germany have dirty operating rooms of "low standards."
I thought you liberals were FRIENDS to Europe. You took offense with Europe when Rumsfeld called France part of "Old Europe." And now you're saying that France and Germany are Third World countries! Nice job there.
And you have presented exactly no facts, no citations, NOTHING to back up your most outrageous of claims.
I have no outrageous claims.
That had to be a laugh fest for any observers.
"Who's on first? What's on second?" for the whole session I bet.
Posted by: swatter on July 7, 2009 07:22 AMwow, you met one german, who was working for rossi! clown - i work with several. i also worked in germany for 5 years. 10% of germans isn't "many" and they don't "opt out" of the system - they still pay into it - but they purchase supplemental insurance. those that 'opt out' are either self employed or earn over 100,000 euros a year. patients have access to essentially the same treatments and options. there are docs that will only see private insurance patients (more $$) but basically it means you get to have a single-bed hospital instead of a double (which i had and was quite entertaining)
and you really think we should end funding for the VA and tricare? wow, i thought you guys were for the troops? i guess the truth finally comes out.
also, i never said you didn't have the right to own guns. i like guns.
"Government would be telling us what treatments we can't have" so instead of government deciding, you'd rather have a corporate CEO who's more concerned about his bottom line than your life? sounds great, sign me up!
Posted by: mike on July 7, 2009 07:29 AMActually, I think it was King County Elections that got Queen Chrissie elected. It took 'em three tries, but they finally got the result that they wanted, which is a Neo-socialist b*tch.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on July 7, 2009 07:39 AMRead and learn. Here's some of the highlights:
- Family policies must cover children up to the age of 26. TWENTY SIX YEARS OLD! Not old enough to be on your own, I guess..
- a new Government council (the MAC) to decide what is essential or not; yes, the Government will decide what you will be covered for (note that the WA State requirement for psychiatric and universal OB/GYN coverage is what drove most small insurers out of the State; I know, I worked in insurance back in the late 80s when this started). Better hope your problem is considered essential by an unelected group answering only to the President!
- Smoke, drink, eat a bucket of Crisco every day, race motorcycles, family history of cancer, wrestle alligators naked? It's all good - you'll pay the same rate as the ultra-safe, ultra-healthy person. There goes the financial incentive to live a better lifestyle!
- Earn up to $100,000 as a family of four and get your healthcare subsidized! Because, as we know, all those high tech workers at Microsoft don't have any insurance and they certainly can't afford to pay for it themselves...
- Small groups can no longer self-insure (less than 250 people). Arbitrarily set on the size of the group, not the resources of the group! Meaning that the incredibly wealthy like Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, or even the fairly wealthy like Rush Limbaugh, can no longer choose to self-insure. Hey, you've got $300 million in the bank, too bad you cannot rely on that for any potential health costs! You must buy in to a plan.
- We won't tell you how it will be paid for; either savings on current expenditures OR new taxes (which there will be; all employers must offer healthcare or pay an extra tax; this is a wonderful unfunded mandate on business).
- The State (not the Federal Government) now gets to skim 3% additional money on all health care expenditures. Free money for Gregoire!
But don't worry, it's all in your best interest, you aren't an individual who can be trusted with their own health care. Let the Government take care of you (they will define what is considered adequate in terms of the benefits you receive), and they will do it for a low cost (they will decide how much to take, without a vote of the Congress).
Turn over your life to Government, all will be fine!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 7, 2009 07:53 AMYes. Every time. Because there is freedom to choose which company you want to do business with in the first place. Once the federal government runs it, your freedom is gone.
Some of us still care about Freedom.
Posted by: Gary on July 7, 2009 07:55 AMMy only quibble is your hell-bent belief that Obama's goal is single-payer. Again, you take his words out of context. You hit me whenever I take one of your preferred officials words out of context, well look in the mirror. What Obama said was basically, if it was a blank slate, he would prefer single-payer, but he recognizes it isn't a blank state. Obama is a pragmatist in his approach. Have you not seen this so far in his Presidency. Obama's goal is to get some action on health care done. He has stated repeatedly his end goal and it isn't single-payer, because he know he has to start with where we are at in this country. His goal is to preserve private health care companies, but make sure everyone has access to health care that is affordable. His "public-plan" option is put forth as a way to cover those who companies decide not to cover, and those who are self-employed and can't gain the economies of scale that corporations enjoy. Will it compete with private enterprise? You bet, and if it is demonstrated that government can provide the service more efficiently and cheaper, then private industry should look itself in the mirror, because it must be doing something wrong. The problem, Pudge, is you do not see the uneven playing field that is currently out there. Health Insurance is becoming an oligopoly. It isn't the providers, nor government, that is driving up the cost of care. It is the pharmaceutical and health insurance companies. Of course, the really skeptical person in me believes it isn't even that, but it is in fact the lawyers behind these companies and the trial lawyers.
Now, would I like to see Health Care Reform w/o a Public option. You bet ya! I bet that even the pragmatic nature that drives Obama would like to see that as the best option given the current starting ground. The realist, in me, and I am sure in Obama, knows that this won't fly for two reasons. One reason is purely politics and that is appeasement to the Hillary crowd and those on the left. The second reason is you need someone in the game that can even the playing field. The industry will not do it iself, no matter what rules and regulations you put in place.
I am not sure if you are familiar with the term A76. It is the rule/guideline federal government uses for contracting out services (make or buy, or in this case government provide or private contractor provide). Well here is my solution to the public option sticking point. Before actually starting the public option run by the government, have the government perform an A76 study, which the end result would be the government having to compete to provide the service against private companies? With this, the government would have to come up with the Most Efficient Organization model to start out with and if they win the contract, then abide by that standard. So, if Aetna or the other private providers think they can provide the "public" option (i.e., health plan available to the general public who can't get health care via their provider, or don't like the health care their provider offers) at a cheaper cost, then go for it. The boundaries for this plan is: (a) national/regional pools, (b) must offer even with pre-existing conditions, and (c) must offer a minimum level of benefits (ideally focused on preventative care, but also offering catastrophic coverage). Those are my ideas.
Posted by: tc on July 7, 2009 07:56 AMthose that 'opt out' are either self employed or earn over 100,000 euros a year.
Too bad the current Obama plan doesn't even give us that freedom. Read the Kennedy Dodd Bill. You don't get to cover yourself if you're self employed, and you still have to participate even if your family makes $100,000 per year.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 7, 2009 07:57 AMSome people will believe anything.
You don't name a single level on which I am wrong.
wow, you met one german, who was working for rossi! clown - i work with several. i also worked in germany for 5 years.
My point was made, and irrefutable: you are using mere anecdotal evidence, and so am I. Maybe you have MORE of it, but it remains merely anecdotal. You're the clown here, mike.
10% of germans isn't "many" and they don't "opt out" of the system - they still pay into it
Yes, 10 percent is many: it's millions of people. And they do "opt out" of it. That is what everyone calls it: opting out. Unfortunately, as you say, they still have to pay into the system they aren't using.
those that 'opt out' are either self employed or earn over 100,000 euros a year.
Yep, it's terrible: you have to QUALIFY to OPT OUT! Terribly anti-liberty. You HAVE to take the government plan unless you make a lot of money. You are FORCED into it. Just awful.
and you really think we should end funding for the VA and tricare?
Not for active duty military, or injured veterans. Everything else.
also, i never said you didn't have the right to own guns.
Also, I never said you did. I said you denigrated this right ... which you did.
"Government would be telling us what treatments we can't have" so instead of government deciding, you'd rather have a corporate CEO who's more concerned about his bottom line than your life?
First, yes, I would much rather have a corporation deciding. I can change companies if I dislike the service. I can sue companies if they wrong me.
And companies care a LOT more about my life than government does, because companies that let people die get sued and lose money and go out of business. Governments that let people die continue on unabated.
What a complete fool you are for thinking the government actually cares about us more than any other random entity does. Just because Obama and Bush and Clinton say they care and feel our pain doesn't make it true. It's not even possible for it to be true; the country's too large. They cannot care about me and you and everyone else. And they don't.
Clarification: such a thing for a specific purpose is an increase on the burden of everyone else.
It is an attempt to direct behavior via the tax code.
Right. But in this case it's more than that: it's an attempt to shift the burden of paying for it to people with more money, without actually increasing or decreasing the marginal rates.
Both sides do it, the only question is whether we as the taxpayer view it as beneficial or not.
No, there's more questions, like whether it harms some people for the benefit of others.
My only quibble is your hell-bent belief that Obama's goal is single-payer.
Shrug. I take him at his word.
Again, you take his words out of context.
No, I do not. Please address his quote specifically and describe how I took it out of context. You don't.
What Obama said was basically, if it was a blank slate, he would prefer single-payer, but he recognizes it isn't a blank state.
You're being dishonest. He said, "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program...And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House."
He has never gone back on this. Ever. He has said that we MIGHT NOT get there, that universal care is more important than single-payer. But he has NEVER said that single-payer does not remain his goal.
He has stated repeatedly his end goal and it isn't single-payer
He has multiple goals, as everyone does, and ONE of those IS single-payer. He has said this explicitly and has never hinted that he was going back on that. Worse, the people who have worked on his plan have stated explicitly that this public option is a stepping stone to single-payer, as we've documented.
The problem, Pudge, is you do not see the uneven playing field that is currently out there.
Straw man fallacy. Nothing I said has anything to do with that. It's beside my point.
here is my solution to the public option sticking point
There is no "solution" to it. It is objectionable by its nature. Public health insurance/care is anathema, and it should be abolished, because it is public and the government shouldn't be doing it.
Of course, I have not even mentioned the unarguable fact that federal health insurance is unconstitutional. It goes without saying, but now seems like a good time to remind people.
Nothing else you say about efficiency and so on matters to me one whit, because I deny the basis for the argument you are making: that it could possibly be acceptable to have ANY form of a public plan.
Thanks.
Also, if you want to rant some more against single-payer health care systems, be my guest. I'll take more interest if there's ever any pending legislation with this feature. As you know, there isn't.
Posted by: scottd on July 7, 2009 08:53 AMOr should I pay them too?
Why should you pay mine?
Posted by: Gary on July 7, 2009 09:05 AMReally? How will it do that?
Posted by: scottd on July 7, 2009 09:09 AMIf you were a business owner, and had the legal power to regulate your competitors, you could drive them out of business. If the United States government had to abide by its own anti trust laws, it would not be able to do this.
What do you propose we do when this comes to pass?
Posted by: Gary on July 7, 2009 09:13 AMPlease do not lie. I linked to the full remarks as broadcast by KING5. Click the video link on the page I linked to.
Also, if you want to rant some more against single-payer health care systems, be my guest. I'll take more interest if there's ever any pending legislation with this feature. As you know, there isn't.
And as YOU know, if you've been paying attention, Obama's current plan is INTENDED -- by him, and by authors of the plan -- to be a stepping stone to single-payer.
tc: I disagree that public health plan is illegal.
Yes, because you ignore the clear and plain language of the Constitution. There is no serious debate on this.
it is unfortunate that you are of such a closed mind that you can't fathom alternatives
Alternatives to ... the plain and clear language of the Constitution? Following the law is being "closed-minded"? That's idiotic, tc.
If everyone in society acted that way ...
... we'd have actual liberty.
With regards to the specific topic of public health plan, my view is it wouldn't be illegal because it falls under interstate commerce.
That's obviously stupid, tc. By this standard, any company that does anything potentially across state lines can be owned by the federal government. This violates not only the letter of the Constitution, but the spirit and intent of it too.
The Constitution does not say the Congress shall have the power to "own and operate companies in industries that cross state lines." It says Congress shall have the power to "regulate commerce ... among the several states."
This is not free reign to do anything related to commerce between states. The feds cannot own and operate companies, it can only regulate what they do in regards to interstate commerce.
I'd like to learn more about that! Is this ability to set private insurance company profit limits something new? Can you show me where this provision is in any legislation currently being considered or proposed? I looked, but I haven't been able to find any evidence of this.
Posted by: scottd on July 7, 2009 09:22 AMThe People were entrusted to handle their own affairs in freedom.
Too many people do not even expect to manage their own lives. They had to be taught this.
Thanks, pudge. I checked the link you gave before I posted. Didn't see a transcript and I missed the link to the video. Now I see it.
Some day, maybe you'll learn the difference between a mistake and a lie.
And as YOU know, if you've been paying attention, Obama's current plan is INTENDED -- by him, and by authors of the plan -- to be a stepping stone to single-payer.
And as YOU know, Obama doesn't write legislation. Congress does. As far as I know, no single-payer in any pending legislation.
Not profit limits explicitly -- yet -- but price controls, which is similar, from the other end. From Obama's plan: "Barack Obama and Joe Biden will prevent companies from abusing their monopoly power through unjustified price increases."
http://keithhennessey.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Kennedy-as-filed.pdf
See sections 2704 a and b.
Posted by: Gary on July 7, 2009 09:41 AMC'mon people... just be honest.
There do exist some Democrat congress people who admit this is the goal.
LOL. I didn't think you would fall for that.
You see, what I did was merely accuse you similarly to how you accused me. I threw your mode of argument back in your face.
That is, you could have said, "I didn't see the full context in your link." Instead, you accused me of not providing it, saying, "you don't bother to present the full context of Gregoire's remarks."
So I returned the favor. And you proceeded to attack me for doing what YOU did first. Wow. Just awesome, man.
And as YOU know, Obama doesn't write legislation. Congress does. As far as I know, no single-payer in any pending legislation.
Most legislation that IS being written is BASED ON Obama's existing plan, which IS INTENDED to be a stepping stone to single-payer.
If you don't want single-payer, you should fight against any public health option. That is its purpose: to be a precursor to single payer ... according to the people who designed that option.
This bill would get a lot of such markups. I might not even bother going through the whole bill; it'd be a waste of time.
And yes, if people on this board are opposed to a single-payer nation system, they *should* be opposed to this pending legislation.
Posted by: Gary on July 7, 2009 09:59 AM
But federal government would NEVER do that. They would only ever do GOOD things.
Because government cares about us. Unlike those nasssty corporationses.
Still wondering how this shows up in any legislation that's currently being considered...
I'm not saying it's not there, I just haven't seen anything about price controls on private plans. I'd like to know more about it if it's part of legislation being written.
Most legislation that IS being written is BASED ON Obama's existing plan, which IS INTENDED to be a stepping stone to single-payer.
If you say so...
I don't care much about intentions, I just care about what's in the law.
And I'm not necessarily against single-payer. It would depend on specifics. Right now, it's not in any pending legislation.
If public option plans are sufficient, maybe we'll just stay with that. I don't see how we get to single-payer unless more people push for it.
If public option is a complete disaster, I somehow doubt there would be much public support for a single-payer follow-on. At any rate, there's no single-payer plan to discuss right now.
The Kennedy Dodd bill gives the Executive branch sole control over unrestrained taxation and breach of privacy.
There's some HOPE AND CHANGE you can count on!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 7, 2009 10:16 AMI know a way. Anybody else?
Posted by: Gary on July 7, 2009 10:20 AM
scottd: Still wondering how this shows up in any legislation that's currently being considered...
Until actual legislation is being considered, I am going by what Obama's plan says.
That said, Gary already have you a link to the bill that includes the section "REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE VALUE FOR PREMIUM PAYMENTS." The government would set maximum limits, and the companies could not exceed them (would have to give out rebates). Very explicit (though undefined) price controls on insurance premiums.
I don't see how we get to single-payer unless more people push for it.
That's the idea ... through making me pay for the public plan, and by forcing out private insurers, they will try to encourage more people to want single-payer.
Specifically, §2704(a) is the "Requirement to provide value for premium payments." A health plan must report how much of their premium revenues are used for clinical services, how much for "activities that improve health care quality," and how much for "all other non-claims costs."
§2704(b)(1) then tells the Secretary to look at how much other health plans spent on "all other non-claims costs," and based on that survey, set an allowable percentage for this category. Plans are then required to rebate premiums if they go above this amount. This is direct (but confusing) regulation of premiums and profit margins.
-
Posted by: Gary on July 7, 2009 10:26 AMSee this link that Gary provided. See pages 10 and 11 of the PDF. It's pretty clear:
REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE VALUE FOR PREMIUM PAYMENTS.—A health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall provide an annual rebate to each enrollee under such plan or coverage on a pro rata basis in the amount by which the amount of premium revenue expended on activities described in subsection (a)(3) exceeds—‘‘(A) with respect to a health insurance issuer offering group insurance coverage, a percentage that the Secretary shall by regulation determine based on the distribution of such percentages across such issuers; or
‘‘(B) with respect to a health insurance issuer offering individual insurance coverage, a percentage that the Secretary shall by regulation determine based on the distribution of such percentages across such issuers.
The Secretary of HHS gets to determine how much "profit" the health insurer must give back at the end of the year, based upon their evaluation of just how much value was actually rendered. If the Secretary determines that 100% of the profits should be returned, then so be it - this law gives the Sec HHS the ability to demand insurers run with zero (or even negative) profits.
There is also legislation where the Sec Treas and Sec HHS get to set taxation and penalty rates for all. Not set in Congress, but by the Executive branch. Not to mention forcing all participants (i.e.: you and me) to provide any and all information the Secretaries deem relevant for healthcare. Not what you or Congress deems relevant, what the Secretaries deem relevant.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 7, 2009 10:29 AMI appreciate the link and the info you've provided. My quick read didn't show anything about limiting profits, but I've looked at the sections you mentioned again.
Since the passage is vague, I don't know if it actually sets profit limits, but it might. Frankly, I don't think the government needs to be requiring rebates if insurance companies collect "too much" in premiums. I'd be happy to see that provision striken from final legislation.
Try not to be too hard on me. Even pudge wasn't aware of any explicit profit limitations (see @60).
Just to be clear, I don't think government should explicitly tell an industry how much profit it is allowed to make.
Just ask yourself, why the hell would insurance companies even be forced to disclose of these expenses to HHS?
It does. It limits revenues from specific sources (premiums) to a limit set by an as-yet undefined regulation that defines a formula. That's limiting profits. I suppose you could say it retroactively limits prices ... but it's the same thing at this level.
The point is it says, "you took too much money based on this formula we made up, so you have to give some back." Label that what you want.
And I agree that the language is hard to get, and yes, I wasn't aware of it ... I have not spent time wading through proposed legislation until it becomes clear which legislation will be working its way toward a vote.
The issue is that the Secretary of HHS gets to decide how much rebate the insurance company must return at the end of the year. The Sec HHS gets to decide what the real "worth" of the service provided was, and how much of the excess (if any) charges must be returned to the consumer.
It's even worse than dictating a maximum profit rate; this is a completely arbitrary (in that it can change year-to-year with zero legislative action) retroactive tax rate. But instead of paying to a single entity - the Government - the insurer must pay back to all its clients.
Put it this way: you run a McDonald's. You sell Big Macs for $1.00, and you make $0.20 per Big Mac in profit. At the end of the year, I - Mr. Sec HHS - can come in, look at your product (Big Macs), and decide that, really, the consumer should have only paid $0.90 per Big Mac because that is what I decided the value of the Big Mac should really be. And so you must return $0.10 to each and every person who purchased a Big Mac.
Now, I hope you didn't plan to use that profit next year for expansion! And I hope to didn't already distribute it (perhaps in quarterly payments) to your shareholders. Because you'll either have to get that money back, or take a loan, or pray you have enough reserves to cover the money you have to give back.
Did I directly tell you that you could only make 10% profit? No. Not explicitly. But implicitly, by forcing a rebate of your product because I have determined what it is worth. Not you, not the consumer, but me - Mr. Sec HHS - has decreed what your Big Mac is worth and that you must return any overages that I believe you made.
THIS is how profits are essentially capped and set by the Secretary HHS. They get to determine how much rebate should be returned to the consumers at the end of the year, because they get to determine the "value" of the product delivered.
Make sense now?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 7, 2009 10:59 AMAnd I agree that the language is hard to get, and yes, I wasn't aware of it ... I have not spent time wading through proposed legislation until it becomes clear which legislation will be working its way toward a vote.
The danger is that the Congress will vote and approve the legislation before it's even written! Just see the recent Cap-and-trade bill (voted on before the bill was even in its final form).
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 7, 2009 11:04 AMYes, the House passed a bill that Schoolhouse Rock would call B.S. on for not having been completed.
There is nowhere in the world to get the level of care in the timely manner we get in this country. NOWHERE.
If only the Mikes and John Jensons in this world had the cojones to admit they are advocating the same theory their liberal pals so successfully (/sarcasm) applied to our schools: the theory of the least common denominator.
Furthermore, health care would be far less expensive if states like Washington did not limit the coverage we citizens are allowed to purchase WITH OUR OWN MONEY.
Medicare, Medicaid and lawsuits have hamstrung the medical profession into covering their butts no matter the cost.
When I was born the hospital bill was $160. I have the bill from St Ann's in Cleveland:
5 days @ 19.00
5 days @ 6.00
Delivery Room 18.00
Laboratory 7.00
Drugs, Dressings 5.00
Technical anesthesia 5.00
That is an EXACT quote. The doctor bill was $20!
When my kids were born that bill was 16x that of my parents.... AND I was only allowed to stay 3 days.
What is it today? I shudder to think.
Ask yourselves what the hell changed? Childbirth certainly hasn't. We've been doing it the same way since Adam and Eve.
What's changed is that docs now must cover their butts with unnecessary tests to keep the insurance they are forced to carry AND that they ARE NOT PERMITTED to set the value of their own expertise. They are forced to preempt nature with unnecessary, expensive and dangerous surgery like c-sections.
THAT is the only problem with healthcare.
Insurance was introduced as a benefit by companies after WWII to seduce prospective employees. The economy was exploding and companies had to fight for the best employees. It was a private transaction between employer and employee much like the benefit of a company car.
How in the hell it became a supposed "right" demanded by employees and usurped by liberal government is beyond me... or not: UNIONS are the thugs responsible for that.
Medical care should be no different than contracting a builder or hiring a plumber: you research their backgrounds, you TALK to them to see if their philosophy and work ethic meets yours and you hire them.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 7, 2009 11:19 AMBingo!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 7, 2009 11:40 AMWhy? They have single payer all over Europe and the conservative parties don't eliminate it and they don't even say they want to. They do get elected from time to time and basically over there they alternate social democrats/conservatives the same way we alternate Democrat/Republican.
So, if the single payer systems don't work,
why don't the voters act?
Is it becuase you think everyone in Sweden and France and Germany is in a gulag?
an astonishing 15% of americans aren't covered at all in this country. of those that have insurance, an astonishing 40% are underinsured. how many medical banktruptcies is too many, gary? 100? 1,000? 100,000?
ragnar, qliance is merely a primary care. you still have to get catostrophic insurance in case you do anything beyond getting a cold. this is why their profit margins are higher.
"the theory of the least common denominator." - yes, i believe we as a society are measured by how we treat those at the bottom of the rung. apparently conservatives only care about themselves, and think the poor, elderly, handicapped, etc. should piss off and they and their supporters should stop whining. outstanding!
fortunately, you clowns aren't in a position to make a difference.
Posted by: mike on July 7, 2009 12:31 PMmike: that's not astonishing or even worrying. And "underinsured" is a made-up thing that doesn't reflect reality. The problem is not insurance -- underinsurance or no insurance -- but care. And the best way to get care for everyone is not to just pay for it when people have trouble affording it, but to find ways to lower costs so it's easier to pay for it.
But the left doesn't WANT to reduce costs, except in the context of new government programs, because if we lower costs, fewer people will be "underinsured," which means we don't have as much of a "crisis," which means ... surprise! No motivation for socialized health care!
So make no mistake, the left opposes reducing costs, unless they get their socialized health care as part of the deal.
Posted by: pudge on July 7, 2009 01:08 PM
-
Actually conservatives give more money to charity, and we also donate more blood. Red state residents give more money as a percentage of their income than do members of Blue states.
So, conservatives give more freely of themselves than do liberals. Liberals then use the power of government to take even more.
And yet you say *I'm" selfish.
Posted by: Gary on July 7, 2009 01:20 PMNice try.
Education has become dumbed down to the "least common denominator". Kids of brilliance and talent twiddle and yawn while those that aren't are passed on so they dob't feel bad, while those brilliant twiddlers and yawners are excoriated and drugged for having energy and enthusiasm.
Yep, that worked really well with education and we already KNOW how well it works with heathcare in the UK, Canada, Sweden... When I'm hospitalized under YOUR plan you will come change the sheets and wipe up the dirt in my room, won't you?
Oh wait! You might be off the hook... if I'm too old I won't get a room... I'll get a suicide pill.
Hey thanks so much for your progressive healthcare: heal the earth but kill the inconvenient!
Just look at the healthcare that is NOT covered by insurance: elective surgery and treatments of plastic surgery, laser eye surgery, non-medical dermatology and even dental procedures.
Unfettered by government(Medicare/Medicaid) and insurance bs those specialties are thriving on a cash, reputation and services delivered basis. The patients are happy and the doctors are thrilled: they deal directly with each other.
As it should be.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 7, 2009 01:37 PMSome people like essentially one-way conversations. Twitter is good for that. Others like two-way conversations, with attemps at substance. Twitter is not good fo rthat.
Posted by: pudge on July 7, 2009 02:17 PMThanks.
Posted by: yaddacubed on July 7, 2009 02:35 PMPeople typically refer to Medicare and France as single-payer systems even though many get supplemental coverage. Perhaps it should be called "very large payer." Any American system, single-payer or not (20 years or more from now), would be uniquely American and would certainly not eliminate the private sector's vast participation in our health system. France's model, with 85% of the population having a form of supplemental insurance, is less than half of the cost per capita of our system and has the best health in the world according to the WHO.
you're still just agreeing with me
Not true.
in order to get additional coverage I'd have to go OUTSIDE the system.
First of all, it's not clear to me that supplemental insurance "APPROVES" coverage more than it pays for what would otherwise be out-of-pocket costs.
Second, you have to go "OUTSIDE the system" now because there is no system for those who don't get insurance from their employer. And if you're sick, good luck finding an insurance company. The cost for the average American to get a standard health plan for free plus supplemental insurance if you'd like it could be much cheaper than our current free market system. (This free market has led to insurance company consolidation and skyrocketing premiums, contrary to your claims.)
Government would be telling me what treatments I can't have in the system they force me into.
Not necessarily true. This is not the case in Canada or France, where much of the population has private supplemental insurance. The cost of universal single-payer + supplemental is much cheaper than our system.
Under single-payer I would pay more to get less,
In every other single-payer system in the world, folks pay less to get more. Your claim is not supported by the truth.
and then have to pay EVEN MORE to get what I actually want,
As I've said, not true.
And don't you dare compare this to private insurers who "do the same thing." It's obviously different when government forces you into a system, and even worse when they make you pay for being in a system and then you have to pay out of pocket to actually get the care you want.
The vast, vast majority of Americans have absolutely no choice in who their health insurance provider is. If they do, they typically have the choice between one or two companies. These are options?
I just started at one of the biggest companies in the country (Time Warner). I had exactly one "choice" for a health insurance company.
I want to make it clear that this is a theoretical argument. Single-payer is simply not going to happen in the next decade or more. The politics aren't ready for it, the people aren't ready for it. I do not believe that health care reform (in 2009) should be exploited as a stepping stone toward a single-payer system. It should deliver real health reform, of which many of biggest components have nothing to do with a public option. However, it is my firm belief that a public option would certainly drive down the growth health insurance costs which I think should be the primary goal. The CBO agreed with my assessment when it judged the HELP bill.
Obama would probably prefer to see the nation move to single-payer one day, as would I. It is a better system. But what pudge and others are doing are attacking Obama's motives and the policies in front of us. Neither of us know his motives. If he wanted single-payer, I'd trust he'd try to force the issue on it rather than let his "trojan horse" be subject to such a strong set of limitations that it will either be a private co-op or limited to about 20 million Americans in the health care exchange by 2020. I find the whole argument plainly childish. We're going to have a bill within a few months that contains nothing like a single-payer option, and perhaps a public option which doesn't cover many. Obama is still going to vigorously support it and Republicans here are still going to call it socialism and fascism and filibuster and other words that were recently redefined.
BTW, people who attacked me for explaining that the HELP CBO scoring was flawed never gave me the apology I should have earned when the CBO updated their HELP score and showed a cost of $600bn to insure 97% of Americans. I don't expect one, for sure, but if you follow this forum you should now recognize that folks like Dan use the politics of the moment to attack folks, say they're "spinning," rather than letting sane policies or critical thinking guide their debate.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 7, 2009 03:12 PMThanks.
Let's assume you want an expensive, somewhat unproven or not-cost-effective (
What happens now? Your private insurance company will likely deny treatment. No other insurance company will cover your pre-existing condition. Your premiums will skyrocket assuming you have a troubling condition, and this company will try to get rid of you. You may pay out-of-pocket (or try to) and go bankrupt. What can you do to fix this, assuming it's a good treatment? Be rich. How many citizens are insured? 82% under 65, ~100% above.
What happens in a post-2009 health care reform world? Your private or public insurance company will likely deny treatment. Your premiums will not change, and your insurer will not have an incentive to get rid of you. You may pay out-of-pocket and go bankrupt. You may also switch to another insurance company that will cover you. What can you do to fix this, assuming it's a good treatment? Vote in legislators to include it in public option and Medicare coverage, and perhaps mandate that all insurers in the exchange do so as well. More appropriately, scientists and health care experts on the MedPAC committee could make these recommendations whole-sale bypassing the typical legislative process. Everyone will then have access to this treatment regardless of wealth. How many citizens are insured? 97% under 65, ~100% above.
What happens under strict single-payer? Your public insurance company will likely deny treatment. You may pay out-of-pocket and go bankrupt. What can you do to fix this, assuming it's a good treatment? Vote in legislators who understand your pain. Or have a panel like MedPAC. How many citizens are insured? 100%.
What happens under modified single-payer? Your public insurance company will likely deny treatment. Your supplemental insurance may or may not approve treatment. You may pay out-of-pocket and go bankrupt. What can you do to fix this, assuming it's a good treatment? Switch to another supplemental insurance company who will pay. If none exist, then you can vote in legislators who understand your pain. Or have a panel like MedPAC. How many citizens are insured? 100%.
What happens in a "more free market" scenario? Your insurance company will deny coverage and terminate you. No insurance company will accept you or treat you. Your hospital, "free" of government subsidies for the under-insured, will not accept out-of-pocket payment unless you pay nearly all up front. You pray and hope that a charity supplies free care. You will almost certainly not get that charity nor that treatment. What can you do to fix this, assuming it's a good treatment? Become rich. How many citizens are insured? A lot less than now, especially if you eliminate Medicare as pudge described.
So, look, it's a complex debate with more nuance than some are willing to give it credit for. If you say there's no rationing in America, you need to look no further than the 18% who have no health insurance. You need to look no further than the frequent denied claims from private insurers, the magnitude of which is actually a "trade secret" but depressing nonetheless. And for all the evils of the government, we do not hear about Medicare or Medicaid rationing even if both plans need serious reform. (Medicare in particular has an over-utilization of services that cause more harm [and cost] than good.)
Posted by: John Jensen on July 7, 2009 03:42 PM"...18% who have no health insurance." Really?
54 million... 54 million Americans? Is that the number now? Is that math right? 54 million *Americans*?
That's all good, but it's four days old, isn't it? Hasn't there been some movement today on surtaxes, and soda taxes, and other medicare cuts, etc? Today?
Not that I know of, since Senate just got back in session yesterday. And almost all of that stuff is Finance committee jurisdictional. Which of course is the original point. These CBO estimates should be used to GUIDE the process, which is ever-evolving, not torpedo things for political gain. Leaping on CBO numbers early is disingenuous: it's basically attacking congress for checking their work and discovering an error. Well, we'd rather have those errors sorted out now, wouldn't we?
That said, hearing that we can cover 97% of Americans for $1-1.3T (mostly paid for by savings, not tax increases) is an exciting development for me personally.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 7, 2009 04:08 PMOK, let's do this. All you socialized ObamaCare government nanny-state advocates pay into your own fund to pay your neighbor's medical bills, and LEAVE ME ALONE. Don't wreck the most advanced, inovative such industry in the world for your utopian pipedream.
Posted by: yaddacubed on July 7, 2009 04:10 PMDidn't you say a few posts back that it was $600 billion? Did it double in the last hour? And not even cover everybody? Didn't the Senate say they want to keep it under a measly trillion?
And "I may not have that number right for "Americans" or citizens or whatever. "
Whatever...
Posted by: Gary on July 7, 2009 04:16 PMYou did not explain one bit how a "public plan" is illegal. My view the court decisions regarding the commerce clause fits. Yes, I have read the constitution, I just don't agree with your narrow-minded viewpoint. Do you get that Pudge!!! I DON"T AGREE WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION. No one made you God almighty. Your viewpoint is your viewpoint. Yes, many here may agree, but they are but one subset of society. In democracy, it isn't who speaks the loudest who has the final say. It is the majority through there votes that has the say. You lost last November. Your ideas were rejected. You can whine all you want, or you can reformulate your arguments and try to convince those who were tired of what your philosophies had done to this country to change there minds. Instead of counter arguments, however, we are left with childish name calling and insults. How about a real debate Pudge? What are you afraid of? Could it be the truth? Could it be that you may have to conceed that you are wrong on a point? I have not seen in your writings over the past year where you admit where you were wrong. I won't rule out that there may have been a case, but it sure doesn't come across that way. You come across as an arrogant, narcissistic know-it-all bully.
Posted by: tc on July 7, 2009 04:19 PM"Insults will get you nowhere. All it does is demonstrate your childish attitude to those who may disagree with you. Instead of a counter-argument, you stoop to insults. "
...
"You come across as an arrogant, narcissistic know-it-all bully."
Posted by: Gary on July 7, 2009 04:30 PMPeople typically refer to Medicare and France as single-payer systems even though many get supplemental coverage.
But EVERYONE is covered through the basic French system.
Any American system, single-payer or not (20 years or more from now), would be uniquely American and would certainly not eliminate the private sector's vast participation in our health system.
But would it eliminate private insurance? That's the goal of many on the left, including Obama and some of the people who helped write his plan.
France's model ... is less than half of the cost per capita of our system
I don't care. My liberty cannot be bought. Nothing you say about costs savings matters to me. We could also have costs savings if government controlled broadcast media and newspapers, and disallowed public protests. That sound good to you?
... and has the best health in the world according to the WHO.
False data. Again, this is for people who ARE IN the system, which in France, includes everyone.
Not true.
Yes, you are. I said under government health care, government would tell me what treatments I can't get. This is obviously true, and you agreed with it.
Second, you have to go "OUTSIDE the system" now because there is no system for those who don't get insurance from their employer.
False, and false. I am in the system, so I don't need to go outside it; and there are several options for people who don't get insurance from their employer, including paying for yourself, and getting individual insurance.
The cost for the average American to get a standard health plan for free plus supplemental insurance if you'd like it ...
Americans in general don't need supplemental insurance.
... could be much cheaper than our current free market system.
We do not HAVE a free market system. Health insurance it is the second-most regulated industry in this country, right after the financial services sector. Funny that those are the two we have the most problem with!
Not necessarily true. This is not the case in Canada or France ...
Yes, it IS necessarily true, and yes, it IS the case in both countries. Both of them deny treatment, and both of them force you into the system.
In every other single-payer system in the world, folks pay less to get more. Your claim is not supported by the truth.
Nonsense. I get all the care I need when I need it right now. Under single-payer, there is no doubt whatsoever that I would have to wait longer and get fewer treatment options.
As I've said, not true.
Oh, so now you're saying I wouldn't need to get supplemental coverage? Then why do most people in France get it?
The vast, vast majority of Americans have absolutely no choice in who their health insurance provider is.
And under single-payer, NO ONE would have ANY choice. Obviously. Besides, you're being disingenuous: if your health insurer sucks, you complain to your boss, and these complaints get heard and change can be effected if it's bad enough.
Granted, in WA we have almost no options, thanks to regulations that have forced out almost all small insurers from the market.
I just started at one of the biggest companies in the country (Time Warner). I had exactly one "choice" for a health insurance company.
But Time Warner has a choice. And you can choose to work elsewhere.
Single-payer is simply not going to happen in the next decade or more.
Unless Obama gets his way.
I do not believe that health care reform (in 2009) should be exploited as a stepping stone toward a single-payer system.
But that is what it is by design.
It should deliver real health reform, of which many of biggest components have nothing to do with a public option.
Then let's drop the public option and the health care exchange and all other new and expanded government programs and controls over prices and profits and talk about real reform FIRST.
what pudge and others are doing are attacking Obama's motives and the policies in front of us.
Yes, I am. So?
Neither of us know his motives.
Shrug. I know what he SAID his motives are, as well as the motives of some of the people who helped write his plan; and that is what I am judging him on. This is not unreasonable.
If he wanted single-payer, I'd trust he'd try to force the issue on it rather than let his "trojan horse" ...
Nonsense. You and he know single-payer would not pass now. And this isn't a "trojan horse" ... in the words of one of his plan's authors, "it's not a trojan horse for single payer, it's right there." A trojan horse is hidden. This isn't. It is designed to kill off smaller insurers, create a lack of choices, and have more people try to get into it so eventually there won't be anything left. And don't pretend for a moment that government won't abuse its position to give its health care program an unfair advantage in the market. Of course it will.
I find the whole argument plainly childish.
Shrug. Tell that to Obama and his coauthors. I am just going by what THEY SAID. Only a leftist would call it "childish" to critique Obama on his own statements.
Obama is still going to vigorously support it and Republicans here are still going to call it socialism and fascism ... and other words that were recently redefined.
You're a liar. I have already proven to you beyond any possibility of rational disagreement that the definitions in use have been in use for decades, even hundreds, of years.
This whole "GOVERNMENT WILL DENY TREATMENT" line is bull, by the way.
You mean "fact." It's necessarily true. EVERY government that supplies health care, denies it.
What you probably mean instead of the patently false claim that the statement is "bull" (which means "false") is that it's a canard or red herring or somesuch. But that's not true: again, your comparison to private companies who deny treatment is disregarded as obviously irrelevant, because that is within a market where I can make choices, rather than a system I am forced into by government. You have nothing to offer on this topic except for invalid comparisons.
The whole point is not simply "I am denied treatment." The point is "the government denied my treatment." Those are two very different things, whether you want to admit it or not.
tc: Insults will get you nowhere.
I don't see where I insulted you, but OK.
You did not explain one bit how a "public plan" is illegal.
Please stop lying. Thanks.
Yes, I have read the constitution, I just don't agree with your narrow-minded viewpoint.
Then you need to re-read it, because you obviously didn't read it very well. The power to "own and operate a business in an industry that soemtimes does interstate commerce" is not logically, linguistically, or otherwise intended to be covered by the power to "regulate commerce between the states."
Do you get that Pudge!!! I DON"T AGREE WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION.
Yes, because you don't know the Constitution very well.
In democracy, it isn't who speaks the loudest who has the final say. It is the majority through there votes that has the say.
See, case in point: this is false. When it comes to the Constitution, the majority does not have the final say. That idea of yours is anathema to the Constitution, in fact. You really need to understand the Constitution much better if you're to debate me on it.
You lost last November. Your ideas were rejected.
Actually, "I won" more races than I lost in 2008. And the ones "I lost" on were not lost on ideas, but personalities (in the case of Obama) and lies (in the case of "No Deficit" Gregoire).
How about a real debate Pudge?
That's what I've been doing. You're the one whining and going ad hominem here.
You come across as an arrogant, narcissistic know-it-all bully.
Maybe if you knew a lot more than you do, it wouldn't seem like I know so much more than you. Start by understanding why interpretation of our Constitution does not work by majority rule. Understand why "regulation" in the Constitution does not, cannot, imply "total control." Understand that the fundamental reason why our government exists is to secure our individual rights, and that health care is not a right.
None of these statements I've made should be controversial. Certainly none of our Founders would disagree with me in the slightest bit on any of them. And they'd think you're just plain anti-liberty. Which you are.
I believe a great deal of our problems with health care stem from lack of information - cost of treatment, cost of insurance coverage, effectiveness of a course of action versus price. This came home when I compared prescriptions with my doctor against the Wal-mart $4 list and which drugs could be substituted or should not based on price and effectiveness. Never mind when I make the annual decision as to what health plan to select for my company - mostly a joke with the information that is available to base an informed decision.
So, are you aware, or is anyone aware, of a source that publishes the list of what insurance companies consider "reasonable and customary" charges? A lower deductible or lower premium becomes irrelevant without knowing this. How about medicare? Do they publish their payment sheet?
Single payer, current system, better system (whatever that is) seems almost a side show without first injecting some transparency into the pricing of health care.
Posted by: BA on July 7, 2009 05:10 PMpudge, Then let's drop the public option and the health care exchange and all other new and expanded government programs and controls over prices and profits and talk about real reform FIRST.
The health care exchange is probably the biggest reform and I'm not convinced, based on previous conversations, that you have any idea what it is.
But would it eliminate private insurance? That's the goal of many on the left, including Obama and some of the people who helped write his plan.
First of all, Obama has never said that and we've already shown that single-payer countries have private insurers.
Would it? I don't know, this is some plan from the future that has yet to been crafted or even suggested. If France, Canada, and Medicare don't prevent private insurance (if supplemental), why would America?
I do think single-payer basic health insurance is simply cheaper and better for all nations that have tried it. If you try to have single-payer which mimics a "Cadillac" health insurance plan, the government can't afford it for everyone -- so leave that to the private sector. A good balance of universality for cheap and the private sector to cushion hospital stays or other treatments. I haven't fully investigated this option -- these are vague outlines -- because we wouldn't began crafting a reform like this for another 20 years and even then there would have to be a reason (health care costs, universality, etc.). Like I said, it's theoretical. However, I think many of the assertions against single-payer simply don't hold up and that is what I was addressing.
Nothing you say about costs savings matters to me.
Yes, but it matters to most Americans and you can refuse to participate in that debate at your own peril.
But Time Warner has a choice. And you can choose to work elsewhere.
I can choose my job, but I cannot choose my insurance company. I don't think I should have to wear certain clothes to choose my insurance. I don't think I should have to be a certain height to choose my insurance. I don't think I should have to quit my job to choose my insurance.
Unless Obama gets his way.
You argue like such an immature brat sometimes. This health reform doesn't seriously begin in 2014 or so. Exactly when does the single-payer plan pass, pudge? Never. It's not going to happen under Obama.
And don't pretend for a moment that government won't abuse its position to give its health care program an unfair advantage in the market. Of course it will.
Unless it doesn't. You're relying on emotional arguments far too much. Both Senate bills have significant controls on the public/co-op option, including a very restrictive set of who can join it.
You want to argue about Obama's plan from six months ago? Waste of time. I'm talking about the reality of what is in the Senate. You choose to personify the plan under the President. I choose to recognize that our constitution gives one branch the power to create laws. I hope you have not forgot your constitutional scholarship.
Americans in general don't need supplemental insurance.
Semantics game. Americans have no insurance by default. Most Western nations do. They have cheaper health care that is by the vast majority of measures better.
Shrug. Tell that to Obama and his coauthors. I am just going by what THEY SAID
Yes, and it is childish to present an argument that has nothing to do with the bills in front of legislators right now. You are arguing to argue, arguing for political gain and not actually addressing why a public option open to a small fraction of the population will lead to single payer in three or less years. It won't, of course.
I have already proven to you beyond any possibility of rational disagreement that the definitions in use have been in use for decades, even hundreds, of years.
No, you have redefined many words because you find it unable to argue on rational, logical terms. You use scary words like socialism, fascism, and even the elusive filibuster to make your case rather than evidence and citations.
But yes, you're right, some guy in France said that progressive taxation is socialism and plunder and it's obviously fact.
What you probably mean instead of the patently false claim that the statement is "bull" (which means "false") is that it's a canard or red herring or somesuch.
I know what I meant: It is a bullshit argument. It is not intellectually honest. It ignores reality.
But that's not true: again, your comparison to private companies who deny treatment is disregarded as obviously irrelevant, because that is within a market where I can make choices, rather than a system I am forced into by government.
False. You do not have a choice once you are sick.
You have nothing to offer on this topic except for invalid comparisons.
False. I have refuted your argument and you choose to change the terms in some vague way.
The whole point is not simply "I am denied treatment." The point is "the government denied my treatment." Those are two very different things, whether you want to admit it or not.
Yes, and I would argue that the government has a motive to provide health care whereas insurance companies have a to provide profits.
Some "treatments" will be denied by any system, public, private, or whatever. What needs to be evaluated, and what you seem to completely ignore, is whether those treatments are constructive or useful at all. Not every $500,000 operation is equal, right? You seem to content to leave this important moral question in the hands of companies who have little concern for social good, but the second the government involved the phrasing changes to "rationing." It's a bullshit argument, especially when not in the context of this theoretical debate. In terms of the current health care reform bill, it's brought up as a scare tactic unrelated to reality.
Unhappy with the public insurance? Switch to a private one. Unhappy with a private insurance company? Switch to the public one.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 7, 2009 05:19 PMHave you read sections 2704, a, and b? HHS gets to determine insurance company profits. Why?
Sorry, that's a question. I know how you don't like those. So, I'll re-phrase... perhaps if you'd just be honest and acknowledge that the goal is to destroy private insurance companies and end up with a single-payer system, then we could debate the merits of a single-payer system, and quit the charade.
False, and false. I am in the system, so I don't need to go outside it; and there are several options for people who don't get insurance from their employer, including paying for yourself, and getting individual insurance.
I've been buying my own insurance for the last 10 years; the first 7 as a small business owner (my company - we had between 5 and 20 employees at various times, all covered), and for the last 3 years as an individual.
My plan will most assuredly be eliminated; I will guarantee that it will be deemed "not qualifying" by the Government, meaning I will have to leave my plan (it has a $5,000 annual deductible, and that will not be acceptable to the Government).
And, because of the low income I actually make (on purpose), I will have no option but the Medicaid plan. I will not qualify for the other options.
So I guess I will just buy health insurance from an overseas company. And then end up paying the penalty here, because I choose to buy affordable insurance.
You're 100% correct, Pudge. This is all about control, it will not lower costs, and it will restrict choice.
To all you marxist, leftist, nationalized healthcare followers: how much profit should an insurance company be able to make? Anyone want to put that number out there?
And how can you explain the 12% annualized increase in Medicare costs since 1966? Yes, 12% - about triple inflation. For the public option. How is that sustainable?
You're approach is to try to slow the rate of growth, but the rate of growth is still above inflation, meaning it WILL eat up the budget, no matter what you do. The way to reduce the growth rate is to get Government OUT. Stop mandating certain coverages, minimum levels, mandatory treatments. Bring back choice...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 7, 2009 05:33 PMEither way, government (approaching nearly half the spending versus private spending now) or private - we're on a trajectory that cannot sustain itself.
Posted by: BA on July 7, 2009 06:10 PMIt is also impossible to insure a house that has already burned down, or a car that has been totaled.
In other words, what you're talking about is NOT in fact "insurance" but IS in fact "socialized medicine." We can argue the merits therein but it is disingenuous to cast this as an argument about "insurance" when the meaning of the word has been warped so completely. And that is the root of the health care "crisis" - everyone expects to get more out of it than they pay into it. A quick glance at a little thing called human nature will reveal why that doesn't work, and why socialist systems fail over and over and over.
Posted by: RookieRick on July 7, 2009 06:26 PMMy numbers come from Then national Inflation Association. In 1966, we spent $3 billion on Medicare; in 2009 we'll spend $409 billion. That's an annualized rate of 12%. Nearly triple the historical inflation rate of around 4.6% over that same period.
Even if the Obama plan cuts the rate of growth in Medicare in half, it's still well above inflation.
We are in complete agreement that this is an untenable position; it's time to turn to radical ideas to cut the rate of spending.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 7, 2009 06:55 PMIt's because Centrifuge John is simply wrong; you won't lose your coverage if you transfer jobs and plans! In fact, The HIPAA Act ensures that your insurance will cover you. Note that you can go for 63 days without insurance before a 12 month exclusionary period on pre-existing conditions kicks in.
Note that simply getting the cheapest private plan (say, Mega or Lifewise - something under $100 per month) will qualify as continuing coverage, so that the exclusionary period is delayed.
In essence, if you're out of work for more than 2 months, AND you don't want to pay $50-$100 per month for basic coverage, you MAY be excluded from pre-existing condition coverage for up to 12 months. In reality, very few people will ever see this effect unless they just don't understand the law.
Like Centrifuge John...:)
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 7, 2009 07:07 PMOBAMA OPEN TO HEALTH CARE REFORM WITHOUT PUBLIC OPTION?
Bambi will bury himself. Rest in peace/rot in hell... YOU decide.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 7, 2009 07:17 PMbut I work....and I pay....I pay and I work...I deny care for myself because the cost of care is so high because Uncle Sam since the Medicare days has made pharmaceuticals and physical therapy and xrays etc prohibitedly expensive, because the govt paid so freely to every arthritic knee any one of the Medicare seniors ever had....
the government IS the problem.....they alone have shot up prices....shot up the price of a doctor visit...shot up the prices of MRI's and CT's....
The govt alone has inflated the cost of services....
and we want that same govt now to come in and control it further....I think NOT!
the only concession I will make....all the govt workers get to have the same lousy coverage we peasants have....then, I will agree....
you stupid liberals....liberal with my sweat and tears and my money....
Health Care is a business and it operates most effectively as a business. All one needs do is visit any hospital in America and it is obvious. Physicians and other health care workers come here from all over the world to practice their trade. They will tell you that claims about other systems being better than ours are completely false, and that is part of why they came here.
The American Health Care system is the best in the world, it takes care of all American citizens who attempt to use it, as well as illegals who exploit it to the maximum. The only reforms that are needed are to get government out of it, and move the illegals back to Mexico where they belong. Veterans Health Care would be better if it was privatized, just as medicare and medicaid are.
I can understand why Rizzo would be so cavalier about our Health Care system. Given his dull witted demeanor and proclamations, real life will see to it that he is't be around long enough to use it.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 7, 2009 07:32 PMThe thing that is most revealing about the posts here is that the liberals who want an Obama style (lie and chase) single-payer Health Care system are forced to outright lie about the key issues in order to justify their preference. Otherwise they would have nothing to say. Rizzo (John Jensen who advertises that he wants to murder conservatives), is actually daft enough to believe that single-payer will not be here soon if Obama has his way. Nearly every child wants a pony when they are young. Because (of course) it would be bad for them, bad for the family, and bad for the pony, most parents humor the child until they grow up enough to face the fact that if they want a pony they must pay the price. Liberals want ponies paid for by conservatives.
I support sensible safety-net services to see to it that those who are legitimately in trouble can get what they need. This safety-net already exists and is not in need of much improvement (if any). If a liberal wants health care, I suggest they get off their inherently stupid lazy ass (See Mike, Rizzo, scottD, and torture liar) and do what is necessary to pay for it. I don't owe it to any of you morons to pay for your care. If you are outraged about the costs, quit expecting others to take care of you and join conservatives in the effort to drive costs down in an honest and fair way that preserves our individual freedom.
For now, I won't respond to this at all. I don't care what socialized health care will cost: it's wrong. Like socialized newspapers are wrong. I am not going to wade into a cost debate with someone who is merely using it to try to justify something that I disagree with on principle. (Not that you are doing that, but that's what the context of this discussion is.)
Jensen: The health care exchange is probably the biggest reform and I'm not convinced, based on previous conversations, that you have any idea what it is.
Shrug. First, I don't care what you are convinced of. Second, I know for a fact I never said anything that demonstrated I didn't know what it is. I am the one here who actually read Obama's plan, remember?
First of all, Obama has never said that
False. He has said he wants single-payer, which MEANS we WOULD NOT have private insurers.
... and we've already shown that single-payer countries have private insurers.
Such countries are not single-payer, obviously.
I do think single-payer basic health insurance is simply cheaper and better ...
And less free, so it is eliminated as a rational choice for our country.
If you try to have single-payer which mimics a "Cadillac" health insurance plan, the government can't afford it for everyone
So you finally admit I will pay more to get less. Thank you!
Yes, but it matters to most Americans ...
Because they don't realize the real issues involved here. You and your liberal fellow travelers try to make this into a debate only about cost and access, and flatly ignore the cost to liberty, not to mention the fact that it's unconstitutional.
I cannot choose my insurance company
False, obviously. If you're going to lie, don't make it so obvious.
I don't think I should have to quit my job to choose my insurance.
Right, so we need deregulation to make individual health insurance easier to get.
You argue like such an immature brat sometimes.
Coming from you, that's a compliment. You are ignoring the fact that Obama wants, and is trying to get, a single-payer system. That you dislike this fact doesn't reflect poorly on me.
Unless it doesn't.
It will. It already does, in every proposal so far: it sets up the rules of the game and then says to compete, other companies must meet the standard set by the public plan. For example. What private company gets to do that? Uh huh.
You're relying on emotional arguments
No, I am not, at all.
Semantics game.
Um. Excuse me for responding to what you said. Maybe I won't do that anymore!
They have cheaper health care that is by the vast majority of measures better.
You keep saying this as though it's true. It's not. My health care is as good or better than any health care in any country.
Yes, and it is childish to present an argument that has nothing to do with the bills in front of legislators right now.
No, it's not, in fact. It has significant relevance. I know what you're trying to do. We all know what you're trying to do. You don't like a fact so you dismiss it as irrelevant. But that doesn't actually make it so.
You are arguing to argue, arguing for political gain ...
If by "political gain" you mean "trying to defeat a system that I disagree with based on the principles I believe that system will damage," then yes, I am arguing for political gain. Guilty as charged.
... and not actually addressing why a public option open to a small fraction of the population will lead to single payer in three or less years.
You're lying with your straw man fallacy. Will you never get over your propensity for such dishonesty?
No, you have redefined many words ...
You're a liar, and I've already proven you're a liar on this point (and many others).
... because you find it unable to argue on rational, logical terms.
You're a liar. I always define my terms willingly and thoroughly, and always engage in debate about the appropriateness of not just the terms, but the meaning I give those terms.
You use scary words like socialism, fascism, and even the elusive filibuster to make your case rather than evidence and citations.
You're a liar. I use those words when appropriate, AND I always provide evidence and citations.
And due to your lies, I won't read any more of your comment.
Agreed. But the left does not want to talk about cutting costs, except in the context of massive new programs and controls. I have discussed cost cutting many times, and would love to work with the left to find ways to cut costs. They don't want to, though, because if we were successful it would harm their chances at getting socialized health passed.
Even without the public option, there's still the health insurance exchange and significant controls on existing private programs. That is now how you cut costs, through regulation and spending!
Does anyone else just skip over the slogs emitted by Dave Matthews reincarnate Jensen?
Truth will prevail (perhaps, unfortunately, after we DIE from Guvmint health'care').
Posted by: yaddacubed on July 7, 2009 09:50 PMQueen Christine also has stated that the gov plan would be on a level playing field with private plans....but how is that if the tax payers are supporting the public plan? Look at Fannie and Freddie?
Posted by: Dengle on July 7, 2009 10:05 PMthese are examples of why the gov't should be in health care:
GI bill
eisenhower's highway program
rural electification act
national parks system
federal funding of scientific research (80%)
the military (air power, b*tches)
FAA
etc/etc
let's get real: conservatives afraid of single payer/euro style health care because once americans see the successes of the program, it's the first step in a shift towards social-democratic center instead of, well... palin and her ilk. conservatives are against success for all americans, they somehow see this as encroaching on their liberties. pathetic.
gary - you never answered my question on how the number of acceptable medical bankruptcies annually... what number is ok to you? 10,000? 100,000?
the gov't alone has inflated the prices
now THAT is a blatant lie. seriously? wow.
Now answer mine. Where you get your number of 45 million Americans without health insurance?
Posted by: Gary on July 8, 2009 06:31 AMJust like you Slavers to ty to cram through legislation that runs counter to the American Public. The fact is that America is becoming more conservative. But you and your ilk hope to fool the public long enough to get your little toy (health care) to play with.
So, explain to me again how putting more people on a bankrupt system (Medicaid) will result in a lower national deficit? If you're losing money now on every client, how does increasing the number of clients solve your cash flow problem?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 8, 2009 06:32 AMYou are seriously confused. Not a single one of those items, in any way, demonstrates why goverment should be "in health care."
let's get real: conservatives afraid of single payer/euro style health care because once americans see the successes of the program, it's the first step in a shift towards social-democratic center instead of, well... palin and her ilk.
mike, not a single conservative anywhere is against government health care for this reason. You have it completely backward. We are against it because of what it is, which is more government control, more taxpayer cost (as even Jensen admitted), less liberty, and violation of the Constitution of the United States of America.
conservatives are against success for all americans
You're a liar.
they somehow see this as encroaching on their liberties
Because it obviously is precisely that. How could it not be? When government controls something, it ALWAYS is an encroachment on our liberties. This is justified when the intent and effect is to secure our rights, such as in control of the military and other law enforcement. This is not justified when the intent and effect is to take away our rights, such as in control of health care.
pathetic.
Yes. It's pathetic that you don't understand the basic arguments.
gary - you never answered my question on how the number of acceptable medical bankruptcies annually... what number is ok to you? 10,000? 100,000?
EVERYONE becoming bankrupt because of medical bills is still better than government unconstitutionally taking control of our health system.
That said, as Gary noted, you present a lie, a false dichotomy between "medical bankruptcy" and "government control."
And as Dan points out -- thankfully -- the public is just about as opposed to ObamaCare as it was to HillaryCare. That's why Rahm is looking to drop the public option, because of what it is and what it represents: government health care. This will be a significant victory for the right, but it's not enough: the bill still represents massive new government programs and regulations that will drive up taxpayer costs, if not now, due to deficit spending, then in the future.
GI bill
Rewarding soldiers/sailors who served our country, primarily from WWII. National Defense, clearly part of constitution.
eisenhower's highway program
Interstate Commerce and National Defense. Constitutional... plus it involves moving dirt and blowing things up, both things the Feds can handle.
rural electification act
Interstate Commerce and... dare I say... that sticky, overused phrase "promote the general welfare" -- this seems pretty legit. Also, involves blowing things up and moving dirt.
national parks system
General Welfare clause... although to be a real strict constructionist, I think you could argue against them. I wouldn't... I like parks...
federal funding of scientific research (80%)
Definitely National Defense and Interstate Commerce.... business needs good research. But this is a rabbit hole packed with fraud -- funds devoted to idiocies abound.
the military
National Defense. Come on, what's the Fed Govt's primary job? Keeping the shores safe.
FAA
Again, National Defense and Interstate Commerce.
The Health Care debate misses the key question: what problem are we trying to solve?
If it's the millions of uninsured, well a huge percentage of them can a) get on existing programs or b) buy the insurance themselves. A lot of people should exercise and eat right. Is it everyone's problem when they don't? Before jamming a huge tax-burden on everyone, let's try some other means of persuasion first to get these folks on board.
If it's bankruptcy protection, then identify legislation and increase the availability of high deductible catastrophic insurance -- which is really bankruptcy insurance from medical disasters.
If it's rising costs, then how about a) promoting cheaper catastrophic insurance, b) reducing the number of mandated services, and c) tort reform to reduce malpractice insurance costs, d) finding ways to get more healthy bodies in the overall insured pool which WILL reduce costs.
Again, what problem are we trying to solve?
My suspicion, is the problem the current administration is working on is finding a way to create a long term, indebted constituency that will forever continue to vote their party into office because aforementioned constituency can't afford for things to change.
The issue at hand is power.
--Jack
conservatives are against success for all americans
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Sir Winston Churchill
I will take the chance that I might fail over the guarantee that I WILL fail. One man's success does not mean another man's failure.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 8, 2009 08:51 AMAnd if we choose to not want to be *forced* to tuck them in at night, then we are called "selfish".
This is the problem I have with your comments on the subject. You start out with an assumption (that the only services the federal government can provide are those outlined in the constitution) and then attempt to argue/persuade based on that assumption. After re-reading the constitution and going through the various links, I still don't buy the underlying assumption that a public plan is unconstitutional (it can't be illegal yet if it hasn't been implemented and ruled upon).
My problems with the underlying assumption are as follows:
1. Historically speaking, the argument made today was the same one made by the Confederate States arguing that it was within their sovereign right to have slavery.
2. The amendment talks about government functions and who has the right to implement (e.g, which powers and functions are federal versus which are state's exclusive). In the case of the Health Care debate, this on the surface is not applicable. The Federal Government isn't taking away a right from states, the talk is about providing a service not being provided by the states (specifics covered in next point).
3. While the argument from the "right" (e.g., 10th amendment restoration folks) is about federal versus state powers, they are forgetting other parts of the constitution and Declaration of Independence. This is best summed up in one of the questions from (I believe) the third debate between Obama and McCain last fall. The question related to whether Health Care is a fundamental right or not. McCain did not believe it was a fundamental right, whereas, Obama answered in the affirmative. Therefore, when one argues federal versus state rights, they are missing Obama's underlying assumption. Obama believes it is a fundamental right/value enshrined in the constitution that everyone should be offered the right to health care. It is a "human" decency issue that goes the universal values this country was founded upon. It is also a civil rights issue. Therefore, the analogy with the battle over slavery is appropriate to consider. In the case of slavery, it was determined by the country that individual's rights superseded even state or federal rights. This is why I disagree, Pudge, with your assumption that the 10th amendment makes the public option of health care unconstitutional. It is because you are not addressing the fact that the constitution (and the Declaration of Independence) enshrines the rights of individuals. In fact it is duplicitous to argue on the one hand for individual right's for gun ownership and then on the other to argue that individuals don't have the right to health care.
4. Finally, while I would prefer private enterprise to offer the solution, the pragmatic side of me know that this is an impossibility. This is what you and others also fail to see. Private Insurance companies all have a fundamental bottom-line of business that they have to operate under, which is to return value to share-holders. The private insurance companies are not set up for good-will servanthood. They are responsible to their share-holders. Now, the one idea I have seen float that I think may be a good in-between is the CO-OP idea (e.g., the customers themselves own the business), but I don't see how this can get off the ground without government involvement. Also, it will be hit-and-miss, like the current situation, where some states may offer the services, while others don't.
My viewpoint is like Obama's, which he has been consistent on for several years (go back to his book Audacity of Hope, where he talked about the fundamental, universal values of America). The issue of Health Care is about an individual's rights, which trumpet any state or federal rights.
Posted by: tc on July 8, 2009 09:20 AMIndividual rights cost money? Individual rights means that one person has a right to take property from another? Which Bill of Rights are like this? Which Bill of Rights cost money?
What part of the Constitution says that an individual has a right to free medical care?
Rights must be equal, must they not?
Thanks.
Posted by: Gary on July 8, 2009 09:41 AMI'm not pudge, but I am pudgy, so let me throw a few darts at your list:
1. Slavery and States Rights. Sorry, the Declaration of Independence enumerates some of our God-given rights, including liberty. And it explicitly states that those rights are given to ALL men. Slavery violates one of the tenets of the creation of the US, even more foundational than the Constitution.
2. Re-read the 10th; those that aren't given to the Federal Government are left with the States OR the people! If health care is not a Federal issue, then it can be a State or INDIVIDUAL issue. And then it is up to the States - and the individuals therein - to make their own determination.
Having the Federal Government say "here's all this money and rules about what you must do" doesn't pass the muster for either of these positions. It's not driven by the States (the impetus is not coming from States asking for help), and it's certainly not driven by the people.
3. See my answer to number 2. And to expound on just what is a State versus Federal role in protection of rights, look at the laws surrounding homicide. Different levels of incarceration are offered by different States. The Federal Government does not prosecute you for homicide; your State does. And it has its own laws. So here we have a clear and unambiguous case of the States preserving the fundamental rights granted by the Declaration of Independence.
4. Why? I get health insurance for $160 per month, and I'm 41, male, family history of cancer, and - as alluded to earlier - am overweight. If I can get coverage for under $2000 per year, why must the Federal Government pay 3 to 5 times that amount to cover everyone else?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 8, 2009 09:47 AMSlavery violates one of the tenets of the creation of the US, even more foundational than the Constitution.
only when the constitution was written it didn't apply to slaves, furthermore 1/3 owned slaves at the time. did you finish high school?
Also, where did you get your number of un-insured Americans?
Thanks.
Posted by: Gary on July 8, 2009 10:06 AMDo I have a Right to the same medical care as Warren Buffet?
And the number of un-insured Americans? What is your source?
Thanks.
Posted by: Gary on July 8, 2009 10:15 AMSo, the problem to be solved is this then:
"Health Care needs to be a right."
So Mike, John, etc. is the fact that it currently is NOT a right the problem that needs fixing?
Because all the other topics that come up -- cost, public vs. private, access -- are all smokescreens for this one key point.
Posted by: Jack Turk on July 8, 2009 10:42 AMFunny, I don't see the words "except for slaves" anywhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Can you point them out to me?
Also, I don't see health care, or abortion, or even a 'right to privacy' anywhere in the Constitution, yet you Marxist Slavers love to bray about how they're "constitutional".
So how about you just put up or shut up - show me where the exclusion of slaves is in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Then you will have a point. Barring that, you're little more than a braying jackass...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 8, 2009 11:06 AMShanghai Dan,
On your points:
1. You are correct and this is while we as a nation decide that slavery was against the fundamental values that founded this country. This is exactly the same argument being put for by Obama (i.e., the "right" to health care is a fundamental value that dates back to the Declaration and the Preamble of the constitution). It further relates to the Equal Protection Clause (14th Amendment).
2. I have reread. My preposition is that the 10th is overruled by the 14th (plus the Preamble and the Declaration). If access to health care is a fundamental right, then it is up to the federal government to ensure that it is provided for all people. It transcends individual states preferences. It is equal protection.
3. The Federal government does prosecute for homicide, in addition to the states. For example, the homicide of a federal official is a federal offense not a state offense (re: Oklahoma City bombing). It is also a Federal offense, I believe, it it crosses state lines (although I think this would be kidnapping at the federal level and then the homicide would be in the state the crime was committed). It is also a federal crime if the homicide occurs on federal property (e.g., National Park).
4. Good for you that you can get the health insurance. Many can not, even in this state. My son, who is unemployed at the time, can not even get the State's Unified Health plan, due to the limitation the legislature put on enrollees. There is a huge waiting list for the State's plan. We (as parents) are willing to pay for it, but he can't get on the plan. I assume you are working, so even $200/mo isn't too bad (i.e., it is about what the average worker covered by an employer plan would pay, individually, for the employer's plan). For someone, who is unemployed, however, this is a lot. For a typical family of four, if you go here you can see that even with Premera's "Value Plan" options, the cost for their lowest cost option would be $358/mo (under 25, non-smoking, $1000 deductible). I know, several years ago, at my prior church, I was on the finance committee and we where looking for plans for a new worship leader and his family, the cheapest at that time for the area was Group Health, which was over $400/mo.
You are correct that the words "except for slaves" is not contained in either the Declaration of Independence or the constitution. In watching the History channel over the weekend, there was a series about the Revolution and the writing of the Declaration of Independence. It it the documentary discussed how slavery was one of the most contentious issues in coming up with the final Draft of the Declaration. (Per the documentary) Jefferson agonized over the exact words (relating to the "all men" phrase in the introduction of the Declaration). Jefferson's early drafts went so far as to include slaves in the definition, but this was taken out through the iterations of the drafts in order to win Southern states approval. I believe it might have been one of the final stumbling blocks that delayed the Declaration's signing for a couple of days (per the documentary -- Adams declared that the signing would be on July 2nd).
OBTW, while the words didn't exist, it was understood and thus the reason for the 13th Amendment to make it clear.
It is funny how the modern day 10th amendment proponents mirror the Southern States arguments, using the 10th amendment to justify slavery. In fact, you will also find the fact that the "10th amendment" proponents have another thing in common with the slavery proponents, which is also the call for succession. In fact, you even have 10th amendment proponent governors tacitly supporting the succession effort (e.g., Rick Perry of Texas).
Posted by: tc on July 8, 2009 11:48 AMMy comment is long. If you would like a summary, it is this: you offer no reason for anyone to believe the nonsensical idea that forcing other people to provide you with health care is a right; you engage in significant use of the question-begging fallacy to that end; and you misread the plain language of the 10th Amendment when you claim that if the states don't do something, that the federal government can do it.
You clearly do not understand the concept of rights, and I suggest you watch this video. I don't stand by everything it says to the letter, but it is a good primer to the concept of liberty and the rights of people over each other, that you are advocating.
To appease you, I did go back through last night and reread the constitution.
Don't do it for me.
You start out with an assumption (that the only services the federal government can provide are those outlined in the constitution)
False. I start out with the fact that the only powers the federal government has are those that are enumerated by the Constitution, or denied by the Constitution to the states, which includes powers that are "necessary and proper" (implied) to execute the other Article I, Section 8 powers.
Thw power to own and operate health insurance for the general public obviously falls under none of those categories: it is not enumerated or implied, nor is it denied to the states.
... and then attempt to argue/persuade based on that assumption.
That fact.
(it can't be illegal yet if it hasn't been implemented and ruled upon).
False. That makes no sense whatsoever. It is de facto illegal if it violates the Constitution, whether or not it's been ruled as such. And even if it has been ruled to be legal, it's still illegal. The touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself, not what the Supreme Court has said about it.
Historically speaking, the argument made today was the same one made by the Confederate States arguing that it was within their sovereign right to have slavery.
Oh, come on. This is a the genetic fallacy, which is a form of the red herring fallacy, trying to discredit a view based on an unrelated connection to another view. This is also the same argument that California used to enact tougher-than-federal environmental laws; does that mean those environmental laws are in any way diminished because the same constitutional argument was made to try to benefit slavery? Of course not. You're just spouting gibberish there.
The amendment talks about government functions and who has the right to implement
It talks about ALL exercise of government power, not just "government functions," whatever that means. Anything the federal government does is an exercise of power, and if it is not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the states, it is reserved to the states and to the people, respectively.
In the case of the Health Care debate, this on the surface is not applicable. The Federal Government isn't taking away a right from states ...
You're wrong. Read it again. This power is RESERVED TO the states. It is completely and utterly wrong to say that because the states aren't doing it, the federal government can do it. The 10th Amendment is not a doctrine of pre-emption, that says "if the states do it, the federal government has to back off." It literally and explicitly says that the federal government cannot do it at all.
While the argument from the "right" ... is about federal versus state powers, they are forgetting other parts of the constitution and Declaration of Independence.
False. It's liberals who ignore both: for example, almost no liberal today would agree that the reason we have government is to secure individual rights to life, liberty, and property ... but that's what the Declaration of Independence says. Liberals hate that because it means they can't generally restrict individual rights for the "common good." To try to remain consistent, they have to do things like re-invent everything as a "right."
The question related to whether Health Care is a fundamental right or not. McCain did not believe it was a fundamental right, whereas, Obama answered in the affirmative.
Correct. Obama invented a new right (or copied others who had done so before him), whereas McCain stuck by the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, which give no hint of such a right to force other people to give you health care. Great example.
Obama believes it is a fundamental right/value enshrined in the constitution that everyone should be offered the right to health care.
Exactly. He ignores the actual Constitution.
It is a "human" decency issue that goes the universal values this country was founded upon. It is also a civil rights issue.
False on both counts. You will not find anywhere in our founding documents or debates or other speeches or writings anything remotely similar to the concept of anyone having a right to be given something that has to be provided, by force, by other citizens. And it is not a matter of "human 'decency'" to force me to give anything to anyone.
Charity, of course, is a matter of human decency. Forced charity, however, is not charity. Charity has to come from the heart and be voluntary. Socialists and their ilk think that society can be forced into doing good: it cannot be. Good comes more from why we do what we do, than what we actually do.
In the case of slavery, it was determined by the country that individual's rights superseded even state or federal rights.
That happened before the Constitution existed. It happened on July 4th, 1776. That's what the Declaration of Independence says, that we have unalienable rights, and that the purpose of government is to secure them. But the Declaration does not say, or imply in any way, that you have a right to have your government force other people to give you health care. That is not a right.
Your whole argument here hinges on the completely nonsensical notion -- historically, and logically -- that forcing other people to give you health care is a right. It's not.
This is why I disagree, Pudge, with your assumption that the 10th amendment makes the public option of health care unconstitutional.
This is the crux: I do agree that IF you could demonstrate that forcing other people to give you health care is a right, then the normal restrictions of the 10th Amendment do not prohibit the government from providing health care to the general public. However, you cannot demonstrate that. You can't even begin to do so. There's no rational basis for the claim.
It is because you are not addressing the fact that the constitution (and the Declaration of Independence) enshrines the rights of individuals.
Nonsense. I address that fact every day. It's the basis of everything I write on these subjects. And it's because I know this so well and hold it of such high importance that I won't allow you to invent rights that don't exist as a means to manipulate our system to your ends.
You are engaging, repeatedly, in the question-begging fallacy. You assume -- without any evidence or support of any kind, other than that Obama agrees -- that health care is a right, and then you accuse me of ignoring the Declaration of Independence because I don't believe the federal government may legally provide health care. That is warped and twisted and fallacious reasoning.
In fact it is duplicitous to argue on the one hand for individual right's for gun ownership and then on the other to argue that individuals don't have the right to health care.
More of the question-begging fallacy.
while I would prefer private enterprise to offer the solution, the pragmatic side of me know that this is an impossibility.
No, it's not.
This is what you and others also fail to see.
Because it's not true, and you offer no reason to believe it IS true other than to imply that somehow money makes people do bad things. And you foolishly imply that government is somehow immune to this.
My viewpoint is like Obama's, which he has been consistent on for several years
And wrong, and illogical, and irrational, and anti-constitutional, for all of those years.
the "right" to health care is a fundamental value that dates back to the Declaration and the Preamble of the constitution
Simlpy put: false. And again, you have not offered ANY argument supporting this incredible claim.
If access to health care is a fundamental right ...
You're correct, IF it is a right, then the federal government has not just a legal right to provide it, but an obligation to. But it's not a right.
Right, tc. Jefferson and others DID believe that slaves had the same unalienable rights to life, liberty, and "pursuit of happiness."
I should note that this argument was one of the key points of the debates between Lincoln and Douglas in 1858. Douglas contended that slaves were not included in the Declaration of Independence. Lincoln contended, convincingly, that they were. I note wistfully that Republicans and Democrats (if mike is representative of the Dems) have apparently not changed their positions on this issue in the last 150 years.
So when I asked how many Americans didn't have insurance, you chose to give me a number that included people who aren't Americans.
That's okay, John did you one better with "If you say there's no rationing in America, you need to look no further than the 18% who have no health insurance."
Which is like 54 million.
Maybe we'd care more if you said a gazillion-trillion. What did Nancy Pelosi say... we're losing 500 million jobs per month? So, we're creating people who don't exist just to say that their jobs are being lost.
Do you know where Barack met Michelle?
Posted by: Gary on July 8, 2009 12:21 PMI would agree with you that if one does agree that "health care" is not a right, then the 10th amendment arguments can come into play. I don't agree, however, with your depiction of what a "right" is. To me, when the Declaration states "... unalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness," it is covering the fact that individual do have a right to their health and right to service to protect their health. When the preamble to the Constitution states "... establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility,..., promote the general welfare" it covers an individuals right to health services. When the 14th amendment states "... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" it covers basic essential health services. None of these cover providing of non-essential health services, but to state that because of a persons employment status, or because of a pre-existing condition, for example, they are not entitled to receive essential health care is (to me) uncaring and against the basic values embodied in the references I provided above. The problem exists today is that private insurance companies are not in the job of humanitarian services. They only cover who they deem profitable to cover. You can not force private insurance companies to forgo profitability for humanitarian/basic value needs. It would be nice if they did, but you can't for private insurers. Therefore, it is up to the government to "make up" the gap in service that can not be provided by private entities. Just like roads and other utilities, where there it is often not profitable to provide) basic, essential health care, falls into the same category. To take your side of the argument means, there is no reason for federal highways or interstate. There is no reason for federal funding of the research that provided technologies such as those developed by NASA, or the Internet, itself. At the state and local level, there is not "requirement" to provide sewer or water. Heck, we might as well be a third world country with everyone left to their own devices (taking your stand to the extreme point).
What I am stating is this is a "gray" area. It is not black and white, like you make it out to be. Either extreme (no services and all services) is forgoing the intent of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. To state, however, that an individual doesn't have right to essential health care, in my opinion, is wrong and equal to saying slavery is okay. It is a civil right issue. I don't want to provide non-essential health care needs, but I do believe we as a society do need to provide for the essential health care of our citizens. It is not only a moral issue, it is a practical, economic issue. The current state is we don't provide a universal coverage directly, but we provide it indirectly through the costs being passed onto those who have insurance. Why do you think health care costs are rising so much? It isn't the gold plated services. We pay one way or another. I would prefer to have some say, up front, than have the costs hidden in increased premiums.
Posted by: tc on July 8, 2009 12:57 PMSo...?
California is issuing IOU's (which come with a 3.5% added price on each dollar owed) because it cannot manage its budget. It cannot manage its budget and yet we want government to manage our families' medical care? We want the government to control the Earth's climate?
Massachusetts is now rationing its healthcare services. "But... but... if just nationalize, there won't be an rationing!"
Right.
I'd think the plain language of providing Congress having the power to provide for "the common Defense and general Welfare" is a rather large hole to drive a healthcare plan through...
I'm not sure a constitutional argument about this will carry the day.
Posted by: BA on July 8, 2009 01:11 PMI have a right to health? Oh, boy! I can never get sick again! Thank you, thank you!
Please... we have *no* right to any *thing*. We have rights to *pursue* our own medical care, or not. We do not have the right to make someone else take care of us.
Where the hell does this stuff come from?
tc, do I then have the same exact right to medical care as Senator Kennedy, or you, or Warren Buffett, or Bill Gates? The same right?
I demand... it is my *right*... to have a doctor check my health every single day, paid for by you.
Doesn't that "protect my health"? I have a right to the best foods available, paid by you. Does that "protect my health" too?
What other *things* do I have personal Constitutional rights to? Do I have right to be *given* a firearm, or do I have right to get one if I choose to pay for one myself?
The "pursuit of Happiness" is just that... the pursuit, the effort, the desire to advance yourself without the government telling you that you cannot.
Medical care is "individual welfare".
The key being the fundamental nature of a right as actually contained within the constitution versus an extra-constitutional entitlement under the disguise of a "right". Health Care is not a right, it is a business.
Unfortunately liberals are not reasoned into their ideas but attempt to re-fashion facts (our Constitution) to support their fantasies. I seriously doubt that Pudge changed tc's mind, but set the record straight very well. While I speculate that Pudge doesn't expect to necessarily change minds, the facts need to be stated accurately from time to time. His post at # 153 did that very well.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 8, 2009 01:25 PMBack it up. Why won't you do that? I know why: because there's no justification for your claim. Not in the words, not in the history, not in contemporary documents of any kind, not in the philosophical history Jefferson drew from. Nowhere in these things will you ever find justification for claiming that the Declaration of Independence recognizes a right to obligate other people to give you health care.
When the preamble to the Constitution states "... establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility,..., promote the general welfare" it covers an individuals right to health services.
Again: there is no justification for your claim. All you are doing is making baseless assertions.
to state that because of a persons employment status, or because of a pre-existing condition, for example, they are not entitled to receive essential health care is (to me) uncaring
It is not "uncaring" to recognize the fact that people have no right to obligate other people to give them things.
... and against the basic values embodied in the references I provided above.
Except that those basic values NOWHERE imply a right to obligate other people to give them things. You assert it, but you do not in any way back up your assertion.
To state, however, that an individual doesn't have right to essential health care, in my opinion, is wrong and equal to saying slavery is okay.
Um. Except for the part where the Declaration of Independence says that all people have the unalienable right to liberty, and does NOT say that all people have the right to force others to give them health care.
You're being extraordinarily irrational.
It is a civil right issue.
You keep saying that, and yet you never go beyond merely asserting it.
I do believe we as a society do need to provide for the essential health care of our citizens
The Declaration of Independence and Constitution do not agree with you. You've not even attempted to demonstrate that they do.
It is not only a moral issue ...
To me it mostly is a moral issue. It is immoral to violate my rights to liberty and property by inventing a "right" of other people to take both away from me. It is immoral to violate my 10th Amendment rights by giving power to the federal government it does not have.
I would prefer to have some say, up front, than have the costs hidden in increased premiums.
I would prefer we respect REAL rights and REAL laws -- not the ones you and Obama make up out of thin air.
It is a description of what follows. A preamble of sorts. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States ..." That describes the enumerated powers that follow.
I'd think the plain language of providing Congress having the power to provide for "the common Defense and general Welfare" is a rather large hole to drive a healthcare plan through...
Or anything else. So if this is how it is meant to be read, then explain what the 10th Amendment means. According to your reading, the federal government is not seriously limited, since almost anything can be considered "general welfare."
But that isn't how it works. No one involved in constitutional law believes that it has ever seriously been interpreted that way. This is why so many cases have gone to the Supreme Court regarding whether a federal power is allowed via the commerce clause. Remember Raich, the medical marijuana case? If "general welfare" were as broad as you think it seems to be, then it never would have even gotten to the Supreme Court: the lower courts would have just said, "the Congress says this is general welfare." Instead, to justify the law, they had to demonstrate a relationship to the interstate commerce regulatory power.
If you don't believe me, believe James Madison, who wrote much of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment.
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their Own hands; they may a point teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit of the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare. ... I venture to declare it as my opinion, that, were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America ...
And perhaps the most succinct and telling quote from Madison:
If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.
I'm not sure a constitutional argument about this will carry the day.
Probably not, but only because our government does not actually follow the Constitution; not because my argument isn't convincing. As Madison said, because of people who ignore the law, who despise the law and the very nature of limited government we established, we no longer have that government, but an unlimited one subject to particular exceptions. Which means, necessarily, that we are less free.
And I won't stand by and just let it continue. I will fight against continued transgressions against our liberty. "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." -- John Philpot Curran
Look the reality is we already provide the service today, in part. Most emergency rooms won't turn away a patient in dire need, but there is no universal governance of the practice. The costs for the uninsured are a hidden tax on us all, which is not collected in the open, but instead behind the closed doors of private insurance companies. We are being taxed without representation by these private entities. You don't want public option fine. How do you solve the problem with providing essential health services to the uninsured? One way or another we all pay for it. I would much prefer to have it out in the open and controllable by those we elect to represent us than by private insurance companies whose concern is the bottom line and not society.
This isn't an issue of forcing you or I to "give" something to someone else. That is like saying I am forced to provide you a highway to drive on. No, it is a matter of government filling the gap where private industry, because of its very nature, can not provide. Private industry can not and should not be held accountable for the uninsured, but we as a society should be held accountable. "To whatever you do to the least of these, you have done to me." You want to know where Obama is coming from, it is in his statements, like "we are our brother's keeper," and it is from the Sermon on the Mount. No one forces us to be our brother's keeper, but to neglect our brother (or sister) in need, to deny them basic life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because of our own selfishness, is not where Obama (and myself) are coming from. You are putting self above others. Who are you to say that the unemployed can not get care? That is what you are stating. Your position is morally indefensible. It is based on self first and not "we the people." It is not based on creating a "more perfect union." You are paralyzed by your ideology that you ignore the present and the suffering. Yes, it would be nice if charity did it all. I have news for you, it won't. Private enterprise won't provide the service. There isn't a payback for them. Whom do you think is supposed to care for the uninsured?
Posted by: tc on July 8, 2009 02:12 PMYou are wrong. France and Canada and many other single-payer countries have supplemental health care insurance. You are re-defining another commonly accepted term, AGAIN.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 8, 2009 02:12 PMThe most commonly accepted and historical interpretation of the 10th amendment is that it is a truism. That is, the government powers are already enumerated and limited, and that the 10th amendment does nothing to further that.
However, given that General Welfare is enumerated, it's not a discussion worth pursuing.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 8, 2009 02:18 PMYou. If you care. But you cannot (nor can I) force someone else to care about what *you* think they should care about.
There is a fundamental principle here that you cannot grasp. Freedom.
Posted by: Gary on July 8, 2009 02:20 PMThe common liberal interpretation of the "General Welfare" clause gives congress broad powers to legislate in the "public interest." To liberals this means that the Federal Government could establish a right to Health Care, but it would require an amendment to the Constitution to be a legitimate recognizable right. To do so otherwise through legislative fiat would violate the constitution because such a right simply does not exist in the constitution.
The right to privacy does not exist in the constitution either, but since liberals have violated the constitution to achieve a prohibition against abortion laws, they may well successfully do so for health care as well. While that certainly does not mean it would be constitutional, the liberals who want unlimited right to abortions only care about the constitution when it can be perverted to supply them with their desires. The idea proposed that Amendment ten of the constitution is an argument for a "right" to health care is an example of the anti-constitutional constitutionalism liberals are famous for. Another is nominating a racist clown like Sotomayor as a justice to participate in the "Legal-legislative" process. It makes absolutely no logical or moral sense, but why should they start now?
This is why it is vital to everyone to be as clear and accurate as possible when engaging in the dialectic concerning constitutional law.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 8, 2009 02:20 PMI was thinking this in the context of one of your previous points that the constitution doesn't say what the Supreme Court interprets it to say, but instead what is says.
As you said "The touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself, not what the Supreme Court has said about it."
So, I read what it says.
Now I understand you're saying the Constitution says what it says, plus what constitutional scholars say is says, plus what the Court has interpreted it to say, plus what the authors said about what they intended it to say.
Which is why I think the argument about health care resides in another place than arguing constitutional validity.
Posted by: BA on July 8, 2009 02:20 PMOtherwise, why even have states? Why don't we just centralize everything? (please don't give 'em any ideas)
Posted by: Gary on July 8, 2009 02:25 PMAlso, tc, do I have the same medical care right as you?
Posted by: Gary on July 8, 2009 02:32 PMRegards to your doctor's question, that is a question of supply versus demand and is independent of who "pays" for which services. It is like stating that we can't have highways because we don't know if we will have enough construction workers to maintain the highway.
In my mind, you do have the same right to "essential" medical services that I may have and that the unemployed worker may need. Your "right" to "essential" health services should be only based on whether you are a citizen or not. In my mind, the whole issue of illegal immigrants and legal visitors is outside the basic question of what rights do US citizens have.
Posted by: tc on July 8, 2009 02:59 PMCool. So I can demand the government give me any medical I want? I can decide what is "essential".
Sweet.
First, you're a liar. I know how you hate "name-calling," but YOU claimed that I am putting my self first; YOU claimed that I say unemployed people should not have health care. None of that is true. None of that is implied. You made it up just because you have no actual argument against me. And because you're a liar.
When Christ said to help others, he didn't say to use government to force people to help others. Just like you and Obama misrepresent the clear and plain reading of our founding documents, you're now misrepresent the clear and plain reading of the words of Christ. Christ was all about us individually CHOOSING to do what is good, not being FORCED to do so by government.
Further, you lie when you say you are not trying to force anyone to give to someone else. That is precisely what you're doing. Health care doesn't come out of thin air: if you have a "right" to it, and you can't get it yourself, then you force me to give it to you.
Finally, you still refuse to back up your assertions that any such "right" exists. All you do is assert it, assert it, and assert it again. You provide nothing more than assertions. At all. You make nonsensical claims that if I am not forced to keep you alive, then somehow your right to life is abridged. Again: you cannot back this up with anything other than assertions.
If it is paid for by individuals, then it IS NOT SINGLE PAYER. That would be MULTIPLE PAYER. That is what the words mean. Single is one. Anything more than that isn't single.
I shouldn't have to explain basic math to you, Jensen ... like I do with tc, who doesn't know that "most" means "more than half."
The most commonly accepted and historical interpretation of the 10th amendment is that it is a truism. That is, the government powers are already enumerated and limited, and that the 10th amendment does nothing to further that.
Madison agreed with you. But many people wanted it explicit, so he obliged them. However, you are simply committing the begging the question fallacy, since the point is that "general welfare" is so broad that it renders the powers of the federal government virtually limitless.
given that General Welfare is enumerated
False, of course. Here, Madison disagrees with you, quite passionately. There's no serious argument in your favor here.
BA: So, I read what it says.
Right. And it CAN linguistically be read either way: the problem is that if you read it broadly, as Jensen wants, it makes literally no sense, logically or historically. Read the Federalist Papers and tell me that a virtually unlimited government -- restrained only by what Congress decided was in the "general welfasre" -- was what Hamilton and Madison had in mind. You cannot. On the contrary, Madison wrote in Federalist 45, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." How can a virtually unlimited federal government be said to have "few and defined" powers?
It's nonsense on its face.
Which is why I think the argument about health care resides in another place than arguing constitutional validity.
You didn't actually make that case. You appear to be saying there's some confusion about the proper interpretation of "general welfare." There's not. There's only people with agendas, like Jensen, trying to twist it into something it was never intended to mean ... something it literally cannot mean, and still make an ounce of sense.
Literally, the words "general welfare" have no meaning, except to state the purpose of, the idea for, the following enumerated powers. Interstate commerce and post roads are general welfare. Health care is not. How do we know? Because it isn't listed there. There is no serious debate on this subject ... just Jensens with agendas.
If access to health care is a fundamental right,
I think that is the crux of the matter; I (and most assuredly most of the conservatives on this site) do not accept that presupposition. And I believe that - if health care is shown to not be a fundamental right - you would agree with our position.
It all hinges on what is a fundamental right, which gets into the whole general Welfare clause. What is done for the general Welfare, as defined in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution?
My personal belief is that it applies only to the powers enumerated to the Federal Government. It can only operate to provide for the general Welfare of the States (not individuals) within those constraints. So that strikes a lot out - health care, education, SSI/Medicare, etc. The general Welfare clause is more an introduction of why the powers that make up Section 8 of Article 1 exist (we need to do X, so here are the functions Y to achieve it):
- Borrow money from other nations;
- Regulate commerce with foreign nations, between States, and with the Indian Tribes;
- Establish immigration and bankruptcy rules;
- Coin money, and establish weights and measures;
- Punish counterfeiters;
- Deliver the mail;
- Provide copyrights and patents;
- Provide lower courts;
- Take care of pirates;
- Declare war and regulate how our military behaves;
- Create the army, navy, and military;
- Create a national militia (National Guard);
- Arm and train the national militia;
- Set the rules for Federally-owned property;
- To make laws establishing how these functions are carried out.
Given that list, I do not see anything that applies to the benefit of the individual. The closest you can get is copyrights and patents, yet those were predominantly for regulation of commerce! And in fact, along with the coining of money and establishing of weights and measures serves to simply standardize the process of manufacturing and payment. A pound is a pound everywhere, a bushel is a bushel, and you get to keep your invention when you move from Virginia to another State.
In this context, and looking at the rest of the Section 8, I do not see where specific benefits for the individual come about. I see protection for how they are dealt with in relating to their State or the Federal Government (bankruptcies, copyrights, patents, money, etc). I do not see a requirement to give benefits to individuals based upon need or desire; in fact, the vast bulk of Section 8 (13 of the 17 clauses) deal with foreign relations either directly (commerce) or indirectly (maintenance of armies and the like)!
Given that, I would argue that Section 8's general Welfare clause grants the Federal Government the powers needed to promote these United States internationally, by setting taxation, trade, and protection (both intellectual and property, via counterfeiting, weights, and bankruptcy) rules to stimulate foreign investments. It is not about making sure that Johnny can read; it is about making sure that Johnny will have a job.
This is a subtle distinction! Johnny may need to read to DO the job, but that is his responsibility; the Government will do what it can to make sure jobs exist. It is the role of the Government to promote the economic Welfare to create jobs; it is the role of the individual to prepare themselves to fill such jobs.
HOWEVER, I know that viewpoint is not widely accepted, and probably in the minority (not wrong, just not widespread...:). So we must then assume that general Welfare means not just the States but the people. But then, I would argue that there must be equal protection under the law, as that is also a requirement of the Constitution!
Thus having sliding scales of taxation with capped benefits would not be equal protection; some receive disproportionately compared to what they contribute. The Federal Government is then violating its own regulations regarding equal protection; the rich man pays much more for much less, so to speak.
So, if we are to assume that the general Welfare clause is an actual power (rather than an explanation of why the laundry list of powers that follow were enumerated), then the promotion of the general Welfare must be equal under the law. Everyone must receive from it equally, and must contribute equally.
If nationalized health care costs $5,000+ per year per person, then everyone must pay the same amount, and receive the same care - no limits, no exemptions. Otherwise we are not providing equal protection under the law.
So, I guess that's where I would come down. First, the general Welfare clause does NOT give authority to Congress to supply health care. But if we go ahead and break that concept anyway, then we must at least stick to the Constitutional concept of equality; all pay equally for the same benefit.
I don't think you can argue that a health care plan will provide more benefit to a rich man, over a poor man. All receive the same benefit, thus the costs borne must be equal as well.
It is a prickly thicket however you turn!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 8, 2009 03:46 PM-
Exactly. That's why I've been asking if I have the same exact medical care right as Senator Kennedy.
If I don't, then my rights are being violated, aren't they?
As for the rest of your points - I don't disagree. I have a strong suspicion that I'm disproportionally supporting with my taxes (actually if those who post here are representative of our population as a whole I know I am) a lot of free-riders and anything that equalizes tax rates will only be positive for me.
Posted by: BA on July 8, 2009 04:00 PMThat's a typo on my part! It should have said:
- Create the army and the navy, - the military;
The word "military" is meant to summarize what is created, not to BE what is actually created.
And I have no problem with recombining the Air Force with the Army! The Marines should be subsumed within the Navy, too... Duplication is an issue, and I think it would streamline the deployment of our forces.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 8, 2009 04:16 PMHer Hero is Obama, who after trowing trillions after the econamy, with no positive Job growth or economic turnaround results wants to throw another trillion or two after a loosing strategy.
Screw his massive Cap and trade tax hike and job killer, it is dead,
and his socialization of medicine is also dead.
it is why his approval ratings are plumeting at Rasmussen.
He and Gregoire have only one goal, bankrupting America and growing government. All the money he has sent to states has not hired a single individual, it has just preserved and grown government jobs.
Posted by: GS on July 8, 2009 04:17 PM
How do you figure? Where in the Constitution does it imply that the army is one entity? Indeed, it implies otherwise when it says "armies." And certainly no implication is made that each army must be a land force, primarily or solely. There is nothing in Article I, Section 8 that in any way could be used to disallow an Air Force.
I'm reading the constitution narrowly now per Pudge.
I do not read the Constitution narrowly. I read it as it is written. Big difference. In fact, many "strict constructionists" might take issue with how broadly I believe the powers of the Congress are, due to the "necessary and proper" clause. Scalia gets into trouble here with conservatives, too. But unlike liberals, I do not take "necessary and proper" to be a blanket grant of power to the Congress to do whatever it sees fit.
They absolutely are, if Senator Kennedy has the same plan. Unfortunately, I don't think the nationalized health care plan called for in Kennedy Dodd will apply to Congressmen! Thus your right is not violated since they have a different plan.
Now, I don't think it's fair they have a different set of benefits, but I cannot think of a legal reason why they must have the same benefits. I believe there is a VERY strong moral and ethical reason, but not a legal one. Salaries are different, so benefits can be different, too...
The fact they will fall back on "well, it's not illegal" says more about the reason most pursue a career in politics than they care to admit!
His students deserve a refund.
Posted by: yaddacubed on July 8, 2009 04:23 PM"This bill will add substantially to the long-term spending burden for health care on the federal government."
-
The CBO told us in February that the Stimulus bill would do the same thing. And it will, and for no benefit at all, as it has clearly failed.
And this health care obligation, costing over a trillion dollars will *still* leave 10 to 20 million un-insured *Americans*.
Posted by: Gary on July 8, 2009 04:43 PMSo France, Canada, and Medicare are not single-payer? Another pudge redefinition.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 8, 2009 04:51 PM"And Mr. Obama signalled this week that the United States would likely agree to a push to set policies to limit global atmospheric temperature increases to two degrees above preindustrial temperatures, regardless of the cost."
-
"...regardless of the cost".
He's telling us exactly how he is going to destroy the economy, for the *fantasy* keeping the Earth's temperature 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Which "pre-industrial levels".... 200 years ago, or 800 years ago?
You liberals are out of your friggin' minds. It's not even funny anymore.
Posted by: Gary on July 8, 2009 04:52 PMSo France, Canada, and Medicare are not single-payer? Another pudge redefinition.
Apparently you don't know what it means:
of, relating to, or being a system in which health-care providers are paid for their services by the government rather than by private insurers
So if health-care providers are paid for their services by private insurers, then it is - by definition - NOT single payer.
To argue the Madisonian position without acknowledging that his contemporary's views have long dominated interpretations of the clause is academic at best.
To argue that the Hamiltonian position is not preferred by Government because it gives Government unbridled power is disingenuous at best.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 8, 2009 05:15 PMThe Hamiltonian position is case law and it is what the constitution is read as. If you want to change that interpretation, then I guess your only choice is to amend the constitution. Selectively deciding which federal programs are unconstitutional to give your political arguments some sense of moral authority is unconvincing.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 8, 2009 05:23 PMNo, the alternative is to correct the interpretation. Case law can be changed, and it should be.
Selectively deciding which federal programs are unconstitutional to give your political arguments some sense of moral authority is unconvincing.
Then the Constitutional basis for nationalized health care is?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 8, 2009 05:32 PMC'mon people. Snap out of it!
The Constitution gives *us* the power over these issues, not Congress.
The Constitution gave *us* the power over these issues, and liberals judges took it away with Roe v. Wade.
You are certainly right to say,C'mon people, snap out of it, but don't hole your breath.
If this thread proves anything, it proves that liberals are utterly beyond reason and will only respond to violent force.
It will take Radical Muslims (or the equivalent) who hate liberals to solve this and the president they elected is working overtime to bring them what they need.
Best get your survival stuff gathered together.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 8, 2009 06:03 PM
[Hamilton's view of the General Welfare clause] is clearly case law since Butler
If that were true, then Raich never would have gone to the Supreme Court, because the government would not have had to justify it on commerce clause grounds, but only on "general welfare" grounds. As usual, you're completely wrong.
Hamilton's view -- that "general welfare" was a complete license to the federal government to do anything it wished, so long as it was general, and not local -- has been consistently repudiated by our courts, from Hamilton forward. There have been a few cases where the Supreme Court got it wrong, especially in the first half of the 20th century. Thankfully, we've come back to correcting many of their errors. And yes, there is no doubt this was an error, unless -- like Justice Breyer -- you hate the rule of law, and believe that what the law SAYS doesn't actually matter. Which is, of course, the case: like Breyer, you are a consequentialist, and you care only about the ends, and will twist the argument in any way you can to mee those ends.
If you want to change that interpretation ...
There's nothing to change. Again, Raich proves this.
Selectively deciding which federal programs are unconstitutional ...
Stop lying. No one is doing that. We are actually following the clear and plain text of the Constitution. You are not. And when you lose the argument on its merits, you say "well this court (75 years ago) agreed with me" ... and then you dishonestly pretend that it's the common interpretation today.
Medicare Costs Have Risen Far More than the Costs of Private Health Care.
Oops. So much for the "nationalized plan will save money" spin that's being thrown about. It turns out that it will cost us even more money. So we'll shift private spending to higher Government spending - that'll solve our deficit!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 8, 2009 07:06 PMOh, and the CBO just slapped another $500 billion on to the cost of the bill today, so it's over a trillion dollars, and it still leaves millions without health insurance.
Steny Hoyer said no Congressman would vote for the bill if they actually had to read it.
Oh, and our EPA administrator told Congress this today:
"I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels."
So, when Obama said we must stop global warming regardless of cost, he was only talking about the cost to his own country (the United States in case you were wondering) and not to other countries, namely China and India. The House wrote in a tariff on goods from other countries that aren't having to abide by the cap-and-trade burdens, and Obama told them to get it out of there. He does not want a trade war. No. He'd rather just lose the trade war before it even starts.
He is *telling* us how he is going to destroy the economy.
Oh, and the new surtax on people making over $250k... no problem... they just won't hire anybody new, or will layoff a few folks. That will lead Obama to raise taxes even more, rinse and repeat until it all collapses.
C'mon people! Wake the hell up!
Though I meant what I said at # 174 rhetorically, your comment is true enough.
Unfortunately for the rest of us these nitwits are as awakened as they will ever get. It's sort of like attempting to relate to zombies.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on July 8, 2009 08:05 PMAre you trying to reach a 20% unemployment rate? Because then it would all make sense.
John, the CBO was right about the Stimulus. Were you in favor of its passage in February?
(I know. Hard questions.)
Do you... this just dawned on me... do you Democrats know what money is?
Posted by: Gary on July 8, 2009 09:06 PMWe're already at 20% unemployment. Not to mention a deficit that is 12 TIMES that of the last GOP/Bush budget.
Slavers don't care about people or money - it's the power that drives them. The results are immaterial, as long as the process is what they can feel good about.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 8, 2009 09:13 PMGiven the means of counting, we're past the unemployment rates of the Carter administration...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 8, 2009 09:28 PMIt's beginning to turn, that's why they're so frantic get to nationalized health, cap-and-trade, now Amnesty all done by the end of summer. Because by September, he will no longer have any political capital.
Posted by: Gary on July 8, 2009 09:30 PMthus Jimmie's E-Z Litmus Test:
do THEY run THEIR OWN businesses like they run OUR govt, with bailouts, cap-n-trade scamola protection money, looser lightweight staffers, hope-n-change econ theories, handouts, waste, unaccountability, no audits and loose tax money in supposedly fiduciary roles? I say f-no!
walk the talk and i'll vote you back in--till then, all you pol's are at face frikkin liars, justly earned by your own voluntary historical past actions & votes---
no one forced you to drive us insanely over the economic debt cliff and unstable edge--especially when you've been in office for a length of time; you knew the game...no excuses...
how many of YOU politicians lost your houses or spent your way out of trouble??!!
and to you voters---why did you keep giving these drunken teen-agers the car keys again at every election?! why?
The NHS set the maximum allowable target time for referral by a family doctor to day of treatment at 18 weeks, but many medical specialties in Canada don't come close to that, according to the report.
EIGHTEEN WEEKS is the goal, and it's often missed. Another section of that report has the average emergency room wait time at 9 HOURS.
Yes, that's the model we want to aspire to... Waiting over 4 months for your surgery, or spending half a day in the emergency room waiting for treatment.
That's some efficiency for you!
HOPE AND CHANGE!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 8, 2009 11:17 PMThat's correct... $18 million for a web site.
I imagine the Democrats here see no problem at all with this. And they think health care will more efficient with the feds running it.
Posted by: Gary on July 9, 2009 07:33 AMI have already stated why I think Healthcare is a right (e.g., why "essential" health services is a right). You fail time and time again to get it. It is a right because of the clauses I quoted. I know you disagree, but most in this country do not. We are a country ruled by the people. Your arguments parallel the slavery arguments, yet you do not see it. The parallel is simple. Because you don't like something and because it isn't specifically called out in the constitution, it is unconstitutional. Well you know what, US Highways are unconstitutional by your definition. Do you drive on them? You shouldn't because you are using something that is not specifically called out in the constitution.
The difference is, I like Obama, and a majority of the country see the US Constitution as a living document that is not frozen in time but must be adapted to today's situation. Health care was not an issue when the framers met (neither were highways). There is a reason why they weren't mentioned. What was mentioned is everyones right for life. "Essential" health services falls under the basic life needs umbrella. What you are stating is that if one breaks an arm or leg, if one has a heart attack, and they don't have insurance, too bad. It is there fault they are unemployed. That is what you are saying. Don't lie and weasel word around it. You are stating that "essential" medical care is unnecessary for all US Citizens. There are "good" citizens that can get health care and then there are "bad" citizens who can't. It is class warfare based on ones ability to get insurance or not. It is no different than the founders fighting against the aristocratic society of England in the revolution.
Posted by: tc on July 9, 2009 07:39 AM"...she carried a sexy black clutch, which Italian luxury house VBH boasts is their shiny black alligator manila bag - with a retail sticker price of $5,950. The White House flatly denies that Obama bought such a high-priced accessory, and says that she was carrying a patent clutch that retails for $875. The First Lady, who has impressed with her chic, affordable style sense,..."
-
Besides the fact that VBH insists that's their bag, since when is an $875 clutch (look how small it is) considered "affordable style sense"? Only the suck-up press would consider that affordable.
If she was a Republican, they'd be screaming about how out of touch she is during a Depression.
But we all must sacrifice according to The One. Just not him.
Posted by: Gary on July 9, 2009 07:40 AMYou want to change it? Then you amend it! The way to do it is spelled out right in the document. It doesn't mean whatever the hell you want it to mean at any time.
Was Roe about a right to privacy, or about killing African Americans? Justice Ginsberg said in an interview that she thought it was to keep a certain population down. Is that what your "living Constitution" is all about?
And how do you define "essential" health care?
You were lying. I called you on your lies. You completely made up things about me, and then attacked me based on those lies. This is unacceptable, and calling you a liar for your lies is -- in the worst case -- not as "childish" as your lies.
I have already stated why I think Healthcare is a right
If so, then you are a weak, spineless person, because you only argued from assertion, and if mere assertion is enough to get you to believe something, that's pathetic.
You think it is a right because the Declaration and Constitution says it is! Except they clearly do not. You made it up. You think it is a right because without it, you can die! But you gave no reason why that makes it a right: you merely asserted that it does.
It is a right because of the clauses I quoted.
You quoted nothing that says it is a right. Nothing. I don't "get it" because I don't see things that are not there.
We are a country ruled by the people.
Only to the extent that "the people" are not taking away the rights of others, including our Tenth Amendment rights. We are a Republic, not a Democracy.
Your arguments parallel the slavery arguments
Sigh. You used this red herring/genetic fallacy argument before and I utterly demolished it. Why do you still resort to it? Pathetic.
Because you don't like something and because it isn't specifically called out in the constitution, it is unconstitutional.
You're a liar. The truth is the opposite: I am against something BECAUSE it is unconstitutional; and because you LIKE something, you invent a justification for it that doesn't exist.
Well you know what, US Highways are unconstitutional by your definition. Do you drive on them? You shouldn't because you are using something that is not specifically called out in the constitution.
You're a liar. I never said that something has to be specifically spelled out in detail in the Constitution; in fact, I said that it doesn't, when I referred to the implied powers provided by the "necessary and proper" clause.
Even if your lie about me were true, it doesn't stand to reason that I shouldn't use it: I am paying for it, after all.
The difference is, I like Obama, and a majority of the country see the US Constitution as a living document
Most of the country doesn't agree with you that the words of the Constitution mean only what you want them to mean. Most of the country believes that if you want the meaning of the Constitution to change, then you should amend it. That is what "living document" actually means.
What was mentioned is everyones right for life.
Which clearly and plainly means that you have a right for your life to not be taken from you from other people, not that you have a right to be given anything to make sure you don't die.
"Essential" health services falls under the basic life needs umbrella.
And the "right to life" in no way implies, at all, in any case, that anyone has any obligation to provide your "basic life needs." You are completely making that up, and you are confusing rights with charity.
What you are stating is that if one breaks an arm or leg, if one has a heart attack, and they don't have insurance, too bad.
You're a liar. I stated no such thing. I stated that if any of those things happen, you have no right to force me to help you. Nothing more.
It is there fault they are unemployed. That is what you are saying.
You're a liar.
You are stating that "essential" medical care is unnecessary for all US Citizens.
You're a liar.
[You said] There are "good" citizens that can get health care and then there are "bad" citizens who can't.
You're a liar.
tc, you have lied about me incessantly, and any further comments from you on my posts, indefinitely -- no matter the content, unless it is an apology I believe is sincere -- will be removed. You need a time out. I've rarely seen such rampant personal dishonesty here (perhaps not since WVH), and I won't put up with it.
hey, that goes right along w/ the conservative world view, so i guess i can't say i'm surprised.
gary, the contract (i don't know all the details, i do know it's not just a "redesign") is for 9.5 million with the potential of 18 million dollars - so stop lying. it wasn't awarded by obama. how michelle obama spends her own money is not indicative of anything: that you try to infer it is, well that's just pathetic.
here's a shocker for you:
palin spent $150,000 to stop looking like trailer trash
laura bush spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on clothes while bush wrecked the country
You guys just don't give a damn about how our money is wasted by politicians. And if I complain about your money and mine being pissed away on a web site, then you call me "selfish".
How Michelle spends her money is indicative of hypocrisy. Laura Bush never told us little people to do with less. Michelle has. Michelle has urged college graduates to *not* go for corporate jobs (like she did).
Hey, mike... who was that contract awarded to?
Also, where did Barack meet Michelle?
One more thing, is $1 trillion to *not* cover everybody a good plan in your opinion?
Thanks.
Posted by: Gary on July 9, 2009 08:58 AMLiberals often do that. Bring up a debate point, and instead of answering, they'll just project something like "You just hate children!", or whatever.
Posted by: Gary on July 9, 2009 09:04 AMwait, so pudge is god
No.
and gets to call everyone who fundamentally disagrees with his narrow interpretation of the constitution a liar
Nowhere did I do that. I called him a liar for saying I believe things I don't. I defy you to demonstrate any case where I called him a liar for disagreeing with my interpretation of the Constitution (which isn't "narrow" by any standard ... just because it is not "broad" doesn't make it "narrow," you know).
and when the reverse is done, they get tossed?
He gets "tossed" for saying I believe things I don't, and then continuing to do it over and over. For lying unrepentantly.
hey, that goes right along w/ the conservative world view, so i guess i can't say i'm surprised.
Attacking me for defending against his blatant lies goes right along with the liberal world view, so I can't say I'm surprised at you.
palin spent $150,000 to stop looking like trailer trash
No, she didn't.
laura bush spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on clothes while bush wrecked the country
No, she didn't.
"When socialist and communist countries try to slow down the communist spending spree coming from the US President, you have a real problem on your hands.
Choice quotes:
"When socialist and communist countries try to slow down the communist spending spree coming from the US President, you have a real problem on your hands. The world is dependent upon US productivity and prosperity, looking to the US to lead the way on free-market economics."
"When socialist countries are frightened by the extreme socialist agenda of the US president, it's time to take a closer look at that president and his policies."
"EU socialists have already learned that capitalist investors will NOT invest in government power busy strangling the life out of private industry. The more governments grab grasp and control over the economy, the more capitalists investors flee from that system."
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 9, 2009 10:40 AMI think they will purchase fewer goods from people who manufacture them. I also think they will either not hire people they ordinarily would have, nor may have to lay a few people off.
This will contribute to the further decline in the health of the economy. Or do you think it will actually case then economy to become stronger? Do you think this added tax will create jobs?
Posted by: Gary on July 9, 2009 10:49 AMRegarding Mrs bambi's $450 tennis shoes and $6000 handbag...
Queen-like staff support for First Lady
In other words, even accounting for inflation, Laura Bush's expenses were less than half of Ms. Obama's--and this was in those flush times derided by Obama fans.Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 9, 2009 10:50 AM
Then, of course, WE have less we are willing to spend, our companies then have less to pay in taxes.
OOPSIE!
These poor liberal fools refuse to connect the dot.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on July 9, 2009 10:55 AMThey raised a tax in Maryland, and after a year, got *less* than they got before, because the numbers of millionaires decreased, and they even lost the revenue they had been getting at the prior rate, because a lot the millionaires just moved.
Duh!
Still the party of slavery. When they demand 60% of a person's labor, tell me that isn't involuntary servitude?
I know, mike... I'm selfish.
Posted by: Gary on July 9, 2009 11:08 AMMost People don't pay the full bill (Insurance)
Too many People don't pay at all
Lawyers
Why to I always have to see the U.S. compared to a system in place that marginally works in a European country the size of Ohio?
BTW: These very same countries RESTRICT immigration and thus the numbers in the system.
Posted by: Sam Adams on July 9, 2009 12:03 PMOne person here says a number, another says she didn't - I suspect that both are lying and neither knows a damn thing about this.
Posted by: BA on July 9, 2009 12:29 PMYou are a complete embarrassment. Get out of the comments if you can't stop abuses your moderator privileges.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 9, 2009 12:47 PMFalse. No one said she didn't. Try again!
Coming from you, that's somewhere between meaningless, and a compliment.
Get out of the comments if you can't stop [abusing] your moderator privileges.
I didn't abuse anything. If you would like to show how tc was not incessantly lying about me, feel free. But it's plain to see he was. As with mike, you care more about me stopping tc from lying in this discussion than you care about him lying. Funny, that.
If he wants to lie, he can go elsewhere and do so, including the "Public Blog." I have no "privileges" on this site other than posting on the main page ... and I can only moderate on posts that I make. And even if I could remove his lies there, I wouldn't, unless they amounted to serious libel or defamation, or were exceptionally crude. I am not preventing him from exercising his voice; I am holding the comments on my posts to a standard, that he is currently incapable of meeting.
You have many times reached the incorrect conclusion of my positions and extrapolated well beyond your knowledge ("like Justice Breyer -- you hate the rule of law") -- this is of course not just a lie but a character assault. In this very thread you have insisted that Medicare, French health care, and Canadian health care are not single-payer systems -- all references would disagree. In these cases, just as tc wasn't, you are not lying but are instead being a complete asshole and re-defining terms respectively. However, if I had the syndromes and the power you have, your posts would be deleted and you would be prevented for participating in this thread.
Similarly, folks in this thread have taken large and excessive tangents and have seen no threat of moderation. Others have "lied" about unemployment: still, no threat.
You moderate those you discuss with, and those you discuss with at the very least disagree with you and are typically progressive commenters. There is no justifiable reason to not let tc's comments persist even if you ignore them. If you think tc was arguing immaturely or illogically, I submit any conversation I've had with Dan or Gary and wonder where the threats are for them?
This is the third progressive commenter in the last few weeks you have moderated or threatened to. You have gone from a man who cannot admit he's wrong to one who cannot stand being accused of being wrong persistently. The latter of which is simply what "discussing" politics is often about.
I am not standing up for my ilk. No conservative of substance deserve any moderation, and every progressive commenter you have moderated has been of some substance even if you disagree with them. It is pathetic and embarrassing, and I hope you stop -- even if you don't apologize for it.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 9, 2009 02:14 PMI meant that as an example of something that I feel like pudge would describe as a lie if he were vigorously arguing the other side. The U-6 numbers that Dan presented aren't a "lie," but the sentence he gave was pretty misleading but so factually wrong that it couldn't confuse anyone. Just an example, not an attack on Dan.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 9, 2009 02:18 PM-
What? Are you talking about me? Is it because I ask hard questions? Please, pudge, you understand that I usually make it clear that John does not have to answer my questions.
And John, I have never insulted you personally as you have to me, and I have never demanded that you "shut the f.. up" as you have to me.
Why should I be threatened with expulsion?
Posted by: Gary on July 9, 2009 02:24 PMYou've consistently lied here as well... Yet, you can keep posting. Perhaps it's because your lies aren't about a specific person, but the "plan" and facts?
See, calling someone out on incorrect facts and statements is one thing; twisting a person's words (or even worse, simply making their words up for them) is much worse.
So, what Gary and I have done is call you out on your lies about health care. We didn't attack you, we attacked your claims.
I know, this will go right over your head...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 9, 2009 02:34 PM1. Medicare costs have increased an average of 12% per year since 1966.
2. The average rate of inflation since 1966 is 4.6%, about 38% of the rate of Medicare cost increases.
3. Medicare costs have risen 34% faster than private insurance costs.
4. Nationalized healthcare in Canada results in 18+ week delays for surgery and 9+ hour waits in emergency rooms.
Take those FACTS together: Medicare costs are increasing at nearly 3 times the rate of inflation, Medicare costs 1/3rd more than private insurance, and nationalized health plans have much longer waits.
So the solution to healthcare - according to the marxist Slavery Party - is to take over all private insurance, make it like Medicare, and ultimately nationalize everything.
We're going bankrupt, so the solution is to spend more, increase the rate of spending even faster, and lower the quality of service.
Yes, that makes PERFECT sense...in BIZZARO BACKWARDS WORLD!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 9, 2009 02:43 PM"You are stating that "essential" medical care is unnecessary for all US Citizens."
-
pudge (sorry pudge, speaking for you again) never *stated* any such thing. Did you, pudge?
So, neither of you should be threatened with expulsion. Neither should anyone else unless they are plainly trolling. And someone like hellpig is far more of a troll than anyone pudge has came down on.
Neither of you are trolls, or anywhere near it. Most of the time we're arguing about facts and evidence. But if you were arguing with pudge, you'd be "lying" about everything because he has re-purposed that word to be meaningless. And then moderates based on it.
Instead of getting offended at what I wrote, maybe you guys should look at the principles involved. We all comment here under the assumption that our work will be free of moderation unless we clearly cross a line. All of pudge's moderations seem to be far more about ideology and follow his twisted, completely nonsensical definition of the word "lie."
Instead of explaining why someone is lying, pudge says "You're lying" or "Liar" and often no explanation until the threats to delete come out. I do not seek to change how pudge argues, even if it leads to conversations that go no-where and conclusions that are patently ridiculous (France isn't single-payer). What I do seek to change is what pudge does when he's tired of arguing with someone. He should ign
I do not expect pudge to start admitting when he's provably wrong, but I do think that even he can admit that his form of arguing is very confrontational and dismissive. Someone with his tone and his lackadaisical application of "intentional dishonesty" should simply not exercise his moderation abilities out of fairness to those he argues with.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 9, 2009 03:04 PMIs this a logical or correct argument? I don't know, you decide. But in that position, would you:
a. Argue your point of view, say that tc is wrong.
b. Attempt to make it so that tc cannot comment any further.
You may not agree with tc's jumps and conclusions, but they can be rebutted or even ignored. I see no reason why a passionate and wrong argument necessitates removing someone from a discussion that later jumps to unemployment (Obamassiah) and Michelle Obama's purse. The sanctity of this thread did not need to be preserved, and the excessive moderation from pudge reflects more on his ego than any logical explanation.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 9, 2009 03:13 PMI don't think you argue in bad faith, I just think your misguided, wrong, and refuse to state your true agenda.
That's all.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 9, 2009 03:15 PMThanks, Dan! My true agenda isn't that hard to follow, especially on the health care debate. I think every single American in this country should have health insurance. That is my principle (agenda), and how to do it is obviously a political and policy discussion that we'll have all summer.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 9, 2009 03:29 PMI reproduced those comments in a post of my own, and it was deleted as well.
Posted by: John Jensen on July 9, 2009 03:54 PMThen you should open an insurance business and sell it.
Posted by: Gary on July 9, 2009 03:57 PMI agree. You guys lying, and then defending liars, is quite worrying.
You continue to threaten and take action on those who vigorously disagree with you, regardless if you feel they are arguing in good faith or not.
You're lying about me, and if you keep that up, I'll remove your comments, too. It is specifically because repeating known lies demonstrates clearly they are NOT arguing in good faith that comments get removed.
In these cases, just as tc wasn't, you are not lying
I was telling the truth, as has been demonstrated (sad that when you lose an argument, you keep asserting otherwise). But even if I was wrong, tc made up lies about me -- as you often do, as you did above -- and then he repeated them over and over. That is different and far less tolerable (about me, or anyone else).
This is the third progressive commenter in the last few weeks you have moderated or threatened to.
Yes. Again, the pattern of lies from the left is very troubling.
[you] cannot stand being accused of being wrong persistently
You're a liar. Nothing tc said that I am removing his comments for were accusations of me being wrong: they were lies about my beliefs and my opinions.
I am not standing up for my ilk.
Then criticize tc for lying about me before you criticize me for the actions I take in response. And then you can stop lying about me, too.
every progressive commenter you have moderated has been of some substance
Substance is not a shield. You don't have license to say anything you want to just because there's some substance there. This is a red herring.
I meant that as an example of something that I feel like pudge would describe as a lie if he were vigorously arguing the other side. The U-6 numbers that Dan presented aren't a "lie," but the sentence he gave was pretty misleading but so factually wrong that it couldn't confuse anyone. Just an example, not an attack on Dan.
No, I wouldn't have called that a lie. I'd only have called it a lie if the person repeated it after being corrected. Further, this has nothing to do with tc, who was lying about other people, not about the facts. If I were going to remove all comments from people who lied about facts, rather than people, I'd have removed all of yours, and tc's, and mike's comments long ago.
Gary, tc was saying that pudge had argued essential health care is not a right. Pudge would probably agree with that
Yes, he did; and yes, I do.
He argued that if pudge doesn't feel something is a "right," then pudge is arguing that it isn't necessary to provide that.
No, he didn't say that, actually. Please don't misrepresent him. He did not say I believed "it isn't necessary to provide that [by government]," which I did claim, he said I believed "it isn't necessary," full stop. He repeated that. I do believe it is incumbent upon us as individuals, outside of government, to help people in need, so he was wrong to say I don't believe it is "necessary."
This error alone would not cause me to delete his comments. As already noted, it was his slanderous claims that I don't care about people, that I think some people are better than others, that I blame people for being unemployed, and so on. Those got him into trouble. I told him he was wrong, and he repeated similar claims. He was warned. He's now gone.
You may not agree with tc's jumps and conclusions, but they can be rebutted or even ignored.
You may agree with tc's lies, but they will cause his comments to be removed.
I see no reason why a passionate and wrong argument necessitates removing someone from a discussion
I see no reason why you're lying now.
The sanctity of this thread did not need to be preserved
I never implied it did.
and the excessive moderation from pudge reflects more on his ego than any logical explanation.
Only to YOU, but you have proven you lack the ability to understand logic.
Pudge has deleted two comments posted by tc.
Of course I did. What part of "I'll delete all of his comments on my posts" did you not understand? Or did you think I was kidding?
I reproduced those comments in a post of my own, and it was deleted as well.
Yes, for the same reason.
Now, Jensen, it's time for your warning: you've repeatedly lied about me, for a long time, saying that I remove posts because they disagree with me, or because of bias, and you repeat those lies here. And worse, you bypass my removal of comments by reposting them.
You won't get another warning.
How about addressing post 234? The Government spends more than private insurance, it's accelerating at a faster rate than private insurance, and single-payer plans in other countries have a record of VERY long delays.
Those are three VERY fundamental facts to address. Or am I to assume you don't want to address them because they're uncomfortable?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 9, 2009 04:18 PMThere you go again! is that what pudge said, "I am removing posts because I do not want to argue with the contents of them."?
And then you said "I have not lied a single time in this comment."
Alright fine... John, show me where pudge said "I am removing posts because I do not want to argue with the contents of them."
Go ahead. Prove your claim.
Your house, your rules. Pudge's house, Pudge's rules. Live with it or leave.
But if you do stay here, how about addressing the facts of post 234? Health care run by Government is more expensive, is growing at a faster rate than private insurance costs, and provides slower coverage.
It's a lose-lose all around.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 9, 2009 04:30 PMBut that's OK, you can feign your fear of the terrible overlord pudge and use that as an excuse to bow out...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 9, 2009 04:33 PM"Dan, I do not want to address those claims in this thread because I am afraid that my posts will be deleted."
...And then he addresses them:
"However, no, I am not "uncomfortable." Medicare isn't expanding under health care reform and no one is proposing a Canadian-style single-payer system."
He does this a lot. He has told me he that he refuses to argue with me any longer, and then he does. I think we're supposed to be upset when he threatens to stop arguing, like we were supposed to be upset when celebrities threatened to leave the country if they lost an election.
I dunno...
Is it a moral imperative to take care of people by the least efficient means? Would it not be more compassionate to preserve as much cash as possible, so that more can be served?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 9, 2009 04:40 PMJust a thought.
So, when did he say he was deleting posts because he didn't want to debate the content of them? Specifically.
Thanks.
Posted by: Gary on July 9, 2009 04:44 PM"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion."
- Gee, she's a Democrat. I wonder what population she was referring to? Hmmm... I just don't know...
OK, how are Medicare and Medicaid different other than who qualifies? They draw from the same pool of money, and are funded from the same tax. It's simply two different names for two different classes of consumers, but it's the same plan.
Medicaid is expanding under the Kennedy-Dodd bill. Please see item 6 of this page. So you're wrong. We're going to dump millions of more people into a Government plan that's growing at an expense rate 34% faster than private insurance.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 9, 2009 04:50 PMAnd we'll still not insure everyone.
Posted by: Gary on July 9, 2009 04:53 PMOr are you opposed to HELP since it leaves so many Americans un-insured.
And when did pudge say he deleted posts because he doesn't want to debate content? Have you *read* his posts? I won't speak for him (again) but to me (and you see I will not claim to know what is in his head unlike you and tc) he seems to *love* debating.
Also, were in favor of the Stimulus bill. Maybe you answered this and it was deleted.
No one believes that. Not a single person believes that. Your straw man is weak and pathetic.
Were you in favor the Stimulus? (Gosh a 'yes' or 'no' will do)
Actually, forget it. You're off the hook.
And I did read her quote.
Okay. Nobody is stopping you.
Posted by: Gary on July 9, 2009 05:29 PMUm, John. I work for a QIO and we are contracted by a federal agency named Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). They are two branches of the same tree.
Posted by: Rick D. on July 9, 2009 05:42 PMIf States refused to contribute to Medicaid services for their state citizens (currently being paid for ~60% by the federal government), would Medicaid cease to exist as a Government service?
Posted by: Rick D. on July 9, 2009 06:09 PMOh gee, color me shocked.
Especially in light of bambi's comment that if it's HIS family he WILL go outside of the system to make sure they get the best care available.
Again, color me shocked... with his duplicity, with his arrogance, with his total disregard for folks like tc, Mike and John Jenson.
ps: I hope you paid very close attention to his quality of life/cost/benefit qualifiers... but then again you probably voted "ABSOLUTELY!" on euthanasia.
I wonder if any of you bambi enablers could compare the number of non-Americans coming to the USA for quality healthcare vs the number of Americans going outside the USA for the same quality healthcare... then explain why the numbers are as they are. You might want to look at legal and illegal immigration in the same context.
Medicare is not a single payer (see the explanation in post 189). Since Medicare has a copay it is not a single-payer plan.
Medicaid simply breaks up the Government portion of the payment between the States and the Federal Government.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 9, 2009 06:37 PMIt amazes me how many people have a sort or Jim Jones/Stockholm Syndrome when it comes to this guy. His wife urges graduates not to go into corporate life, and make lots of money, while she walks around with either a $6,000 or an $850 purse. I didn't even such a thing existed.
No. There exists no obligation on the part of individual states to fund this federal program.
Posted by: Rick D. on July 9, 2009 06:47 PMUh-oh... I've been doing it all wrong. All this time I spent helping my community, and donating to charity, for people I don't know, and giving gallons of blood... again to people I don't know.
Sorry. I didn't know conservatives believed what you just told us we believe.
So, should I stop, Crusader?
Posted by: Gary on July 9, 2009 06:48 PMalso, some of us liberals, commies, conservatives, libertarians and greenies lived in places or were born with afflictions that prevent us from donating blood.
Posted by: mike on July 9, 2009 07:10 PMI can't easily give blood either -- I can reliably pass out even from blood tests, let alone blood donations, which makes it dangerous to drive home -- and I didn't feel hurt by Gary's remark.
I'm sorry if you don't like it when I point out your wrongness about my life, and my beliefs.
Oh, I donate blood for the wrong reasons? I was just waiting for some day when I could talk about it on soundpolitics.org?
You have accused me of being selfish without even knowing me.
Oh, and I give cold, hard cash to families who have lost their jobs to help pay their bills, and I don't even know who they are.
Sorry for pointing that out too.
You wanna keep talking about how selfish I am. Can you tell that pissed me off just a little bit, mike?
Posted by: Gary on July 9, 2009 07:17 PMYes, my point to mike and Crusader is that we do these things out of love for the community, not out of coersion (sp?).
Crusader said we have a moral duty to do so. I agree. But I don't agree that we have *legal* duty to do so.
They don't see the difference.
which, if you read this board, one could extrapolate that.
i can't give blood because we were stationed in england for 2 years.
gary, i might sound like a broken record here, but bragging about giving 'cold, hard cash' to families that need help doesn't make you look any more saintly. maybe the reason you're so pissed is because you aren't donating for the right reasons.
Posted by: mike on July 9, 2009 07:42 PMBut yes, it's about coercion: forced charity is an oxymoron. tc talked about the Sermon on the Mount, but Christ talked about charity not just for the sake of others, but for the positive benefit it has on us. And that benefit is nonexistent when we're forced to do "charity," and worse, even if we want to have our taxes raised for the benefit of others, we end up being so far removed from the effects of our "donations" that the benefit is still almost entirely diminished.
And it's not just about some selfish need for benefit to the givers. When there's that personal touch, not only does it encourage us to give even more, but it encourages the receivers to be better stewards of what they've been given. It's the GOOD kind of slippery slope.
And as I noted before ... Christ commanded us to help others, not to force other people to help others.
And Gary wasn't bragging. Give it a rest. You're not fooling anyone.
You really take the cake. You accuse us of "whining" about taxes, and being "selfish", and yet when we do those things that I *thought* liberals would approve of, you don't. It's almost like nothing counts unless the government does it. Point is, mike, I pay my taxes (not enough for you) and more. And yet you are still hostile to me. It's kind of odd.
Anyway, Crusader said that I (conservative) think everyone should live in isolation. False. If I did, I would. I don't, so he's wrong.
You are free to try and prove it, of course.
you are assuming crusader was implying conservatives don't believe that - and one could see that with some of the views expressed on this board:
against public health care
against protecting the environment
against welfare
against social security
against stem cell research
"stem cell research"? There is no ban against anybody doing stem cell research. Why must the government do it? You could do it.
Do you think there is a Constitutional right to be fed? This is an intellectual exercise.
Thanks.
you are assuming crusader was implying conservatives don't believe that
No. His language necessarily implied it. I assumed only that he meant what he wrote (which, I admit, may not be warranted, but it's the best I can do).
and one could see that with some of the views expressed on this board
False. Why are you not paying attention? The things you mention are mostly GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS where people are FORCED to give to others. We are not against helping and giving to others, we are against using GOVERNMENT to FORCE people to do it. No one here is against private charities helping with health care and other needs; no one here is against stem cell research; no one here is against caring for the environment. No one. We are against GOVERNMENT FORCE to implement those things.
The first step to debate with people you disagree with is understanding the people you disagree with. You clearly do not.
i fundamentally believe these people are incorrect. i believe single payer is the only way to keep costs down and provide quality health care for all. i do not see it as something that will reduce the quality of care, and neither do most of the doctors i know and have discussed this with. the reason i believe this is i have had friends at the VA as doctors and patients, I was in tricare for years and the quality of care was not substandard. and apparently the quality of care for senators and reps isn't substandard either. we seem to have no problem spending several hundred billion dollars on a needless war, yet somehow we can't provide for those that need it the most? over one million people are bankrupted every year due to medical reasons. insurance already comes between a patient and doctor. they've also got to pay for marketing, fabulous bonuses, and have figured out the fastest way to boost the bottom line is to deny care and prevent those that need it from having access (pre existing conditions, etc)
there is no ban now on stem cell research, but there was under bush. the government doesn't necessarily "do" the research, and under bush, private entities wanted to research stem cells but the government prevented them.
we do not need a constitutional right to food, but the right to food (and water) is a human right. just as the right to health care is a human right. i understand that conservatives don't believe in human rights, i just don't think that's the morally or ethically correct position.
i did support the passage of the stimulus. i think too much of it was tax cuts; i'm not sure why conservatives feel the only way to stimulate the economy is to reduce taxes for the wealthy - they seem to have forgotten the country's extreme prosperity after world war two when taxes were significantly higher. and bush's tax cuts never produced the jobs promised.
actually, hellpig: several people on this board are opposed to the VA, medicare and medicaid.
pudge: protecting the environment is a goverment program? not in my book - lots of non profits and private enterprises are doing as best they can, but it is assisted by goverment regulations and programs. but you are right, i don't understand the conservative mindset. and i probably never will, but that's cos i'm a commie ;)
Posted by: mike on July 9, 2009 08:55 PMNo, there wasn't. Why do you say that? Where do you get this stuff, Air America?
"i did support the passage of the stimulus. i think too much of it was tax cuts;"
You gotta be kidding.
"i'm not sure why conservatives feel the only way to stimulate the economy is to reduce taxes for the wealthy "
What?
I don't know even know what to say. So much of what you think is true isn't. We'd have to start from scratch deprogramming you.
Cool, I have a right to food. Where do I get it?
"conservatives don't believe in human rights,"
This is hopeless.
You are either being intellectually lazy or dishonest.
Here, from the NYT, that bastion of the right and stalwart defender of Bush: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23thu2.html
"The proposal is not bold enough and will continue to deny federal financing to some potentially promising research. "
If Bush's compromise to provide federal funding for only some stem cell research was a "ban" then by your own definition so is Obama's. ..or did you actually believe that stem cell research was illegal under Bush?
Posted by: RookieRick on July 9, 2009 09:35 PMIt's like it doesn't exist.
Neither Congress nor any administration has ever prohibited private funding of embryonic, or non-embryonic stem cell research.
Totally false, and on several levels.
There was no federal funding of embryonic stem cell research before Bush, and Bush for the first time ever authorized federal funding for that research. Bush didn't ban federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, he started it! And the research itself has never been banned, and the controversy has only applied to embryonic stem cells.
The controversy was whether Bush was limiting the new funding too much. There was a ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research that wasn't from preexisting lines.
under bush, private entities wanted to research stem cells but the government prevented them.
That never happened. You're woefully misinformed. This was only about federal funding, never about private research.
I have a vision of a bunch of liberals sitting under a tree, smoking some weed, and saying, "hey man, Bush shouldn't ban private research. It's like, private and stuff! He has no right to tell them what to do!" "Yeah, man, he's like fascist and stuff!" Except, of course, no such ban ever existed.
we do not need a constitutional right to food, but the right to food (and water) is a human right.
No, it is not.
just as the right to health care is a human right.
No, it is not.
i understand that conservatives don't believe in human rights
No, you do not. We believe very strongly in human rights. I'd say we believe in them more strongly than liberals do, because we take the whole "unalienable" thing very seriously, and liberals don't. Liberals regularly sacrifice rights they find to be inconvenient, such as the right to free speech when it gets in the way of campaign finance reform; the right to keep and bear arms when it gets in the way of urban policy; and so on.
That's not to say the right is perfect: I think many on this side have gone too far in sacrificing civil rights such as in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments in the "war on terror." But I also consider that to be a very UN-conservative position for people on the right to take.
Conservatives do not, however, believe human rights exist that obligate others to provide things to you. That is not a right anyone has (with the exception of parents and guardians, who are obligated to provide for their children).
Conservatives believe in unalienable human rights to life, liberty, property, and more. But not a right to force others to give things to you.
i just don't think that's the morally or ethically correct position.
It is not morally or ethically correct to force me to help someone else. You have no right to do that. Who gave it to you? Where did it come from? I can explain exactly where my right to self-defense comes from. My right to property. My right to liberty. Can you tell me how you came about this right to force other people to give you what's theirs? I doubt it.
i'm not sure why conservatives feel the only way to stimulate the economy is to reduce taxes for the wealthy
I'm not sure why you believe they do. First, conservatives generally do not support -- and this country does not get -- tax cuts "for the wealthy." As with under Bush, tax cuts were across the board, for everyone. Second, conservatives believe in many OTHER ways to stimulate the economy.
protecting the environment is a goverment program?
A group of them, yes.
not in my book - lots of non profits and private enterprises are doing as best they can, but it is assisted by goverment regulations and programs.
Right. So what are you disagreeing with ... ? Perhaps you thought I meant all protection of the environment is a government program; I didn't say it and didn't mean it.
but you are right, i don't understand the conservative mindset
Yes, that's obvious. You say nonsensical things like "conservatives don't believe in human rights."
If you can't understand, then you should stop posting here. There can be no fruitful discussion without mutual understanding.
and you yourself said you don't believe we have a right to water, right to food - which are in fact human rights, so how is it i'm "nonsensical"?
Posted by: mike on July 9, 2009 10:09 PMQuite simply: if someone deprives you of water, food, and air, they are by extension depriving you of your right to life.
You seem to be having a difficult time grasping the difference between having, taking, and giving. Your right to life doesn't mean that you are guaranteed to live. It means that others cannot take your life (and by extension, the things you mentioned) away from you.
Posted by: RookieRick on July 9, 2009 10:21 PMHow do you have the right to liberty, if someone else is allowed to take away your liberty for themselves?
you yourself said you don't believe we have a right to water, right to food - which are in fact human rights
No, they are not.
As RookieRick said, "You seem to be having a difficult time grasping the difference between having, taking, and giving."
Good lord.
If not, why not?
Posted by: Rick D. on July 10, 2009 06:45 AMMedicaid would be a significantly better program if it were just an offshoot of Medicare.
So Medicaid costs more and delivers less than Medicare? You realize the Kennedy Dodd bill increases participation in Medicaid, don't you?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 10, 2009 07:19 AMactually, i'm not really all that surprised.
Posted by: mike on July 10, 2009 09:24 AMI wouldn't know; I didn't read it. I removed it based on who posted it, and ignored the contents.
6-12 months after "health care reform" is passed, all the private delivery systems will declare bankruptcy. Since delivery cannot be compromised for long, the Feds will have little option but to buy out these systems, capitalize with a couple trillion dollars, declare the winners and losers, feed those on their good-side, and ultimately form the rules of rationing.
It will lead to the 'real' bankruptcy and insolvency of the country.
Its inevitable.
Posted by: swingdoc on July 10, 2009 09:14 PM"6-12 months after "health care reform" is passed, all the private delivery systems will declare bankruptcy." = absurd statement/prediction.
Perhaps if you find bankruptcy upsetting you could talk about the rate of bankruptcies in the USA caused by medical bills?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on July 11, 2009 09:06 AMThe evidence against the current for-profit system is overwhelming. The conservatives simply want to take care of the millionaire class and shaft the middle class and the poor. The same as it ever was...
Posted by: Crusader on July 11, 2009 11:54 PMWhy do they insist on inflicting heavy-handed and hopelessly incompetent governmental restrictions that raise the costs of healthcare beyond the reach of our most vulnerable citizens?
Why do they hate so much?
Posted by: Alphabet Soup on July 13, 2009 08:25 AM
