July 10, 2009
Myth Busting: Medicare administrative costs are higher, not lower
Our president and his communicators
claim there will be large savings by getting people into his government health care, known as the "public plan," but Heritage analyzed the claim and it's not true.
Robert Book at Heritage:
Many advocates of a public health plan--either a "single-payer" plan or a "public option"--claim that a public health plan will save money compared to private health insurance because "everyone knows" that the largest government health program, Medicare, has lower administrative costs than private insurance. Some even claim that switching every private insured American to Medicare or something like it could save the nation enough money to cover all currently uninsured Americans.
Advocates of a public plan assert that Medicare has administrative costs of 3 percent (or 6 to 8 percent if support from other government agencies is included), compared to 14 to 22 percent for private employer-sponsored health insurance (depending on which study is cited), or even more for individually purchased insurance. They attribute the difference to superior efficiency of government,[1] private insurance companies' expenditures on marketing,[2] efforts to deny claims,[3] unrestrained pursuit of profit,[4] and high executive salaries.[5]
However, on a per-person basis Medicare's administrative costs are actually higher than those of private insurance--this despite the fact that private insurance companies do incur several categories of costs that do not apply to Medicare. If recent cost history is any guide, switching the more than 200 million Americans with private insurance to a public plan will not save money but will actually increase health care administrative costs by several billion dollars.
Patterico points out that Paul
Krugman was sent out to damage this Heritage study. But comments are allowed, so Dr. Book
embarassed Krugman on Krugman's own blog!
Furthermore, Krugman doesn't address Book's point on comparing
all the costs:Public figures for Medicare's administrative costs count only what it takes to print reimbursement checks. Normal operating costs -- rent, management, health insurance, taxes, capital to start a business and new equipment -- which private insurers must include in their administrative costs, are counted elsewhere in the federal budget.
Official Medicare administrative costs simply exclude what most companies must include. No administrative cost savings exist in the public plan, and the true costs will never be counted because they'll be hidden in the federal budget.
It's time to contact our Congressmen and Senators. They are all automatic votes for any proposal that gives the government more control. But let them know the facts don't support them.
Posted by Ron Hebron at July 10, 2009
10:21 AM | Email This
1. We're supposed to believe the HERITAGE FOUNDATION? ROTFL at right-wing stupidity.
2.
Oh, no! Allow me to role play a little bit here. I will play the part of the liberal, Krugman-type when reacting to this study:
"Well, Robert Book obviously does not believe in human rights, and wants people to just get sick and die."
Seriously though, this is very interesting, and removes a leg from the "public plan" stool. I believe that "cost savings" angle was their best hope.
3. Care to address the points, Ivan? Or will you simply sit on your fat, collectivist ass and sneer?
4. if you insure a healthy 25-year-old who never goes to the doctor (or at least, not enough to exceed the deductible), a health plan's cost for that person is 100%, no matter how efficient the administration is. Private insurance has a lot more people like that than Medicare does.
Is Book really comparing administration costs of a 25 y.o. to a 65 y.o.?
Of course private insurance has a lot more people like that than medicare - medicare is designed to provide health care to those over 65. most of these people would be ineligible for private insurance. Or on the off chance they were eligible, would have ridiculously high premiums or have there care denied.
This doesn't 'remove a leg' by any means.
Private insurance is not in the business of providing health care, it's in the business of making a profit. they also have to pay for marketing. They market to healthier people, leveraging their bets - the minute they're taking on sick people, their profit plummets and premiums increase.
5. As reported at CNSNews.com, Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) has introduced a resolution that "urges members of Congress who vote to create a government-run health insurance agency to give up their own comprehensive health insurance plans to join the new the public option they advocate for others."
According to the resolution which is available at Fleming's web site, the "resolved" section would read: That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option.
On his web site, Fleming (who is a physician) states:
Over the past few weeks, members of Congress and the American people have come to know the details of the Administration's proposed health care plan. Call it whatever you like, this proposal is nothing more than government-run health care. As a physician, I am amazed at the number of bureaucrats in this House who are quick to claim a government-run health care plan is the reform this country needs. In response to this, I have offered a resolution that will offer members of Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.
Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill. If Members of Congress believe so strongly that government-run health care is the best solution for hard working American families, I think it only fitting that Americans see them lead the way. Public servants should always be accountable and responsible for what they are advocating, and I challenge the American people to demand this from their representatives.
I would take this one step further. For the first 5 years EVERY REGISTERED DEMOCRAT would be REQUIRED to participate in this government health "care": if your voter registration says Democrat you are automatically in.
After the 5 year experiment we'll see how happy you are with your health "care" as compared to those of us in the free market.
Got the courage of your mouths, democraps?
6. Oh and why you're looking for your courage, chew on this:
Democrats twice voted as a bloc to allow care to be rationed. Republicans twice voted as a bloc twice to prohibit care from being rationed.
7. Ron,
Thanks for the post. The Heritage Foundation study is interesting, but I am not sure it, nor the proponents who tout Medicare as more efficient prove anything. I could not determine from the study whether one was comparing the same data. The Heritage Foundation study did point out that administrative costs contain different factors, but neither group, I believe, has proved that the administrative costs for Medicare would be equal to the administrative costs of administering a program for younger participants (e.g., non-Medicare patients). Those who tout Medicare's efficiency are missing a key factor. Whereas, I am assuming, the Heritage foundation's numbers for private industry would be for the specific demographic group in questions.
Further, I believe, while the Heritage foundation's study may be a good start, what they should also do is study the administrative costs for the FEHB (Federal Employees Health Board, e.g., health plan that covers federal employees). It is my understanding that the so-called government plan is supposed to be modeled after this plan, and not necessarily how Medicare works. This plan would cover the same age-range and is large enough pool to determine how well government runs a health plan.
Again Ron, thanks for the post.
8. Paul Krugman in his post also said in that post:
1) Never believe something written by someone from the Heritage Foundation
2) If in doubt refer to point 1.
To which the author rebutted in Krugman's comments:
1) Never give merit to someone attempting to use an ad hominem attack to cast doubt on somone
2) If in doubt refer to point 1.
9. also, medicare doesn't spend as much money (or time) preventing and finding fraud - because they don't care. The government simply prints more dollars when needed. Private cos have an incentive and a need to run an honest program and catch criminals.....it's astounding that anyone can claim that any government entity is "more efficient" than private citizens trying to make a living. Have these people every visited a post office, a social security office, or tried to get building permits from king county?
10. actually, that's not what he wrote. and it wasn't an ad hominem, even Book admits this:
"(a) an ad-hominem-like attack on my employer..."
11. Why is it that so many conservatives here rely on the Heritage Foundation for many of their numbers?
I see them cited more than any other research organization. More than any media source.
But they're biased. They have a goal they want to conclude on. They are, simply put, not trustworthy. It would be just like quoting research from the Democratic National Committee. And, you know, I've never quoted Krugman here for good reason. Yes the Heritage Foundation is trustworthy? Of course they're not.
Ad hominem-like? Sure. But I don't have time to conduct my own number spinning of Medicare costs so I'll rely on non-partisan institutions like the CBO.
12. I want the same 'plan' our Congresspeople have; it's UNreal. Wonder what the 'administrative costs' are for THAT plan. :)
13. Ragnar, I don't understand the hang up regarding rationing of health care - we ration everything else and health care too.
I have private insurance that I pay for directly.
I supplement that out of my pocket. At some point, depending on the illness or injury my insurance will limit out and my personal resources will be depleted.
Then, my health care is rationed.
I don't think you're really saying that the Republican's voted to bail me out by not allowing rationing.
Swinging back to the core topic - seems to me the best comparison of public overhead costs versus private is to compare apples to apples - select a similar patient that is receiving similar treatment and compare that.
Anything else is playing with numbers - as it would appear both sides are doing.
14. Hey JJ, I gather you think the people involved in the takeover of health care aren't "biased"?
There's 537 elected fools in DC dedicated to taking our money through legislation and doling it out to their minions. I'm sure THEY won't be biased in their study now will they?
I'll put my money on the folks who get their money from willing donors vs. the elected/paid by your tax dollars class.
15. So the conspiracy theorist John Jenson believes that scholars who happen to be employed by a Conservative think tank would purposely skew their studies to suit their agenda.
Right.
I'll keep that in mind when I hear studies cited by the Brookings Institute, Center for American Progress (John Podesta's), Health Care for America Now, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Common Purpose... and ESPECIALLY those global warming alarmists who are profitting from the false alarmism.
16. We're supposed to believe the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION? ROTFL at left-wing stupidity.
17. John, what would the CBO have to say for you to oppose any legislation that the President says he will sign?
Thanks.
18. @ 1 - We're supposed to believe the [Government can run ANYTHING efficienty?]ROTFL at [Left]-wing stupidity.
Fixed that for you to reflect the inconvenient reality, ivan.
19. Gary, please stop question trolling.
Thanks.
20. #19. John, please. You brought up the CBO as a trustworthy source for you. Are we not permitted to ask you what estimates *your* trusted source would provide that would prevent you from supporting health care reform?
Okay. And no, I won't stop asking questions, but thanks for the advice.
21. Ron
Did you realize that private/public insurance companies process the paperwork for Medicare/aid?
When I lived in Columbus, OH folks at Nationwide were being laid off, because Nationwide lost the contract to another lower bidder.
My folks Medicare payments are processed by one of the Blues from NY State.
When I lived in LA, my employer was self insured w/ 50,000+ employees and we paid an insurance company to process the paperwork.
I went to the ER and got billed for some stuff that the hospital did not provide. I called the processing center, and they were uninterested
Here in Seattle, the Blues failed or chose not to act on the Medicare/aid Fraud by UWMC/Harborview.
It was caught by an internal employee who was fed up and filed a whistle blower's complaint.
Republican John McKay didn't catch it
I am not imprested by Paul Klugman's ramblings in the NYTtimes or on tv, but just because the Heritage Foundation says it, does not mean it is true
22. So what's another in the massive series of leftist, empty suit lies? With scum like ivan shilling for them, if they told me it was daylight I'd have to look for myself.
23. Gary, you didn't ask about health care reform -- you said any piece of legislation!
If the CBO says the plan isn't deficit neutral and doesn't significantly expand coverage then I wouldn't support it. I'd also like to see good scoring of Medicare reforms, but I don't think the CBO can score those since the decisions would be made by MedPAC in the future.
24. Centrifuge John said:
If the CBO says the plan isn't deficit neutral and doesn't significantly expand coverage then I wouldn't support it.
From the CBO regarding the Kennedy Dodd bill:
According to that assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. Once the proposal was fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million.
There you go - from the CBO. Emphasis added so you can't miss this: a total of $1 trillion in added deficit over the next 10 years, and it only covers 1/3rd of the total number of uninsured.
I wait for you to now honor your statement and denounce the Kennedy Dodd bill.
25. Gov't almost always costs more, is slower and delivers an service below the effort and price paid paid into it.
26. #23 Actually I said "any legislation", in reference to the different reform bills working their way through both houses now. Sorry that was so confusing when talking about the health care reform, etc.
So, does the CBO say this is deficit neutral?
Thanks for answering the question. It's very useful.
27. The CBO, on Feb. 11th, 2009 had these forecasts for the effects of the Stimulus bill that was signed by the President seven days later:
"Taking all of the short- and long-run effects into account, CBO estimates that the
legislation implies an increase in GDP relative to the agency's baseline forecast of
between 1.4 percent and 3.8 percent by the fourth quarter of 2009"
-
I wonder... anybody here think that will be the case for *this* quarter?
And:
"Correspondingly, the legislation would increase employment by 0.8 million to 2.3
million by the fourth quarter of 2009."
-
Same question applies here. I don't think we're suddenly gonna erase the job losses and then add enough to reach these numbers.
They *also* said:
"Beyond
2014, the legislation is estimated to reduce GDP by between zero and 0.2 percent"
-
So the CBO also thinks the long term effect of Stimulus will be bad.
Now I'll go see what The Heritage Foundation predicted...
28. Sam Adams @25
Sam this is a "myth" and depends upon the service. If you look up data on A76 (Contracting out) studies, you will find that in fact the Government can provide some services for less cost than a private contractor performing the same service. Where you find this is in areas where the labor skills are not entry level. In entry level labor services (like janitorial), the private contractor typically wins the A76 bid. In an area like IT services, however, this isn't always the case. Part of the reason why (in IT) is because historically government salaries have been lower than private industry. This is especially true in our State, where the IT salary scale is at least 20-30% below the prevailing wage of the area.
29. Let's face it...Any Government involvement in anything will raise the cost...Period! When you offer a Tax Supported so-called Free Service such as Health Care, in no time the system is going to be overloaded with demand from a sniffle to a life threatening condition. A Government run operation is never as efficient as a Private Sector operation. A Private Sector operation is competitive and self-cleansing to meet the competition. Self-cleansing means, cost effectiveness along with providing the best service is the prime goal. Those employed will perform up to a standard of productivity and competence or be Fired. Because, of the pressures of competition, It's a do or die situation. Competition in a Free Market always gives you the best dollar value for product or services rendered. A Government monopoly has no incentive to being competitive. When, have you ever heard of a Government employee being Fired for poor work performance? In fact, if you are a good performer you are looked down upon and if you start to question the inefficiencies and report such outrages aka whistle blower, only then, will you get Fired. Such a Deal!
The realities of the UK, Sweden and our next door neighbor, Canada providing Universal Health Care should be an "In your Face Reality" you cannot ignore. The various horror stories have long been well known. Anybody, with even a basic awareness should know that Government provided Health Care would be a financial and service Disaster for any Society. Only a FOOL could still think differently.
30. At # 28
Sam this is a "myth" and depends upon the service.
Absurdly6 inapt over-generalization.
Anything can be distorted for effect by saying "it depends on . . . "
Nevertheless, as Sam said, Government services almost always cost more, are slower and deliver services below comparable levels expected by private companies. To deny this fact is simply idiotic and amusing to hear from pointy headed liberals.
31. Hey that resolution of Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) that "urges members of Congress who vote to create a government-run health insurance agency to give up their own comprehensive health insurance plans to join the new the public option they advocate for others" is a darn good idea.
Here's another one: let's let all of us join their plan, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).
Then we got Ragnar D. saying "for the first 5 years EVERY REGISTERED DEMOCRAT would be REQUIRED to participate in this government health "care.""
Well Ragnar, I'm all for that. But mnake it permanent and irrevocable, too!
That's a pretty good step towards a big single payer plan....good idea.
As Churchill and Teddy Roosevelt said, sometimes you just have to go for the socialist collectivist solution.
32. Torture Liar,
I have a far better idea. Why don't we let the free markets fix our health care system by getting government out of it?
The American Health Care system was built by free markets to become the very best system in the world. It's most troubling problems are the result of government interference and the burdens of unfunded mandates. There is no legitimate argument against letting the markets dictate the system especially since markets are the direct will of the people.
Why not?
33. If anyone has read this far and wants to do a little something about health care reform, you can sign the petition at:
http://www.freeourhealthcarenow.com
The petition language speaks for itself, so sign or not as you wish.
34. It is amusing to listen to liberals claim their schemes are going to save money. When has that ever happened?
They are simply lying. They haven't been able to control costs on Social Security, Medicare, or their bloated educational complex that liberals constantly say needs additional tax revenue.
The latest polls are beginning to indicate that Americans are wising up.
36. Yup Dan. When the left finally shows everyone just how far left they actually are most people in the country are going to be utterly repulsed. I believe you are starting to see that reaction now.
37. Misfit Mike wrote:
Is Book really comparing administration costs of a 25 y.o. to a 65 y.o.?
If you listen to the Slavery Party/Obama Administration, yes you are. They want to talk about the "percent of costs" that go towards coverage.
Seems to me that the Heritage approach - the dollars spent per person on administration - is a MUCH more reasonable approach. It eliminates the case where you have someone with zero consumption of health care (the young, who essentially have 100% of their premiums used for "administration" only) or someone with high usage (the elderly).
So I guess you approve of the Heritage approach? And thus concur with their conclusions?
38. Dan, you really need to recognize that there is another committee working on legislation called the Finance committee.
Their results will have Medicare savings, Medicaid expansion, and revenue increases. These combined will expand coverage and make the bill deficit neutral.
As I've said REPEATEDLY, the HELP committee has limited jurisdiction which is why you can only CBO
39. Dan, you really need to recognize that there is another committee working on legislation called the Finance committee. The quoted portions of that CBO estimate are ACCURATE, but more importantly MEANINGLESS. The HELP committee has no power to expand medicaid coverage, find medicare savings, or raise revenues.
40. #38. "revenue increases". Are these going to offset the plunging revenue that is occurring now?
We are in a sustained period of revenue *decreases*.
It's one of the less talked about issues.
What is your opinion about those CBO projections as related to the Stimulus that I posted in #27?
41. Pete Stark, House Democrat, said today that they're looking at a $trillion. If he says a $trillion, it's gotta be much more.
And it doesn't even cover everyone.
Sweet.
42. John Jensen is a Democrat shill.
Illustrate one single Democrat program that doesn't require increased funding every year Jensen.
43. Centrifuge John,
So I take it you will not support the Kennedy Dodd bill? Simple question John...
44. When you actually begin to ask leftists about their record of accomplishment, particularly in the area of controlling costs they tend to disappear.
I love asking Jensen why we continually need more money for public education in Washington when it is already roughly 50% of the budget. He won't give an answer.
The bottom line is always the same with liberal Democrats. They don't serve the public interest. They simply regard the public as an endless source of revenue to fund their poorly thought out programs which employ their liberal cohorts.
45. Dan, this is what I mean when I say you argue in bad faith.
What is your point? That Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd are evil?
46. The point might be John Jensen that you need show how in the framework of history liberal programs have managed to responsibly control costs.
Instead it looks like you are doing what liberals typically do. Dodging the crux of the issue being discussed when it becomes uncomfortable.
47. "(The) superior efficiency of government..."
Bwah-ha-ha!
48. 2 words--
Big Dig
apply same to a national healthcare---and ther'ya go...
49. I think public education is the best indicator of the way liberals manage public money. Every single year we need more funding "for the children". We pump billions into public education and our schools are failing.
Can anyone doubt that liberals will need more funding for nationalized healthcare every single year? Only a complete fool would doubt it.
50. Don't worry too much about Ivan. Not only is his obesity a major liability for him, but with aggro comments like that @1, he's a heart attack wating to happen. People like Ivan drive up health care costs because we will all have to cover the ambulance ride, expensive bypass surgery, statin drug regimen and all of the followup doctor visits where his doctor tries to get it through his thick Democrat skull that exercise is important.
51. "superior efficiency of government"....
Baaahaaahaaahaaa
52. Centrifuge John,
The point is that you said:
If the CBO says the plan isn't deficit neutral and doesn't significantly expand coverage then I wouldn't support it.
Well, the plan isn't deficit neutral, and I don't think you would consider covering only 33% of the uninsured as significant coverage expansion.
Since you're the biggest cheerleader for nationalized health care, I was seeing if your statement was, in fact, true. You made the claim, the CBO says it's not deficit neutral and it doesn't significantly expand coverage. So are you going to follow through and no support the plan? Care to put that in words?
53. The government could not run a hot dog stand efficiently let alone a multi-trillion dollar heath care industry. With out fail, where ever it has been tried, costs escalate out of control and rationing of health care services becomes the norm.
The government cannot run an economy or an industry without wrecking it. It is just not physically possible to do so. Billions upon billions of economic decisions are made everyday in every walk of life by 300 million American citizens. Any attempt to regulate these transactions introduces inefficiencies that rebound throughout the economy. Obama's dalliance with economic fascism in the auto industry illustrates what a mess the government can make.
The health care industry is affected in the same way as any other industry that is subjected to government interference. Inefficiencies start to multiply and costs increase. The way to decrease health care costs is to get the government out of it. It is as simple as that.
Just as there is no right to have an automobile or the food you eat supplied free of charge by the government there is no right to health care provided by the government.
54. Bill K wrote:
Just as there is no right to have an automobile or the food you eat supplied free of charge by the government there is no right to health care provided by the government.
Don't worry, those "rights" are coming. Along with the right to a house, and a right to a job. Which means the Government will give you a house, give you food, give you a job, give you transportation, give you health care.
Oh, and you'll be called "Comrade", too...
55. I love how the Heritage report parses the words, "on a per-person basis Medicare's administrative costs are actually higher." Of course! Medicare customers are old or disabled. One would expect that all costs would be higher on a per-person basis. But why don't they say what PERCENT of costs are administrative? That is the core of the issue.
56. Yeah, Dan@54....Those Freebies Rights are coming. However, those Rights will be taken from the producers who have earned them and given to the non-producers who have not. Such a Deal!
57. Sadly for free market conservatives the party with power, the Republican Party, from 2003-2006 did nothing to resolve the issue of medical insurance cost increases continuing to out pace inflation when they had the chance. Nor did the Republican party address the continually increasing rate of uninsured.
The result of the Republican party's malfeasance on this issue led in part to the Democrats obtaining a super majority 3 years later.
If the proposals of the Democrats are not to your liking, the question is what (other than a policy of 'no') are the Republicans going to offer?
The facts are that the Democrats control the ball on this issue, and their leadership is going to deliver. Granted, it is going to deliver a myriad of problems we don't already have, but when the Republicans had the ball, they did nothing to address the known problems and the voting public finds that unsatisfactory.
Conservatives would be better off identifying and implementing prototype solutions that demonstrate there are other alternatives to a publicly administered plan which reduce cost (or at least hold it constant) and increase the level of coverage. Otherwise, all this carping about the Democrats exercising the power they won on a platform they were straight forward about is nothing.
Face it. There is a problem with health care costs and coverage in the USA which is unique in the industrial world. What is the alternative solution? Which Republican governor is going to implement it? Lastly, the Republican front-runner for 2012, Mitt Romney, implemented a public plan in MA.
58. Isn't it just too funny?... oh yes let's absolutely trust the government [/sarcasm]
CONNECT THE DOTS LIBERALS! Look at every single failing state and city: Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey, Illinois, California, WASHINGTON ... what do they have in common? YEARS UPON YEARS UPON YEARS OF LIBERAL POLICIES!!!
CONNNECT THE DOTS.
59. Really embarrassing for Krugman. But it's expected.
Krugman is almost always embarrassing when he talks about things outside of economics, especially when it comes to politics, especially partisan politics.
Krugman really has no eye or ear for politics, at all. He just thinks he knows what he believes, and then spouts it as truth. Not that he's worse than most people, but for a NY Times columnist, when he talks about non-economic issues, he is substandard, by a lot.
By the way, Jacob Hacker is the guy who says that part of the intent of the public option is to take a step toward single-payer health care. He clearly has an agenda here, even more than the Heritage folks do, because he helped write Obama's plan and is personally, not merely ideologically, invested in it. His claims should be held up to AT LEAST as much scrutiny as Heritage's, not only for those two reasons, but also because it is HIS plan that is on the table, not Heritage's.
Krugman doesn't care though: he really believes the nonsensical aphorism that facts have a liberal bias. So when confronted with two quotes, he necessarily believes the Hacker quote is true, regardless of the fact that it contains factual errors. He doesn't even bother to research the claims, even though really, Hacker should be subjected to MORE scrutiny.
60. MikeBS: saying "you have no plan" is not actually a defense of the Democrats' plan.
I am not sure if you realize that, so I am helpfully pointing out this fact to you.
61. @60 pudge on July 11, 2009 10:10 AM,
I don't get your reply, but if what I said is confusing, let me try and be slightly more succinct.
Republican and conservative politicians neither offered nor implemented anything since 1994 (when we defeated the Clinton plan) to reduce rising health care costs nor increasingly diminished coverage, with the exception of publicly administered plans (e.g. Romney in MA).
If there is a better solution, now is the time to put up. Complaining is a waste of time - that ship has sailed.
62. HappyTrails: You nailed it.
Book doesn't like comparing adminstrative costs as a fraction of total program costs. He says that the fraction of adminstrative costs is bound to be higher for private insurance because their clients tend to be healthier than Medicare beneficiaries. So a smaller fraction of total program costs will go to delivering healthcare services which means a larger fraction goes to administration. OK.
Since this particular metric doesn't make the ideological point he wants, he then goes on to cherry-pcik his own BS statistic and hammer on it. Book thinks we need to look at admin costs per enrollee instead of as a fraction. Sure enough, they are higher in Medicare. Mission Accomplished!
Of course admin costs are higher for the average Medicare enrollee! That's because, as Book has noted, Medicare enrollees use more health care services than the average privately insured person. More health care = more claims -- so, higher administration costs. So what?
Both of these metrics are apples-to-oranges comparisons and neither is very important. What really matters is to compare overall program costs for delivering similar levels of health care to similar populations. In this case, looking at Medicare Advantage provides a more useful comparison. Private insurance Medicare Advantage programs cost at least 11% more than traditional Medicare to deliver similar levels of health care to older and disabled Americans, despite that fact that Medicare Advantage populations tend to be healthier than traditional Medicare. Even at these higher cost levels, private insurers are dissatisfied with their profits from Medicare Advantage which suggests, given free rein, private insurance programs would be even more expensive than traditional Medicare.
This just goes to show there are two things you can count on in the Internet:
1) Any "study" from the Heritage Foundation can be counted on to concoct its own useless metrics composed of cherry-picked statistics to make its ideological points. And,
2) You can count on Ron Hebron to dutifully publish these talking points in Sound Politics!
63. MikeBS:
I don't get your reply
Um. I don't know what I said that you don't get. You are arguing in defense of the Democrats' plan. You are doing this by attacking the Republcians' supposed lack of plan. You can't do that. Whether the Republicans have a bad plan or no plan, this does not logically justify anything about the Democrats' plan.
but if what I said is confusing
Not confusing, just fallacious.
Republican and conservative politicians neither offered nor implemented anything since 1994 (when we defeated the Clinton plan) to reduce rising health care costs nor increasingly diminished coverage, with the exception of publicly administered plans (e.g. Romney in MA).
This is obviously untrue -- and frankly, any serious person in this debate knows it's untrue, so you're either unserious or you're dishonest -- but even if it were true, it is irrelevant, since it has nothing to do with the Democrats' flawed plan.
If there is a better solution, now is the time to put up.
Nonsense. There's no reason why conservatives need to offer any solution right now, other than as a rhetorical tool, since that solution won't be implemented now no matter what it is.
Any proposal now would only be for show, to attempt a certain type of tactic in the debate. And few things are more offputting -- Jensen does this all the time -- than attempting to dictate tactics to your opponent.
Maybe the Republicans should offer a plan, but the only purpose it would serve would be to convince people there is another plan, or that the Republicans do have a plan ... the details of it would be largely irrelevant. And that's all good, but unfortunately, it would be playing into the Democrats' hands: they would use it as an opportunity to do what you are doing now, as politicians (especially on the left) usually do, which is trying to fallaciously set up a false dichotomy.
"If you don't like the status quo, then vote for our plan!" is the logical fallacy the Democrats push now. If the Republicans had a plan, they would resort to a variation on the same illogical theme: "if you don't like the Republicans' plan, then vote for our plan!" This is irrational, of course, but people fall for it.
And in case you still don't get it: no legislation should ever be voted on because it is better than something else: it must be good enough for passage on its own merits, not simply by comparison. But the merits of this bill are a tough sell, so they instead resort to fallacious comparisons, like, "well, yeah, you would not have choice, but hey, you don't have real choice now!" and other irrational claims.
Complaining is a waste of time
Not if it kills the bad Democratic plan, then no, obviously, it is not a waste of time at all, but a very productive use of time.
64. @63 pudge on July 11, 2009 11:10 AM,
Paraphrasing your post 'Conservatives need do nothing to address the nation's health care cost and coverage problems except stir enough debate to stop any Democrat offered solution.'
As I previously said, the Democrats control all 3 branches with a super majority in the Senate. The democrats will deliver legislation this year.
Abandoning the field and/or hoping that propaganda will accomplish the objectives of conservatives is a loser's strategy.
65. BoyScout Boy writes,
"If there is a better solution, now is the time to put up. Complaining is a waste of time - that ship has sailed.
O.K. Boy.
(As Republicans and sane Democrats have been repeating over and over for decades) why not let the free markets fix our health care system by getting government (as far as possible) out of it?
The American Health Care system was built by free markets to become the very best system in the world.
It's most troubling problems are the result of government interference through the burdens of unfunded mandates inimical to any health care system worth sustaining.
Free markets are the direct will of the people. You offer no legitimate argument against letting the markets freely dictate the system by limiting government intrusion into a market problem.
Why not?
66. Dan,
Well, the plan isn't deficit neutral
Any plan that reaches the Senate floor will be. The HELP committee is doing half of the plan, the Finance committee is doing the other half.
and I don't think you would consider covering only 33% of the uninsured as significant coverage expansion.
The latest HELP scoring covers 97% of all Americans according to the CBO.
You made the claim, the CBO says it's not deficit neutral and it doesn't significantly expand coverage. So are you going to follow through and no support the plan? Care to put that in words?
One of two things are happening:
a) You are somewhat uninvolved in the legislative process and are misunderstanding what the CBO scoring means.
b) You know what you're talking about but are purposefully arguing in bad faith to troll me.
If you're misunderstanding the CBO numbers, please stop making me repeat this: The HELP bill has a corresponding Finance bill. The merged bill when combined will be deficit neutral according to Congressional leaders and the President. If it isn't, it will lose all support. The merged bill will significantly expand coverage, up to 97% of Americans according to the CBO's early scoring. It is impossible for the HELP bill to produce a revenue-neutral bill because they have no authority to change spending or raise revenue. It is impossible for their bill to expand Medicaid, which is necessary to expand coverage among poor.
I am NOT going to evaluate my support of intermediate draft bills. My criteria obviously only apply to the final product. My criteria are shared by every major player involved in this bill, so I'd be surprised if I were significantly disappointed.
If you're trolling me, please stop playing games. It is petty to continue to throw CBO numbers in my face as if I trust some dumb source -- the CBO is widely respected. Regardless of what you think of my politics, I am informed about the health care debate and I don't think throwing blatant disinformation my way is a constructive thing to do.
pudge, By the way, Jacob Hacker is the guy who says that part of the intent of the public option is to take a step toward single-payer health care. He clearly has an agenda here, even more than the Heritage folks do, because he helped write Obama's plan and is personally, not merely ideologically, invested in it. His claims should be held up to AT LEAST as much scrutiny as Heritage's, not only for those two reasons, but also because it is HIS plan that is on the table, not Heritage's.
You are correct. Neither should be trusted to be fair brokers. This thread implies trusting one.
This is obviously untrue -- and frankly, any serious person in this debate knows it's untrue, so you're either unserious or you're dishonest -- but even if it were true, it is irrelevant, since it has nothing to do with the Democrats' flawed plan.
I am a serious person in this debate and I know the issues very, very well. And no, the GOP has not offered substantial reform beyond Medicare Part D and Medicare Advantage. Legislation beyond that has never even made it to the calendar. But your platitude, in typical pudge form, mask the complete lack of citations of evidence of your case.
Not if it kills the bad Democratic plan, then no, obviously, it is not a waste of time at all, but a very productive use of time.
And that helps the average American how? This sort of partisanship is exactly why the GOP was shipped from office. The GOP doesn't want to hand Democrats a major legislative victory -- we understand. The reasons for that have to be invented along the way.
67. Right pudge, it's the dhimmis way of saying, "We gotta do something, even if it's wrong". It is a manifestation of their OSD that compels them to invent cures for maladies that don't necessarily exist and apply severe overkill to the problems that do exist.
Sure, there are some problems with healthcare as it exists in America, but I would gladly do nothing rather than "F" it up beyond recognition. And that is precisely what the dhimmis propose. The most disgusting thing about it is that they aren't even about "fixing" anything except the bank balances of themselves and their constituents.
Pity the dumb dhimmi who feeeels that conditions will improve if they get their way. There will be a mass of zombies out in the streets with "deer in the headlights" expressions on their miserable faces when their utopia eludes them once again.
68. The American Health Care system was built by free markets to become the very best system in the world.
Except for 46 million people who live here without any health insurance at all. Sound like rationing? It is.
Except for the 60%+ of bankruptcies caused by health care bills.
Except for the fact that losing your job means losing your coverage. And starting new coverage means pre-existing conditions aren't covered.
Except for those major flaws that ruin people's lives, we have the best health care in the world. Even if our life expectancies are lower, our infant mortality rates are higher, and our health care costs are twice that per capita of the rest of the Western world.
And that we're ranked 36th by the World Health Organization.
Wait, what do you mean by "very best"?
69. The conservative said to the bleeding liberal moron,
"If it hurts so much, quit bashing your head against that rock."
The liberal answered, "what rock?"
70. @65 Amused by Liberals on July 11, 2009 11:25 AM,
Our health care system was NOT built by free markets. Specifically the employer paid health insurance approach was the result of wage constraints imposed by the Fed govt during WWII. 6 Republican presidents did nothing to alter this approach - which is nearly universally understood to be inoperative going forward.
Secondly, 'allowing' is a passive approach which looks and feels like what Republican administration's have proposed since 1981.
Like it or not, Obama ran on 'health insurance is a right not a privilege', and won with a significant majorities in the legislative branch.
Regarding my position, I have not seen any proposal and or economic models which would reduce the rate of cost increase and increase coverage via a competitive private insurance approach.
I have seen implemented models in France, Germany, Singapore, Switzerland ... that deliver lower cost, increased coverage and better medical outcomes than our current USA system.
Therefore, based upon measurable facts I (like the majority of Americans) support proposals that include a publicly administered plan.
As has been pointed out by others on this thread, the Heritage Foundation study cherry-picks facts and statistics. I'll leave it to others who are interested in "why?" to identify who funds the Heritage Foundation research and what their agenda is, but is certainly not congruent with the economics of health care nor the political will of the people as expressed in the 2008 election.
71. MikeBS:
Abandoning the field and/or hoping that propaganda will accomplish the objectives of conservatives is a loser's strategy.
What you call "propaganda" is, primarily, "principled opposition to a plan that violates are ideals."
And again: dictating tactics to your opponents is pretty stupid, especially since I already outlined to you how Democrats would exploit what you say the Republicans should do.
72. @67 Alphabet Soup on July 11, 2009 11:42 AM
"Sure, there are some problems with healthcare (sic) as it exists in America, but I would gladly do nothing rather than "F" it up beyond recognition."
Well, your and the Republican party's 'do nothing' approach brought us here and continuing to 'do nothing' except whine is what is most likely to bring the 'F'd beyond recognition' result you and I fear.
As an aside.... when exactly did 'do nothing' become a conservative idea? Seems to me a basic principle of conservatism had been to reap the rewards of hard work, and doing nothing and expecting something in return to be the approach of lazy liberals. just saying.
73. MikeBoyScout wrote:
Republican and conservative politicians neither offered nor implemented anything since 1994 (when we defeated the Clinton plan) to reduce rising health care costs nor increasingly diminished coverage, with the exception of publicly administered plans (e.g. Romney in MA).
Maybe an issue in the free market should not be meddled with by the Government? Seems that the data shows the cost of free-market health care has increased SLOWER than Government health care...
Our health care system was NOT built by free markets. Specifically the employer paid health insurance approach was the result of wage constraints imposed by the Fed govt during WWII. 6 Republican presidents did nothing to alter this approach - which is nearly universally understood to be inoperative going forward.
Here's an idea - how about letting a free market actually DEVELOP! You seem to not like the current situation that evolved - according to your own statement - from Government interference. How about stopping the Government interference and letting private industry address the problem for a decade or so?
but is certainly not congruent with the economics of health care nor the political will of the people as expressed in the 2008 election.
Please see the current will of the people; on economics they trust the GOP. On 8 of the top 10 they trust the GOP. And on health care it's rapidly shifting towards the GOP as well (now 4 points, it was 18 points in May).
Centrifuge John wrote:
Any plan that reaches the Senate floor will be. The HELP committee is doing half of the plan, the Finance committee is doing the other half.
Really? How do you know it will be revenue neutral? Is there a preliminary plan you can point us to, or is this just your faith in hope and change?
The latest HELP scoring covers 97% of all Americans according to the CBO.
Except it's not revenue neutral, is it?
Share with us, o great oracle, where this mystical bill is, or even the preliminary details can be found! You seem to be so sure about what it will do, and so familiar with the details that there MUST be a location for us mere mortals to learn more...
74. @71 pudge on July 11, 2009 12:03 PM,
Fighting something with nothing (based upon principle or not) in a free market produces easily measurable results. (see 2008 election results)
If the results thus far please you, then, by all means, keep it up.
75. @73 Shanghai Dan on July 11, 2009 12:09 PM,
"Here's an idea - how about letting a free market actually DEVELOP! ... How about stopping the Government interference and letting private industry address the problem for a decade or so?"
Good point, but it ignores the fact that it takes action to get to a free market, and 'for a decade or so' Republicans did nothing to either correct the known issues with the current system, nor offer a free market alternative.
While popular opinion may or may not be currently swinging to the GOP, the only opinion poll that ultimately matters in politics is the election - which Republicans lost by a huge margin in 2008. As I have said, the Democrats are in charge and simply saying 'no' is not going to stop them as they have a solid majority in the Senate.
76. @70:
I understand you admire the foreign systems you mention. Could you tell me what the tax rates in those countries are compared to ours? Specifically taking into local and national taxes including VAT. I realize that this is not just a dollar argument but dollars do matter. 'Doing something' that is detrimental over doing nothing which is also detrimental is not a solution. It's trading one ill for another and is absolutely idiotic. Health care providers and administrators do say something needs to be done but there is not a consensus of what that 'something' should be. Taking a plan that is put together by people that are not intimately involved or knowledgeable in health care is not a recipe for success. Do you really think our legislators can solve this in few weeks of debate? Obama is a smart guy and he's charismatic, but that combination doesn't mean his leadership will automagically solve all the worlds problems. Think for yourself and don't let you party think for you. I work in health care and we have these debates daily. People that have lived in the system for a short time and a long time trying to figure out the best solution. These aren't politically appointed suits. These are peoples whose job it is to see that insurance companies provide the best care and experience possible. They KNOW something needs to be done and are trying to figure out a solution and have been doing so for years. Un-knowledgeable legislators aren't going to make it better and I'm pretty sure we are all aware of that fact.
77. MikeBoyScout,
Remember when President Bush tried to open a dialogue about reforming Social Security? The GOP had Congress (the Senate by a thread - one or two votes) and the White House for 4 years. Where was the plans of the loyal opposition?
Maybe the shrill fear-mongering of the Left - and their lapdogs called the mainstream media - was the reason.
Better to let a system limp along for now, rather than completely destroy it.
And I can put this right back on you - for decades (four, to be precise) the Democrats (Slavery Party) controlled Congress. What was the solution? Where were the solutions? It was their invention - Medicare, Social Security - they did nothing. NOTHING.
The facts are incontrovertible: Government-backed health care costs are spiraling upwards faster than privately-backed health care costs. The deficits of the US are exploding. Medicaid is insolvent - it's spending more than it brings in (and its reserves are unfunded liabilities - just IOUs from the Government).
How is adding another 20, 30, 40 million people to the Government health care rolls going to reduce the deficit, lower the rate of increase in health care, or eliminate the cash flow drain on Medicaid?
Hope and change doesn't solve the problem...
78. @76 : Mr. Rcguy on July 11, 2009 12:23 PM,
I don't have those figures at my finger tips, but you can google them. And you are correct, it is not only about dollar costs, but about net benefit.
I do not believe in surrendering to the Obama Democrat plan, but believe that it is imperative for conservatives and the Republican party to offer a measurable alternative that reduces the rate of cost increase and increases the nominal amount of people insured.
I further contend that a publicly administered alternative is the best way to get there from here based upon what other center-right nations have accomplished and from what Republicans have done in the past. At a federal level it behooves conservatives to DEMAND a viable alternative proposal.
Now... out to the water for me.
79. "76. @70:I understand you admire the foreign systems you mention. Could you tell me what the tax rates in those countries are compared to ours?"
They're a lot higher than the tax rates in the USA. We all know that, and yes, the details are not at my fingertips. The taxes are higher, and we all know that.
Whn you think about that, you should also think about this:
if you pay for health care thru taxes, you pay less in not paying premiums. So when you compare our 39% rate to their 45% rate or their 55% rate, whatever, you have to take that into account. You also have to take into account that in general those nations pay for more college costs, so you might not be paying zip for studnet loans. And you have to take into account that they pay for lots more of everything, like unemployment, and the medical scheme means they don't have 2.3 of all bankruptcies due to medical costs, the way we do. What happens to home loans and credit card and auto debt that's wiped out in bankruptcy? Why the rest of us pay for it indirectly.
So the notion you can just compare a 39% marginal rate yhere to a 49% marginal rate there or 65% whatever is wrong.
here's the key to me.
They have lots of rich people over there in Europe.
They have conservative parties.
They have elections and votes and governments that change power.
Yet, for some damn reason, the voters over there just keep their socialized communisitic marxist enslaving type of single payer health care system.
Just like they keep their communistic armies, and some of them their communistic high speed trains and other socialized collectivized purchasing they're democratically decided to engage in.
IOW sometimes the collectivist way just works better. Particularly (IMHO) when you leave about half the economy to the market.
Really you guys, if it didn't work over there, they would just vote to change it, duh!
Enjoy the sunshine and if in Oregon go ahead and enjoy those communistically state owned beaches...the liberals and marxist enslavers like myself won't hold it against you!
PS - good article today on paying for health care thru surtax on the rich. We have a long way to go before we hit the tax rates in Europe, so I am sure this will be part of the solution.
80. Boy,
"Our health care system was NOT built by free markets. Specifically the employer paid health insurance approach was the result of wage constraints imposed by the Fed govt during WWII. 6 Republican presidents did nothing to alter this approach - which is nearly universally understood to be inoperative going forward."
Republican presidents did nothing to alter this approach because what you are saying is completely untrue. You are inventing history and conflating health care with health insurance because you follow the lead of those who offer only one solution for anything . . . government based on lies. Our real "health care" problems began with Johnson's "Great Society" and continued forward to today.
Further, your assertion that administrative costs are bound to be higher for "private" insurance and argument against private insurance solutions belies an implicit belief that our health care system was built by free market economics. Your solutions are to use government intervention to level (neutralize) market forces in the vain quest to lower the cost of health care. If not, and you are neutral on this point, why not try the reverse? Force Government to remove mandates, and let markets solve the cost problems through competition. Why wouldn't this work?
"Secondly, 'allowing' is a passive approach which looks and feels like what Republican administration's have proposed since 1981."
In the same spirit you suppose that "allowing" the dynamic markets to do what they do best is passive when it is anything but, allowing markets to work includes allowing people freedom to pursue the market choices they desire. Why not choose freedom and the unlimited choices it produces?
"Like it or not, Obama ran on 'health insurance is a right not a privilege', and won with a significant majorities in the legislative branch. "
True enough and when that fails along with all of the other idiotic anti-economic nonsense he has drawn us into, significant majorities will change. I like your Democracy idea because it is about individual freedom to choose alternatives and you are correct. That is why things will drastically change as soon as people like you realize that he only offers bondage and poverty. Obama is doing all of the the wrong things.
"Regarding my position, I have not seen any proposal and or economic models which would reduce the rate of cost increase and increase coverage via a competitive private insurance approach."
None are so blind as he who will not see. These models are a part of the inexorable process of competition that will be destroyed by more government intrusion into our health care system. That you are incapable of recognizing the uniquely peerless capacity of free markets to innovate and improve through competition comes as no surprise. You listen to liberal nonsense too much. Maybe try thinking for yourself some time.
"I have seen implemented models in France, Germany, Singapore, Switzerland ... that deliver lower cost, increased coverage and better medical outcomes than our current USA system. "
No you have not. There are no implemented models in France, Germany, Singapore, Switzerland that deliver lower cost, increased coverage and better medical outcomes than our current USA system. These systems are what they are. Socialist oppressors of individual freedom.
"Therefore, based upon measurable facts I (like the majority of Americans) support proposals that include a publicly administered plan."
Mere opinion, shallow surmise and empty assertions of nonsense are not measurable facts.
"As has been pointed out by others on this thread, the Heritage Foundation study cherry-picks facts and statistics. I'll leave it to others who are interested in "why?" to identify who funds the Heritage Foundation research and what their agenda is, but is certainly not congruent with the economics of health care nor the political will of the people as expressed in the 2008 election."
Heritage Foundation research is certainly not congruent with your liberal bullshit. It is interesting to note that while you disparage the Heritage Foundation research, you provide no reason as to why Heritage would want to say anything that is not true. You are convinced by nothing more than liberal propaganda, yet when asked a straight forward question, you answer with mere opinion.
Granted mine is opinion as well. Well founded opinion includes the fact that the American Health Care system was built by free markets to become the very best system in the world and it is the envy of every other system in the world. It's most troubling problems are the result of government interference through the burdens of unfunded mandates and government boondoggles of liberals who use them to get elected. Obama fooled liberals once again but that is hardly anything for you to be proud of.
Free markets are the direct will of the people. You offer no legitimate argument against letting the markets freely dictate the system by limiting government intrusion into a market problem.
Thanks for the very feeble try though.
81. MikeBS:
Fighting something with nothing (based upon principle or not) in a free market produces easily measurable results. (see 2008 election results)
First, please don't waste our time with your such boring and shallow analysis. The Democrats gained ground in 2006 with "nothing" ... and in 2008 with about the same.
Second, again: I've already demonstrated why you're wrong, why bringing up a specific plan would be playing right into the Democrats' hands.
82. Dan: wow, the funniest thing about that poll is that the GOP is more trusted on ethics ... not that the GOP isn't to be more trusted (I'd give them a very small edge, which is reflected in the polls), but after the last few years of the Democrats hammering nothing but Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, and ethics, ethics, ethics, and the Dems winning election on those things ... and now the GOP has the edge on both. Heh.
83. For those of you who doubt whether single-payer health care would ration care, here is a great example. Medicaid sent out letters in July to medicaid recipients advising coverage of certain items is being eliminated or reduced, including testing strips for insulin dependent diabetics, which as of August first are reduced to 100 strips a month, averaging to about three tests a day. Most insulin dependent diabetics, if they are managing their disease properly, take insulin four times a day, and before each injection must test in order to determine the dose. A great majority of insulin dependent diabetics test their glucose anywhere from five to eight times in a 24 hour period, and achieve great glucose control. Anyone still doubt the single payer rationing? The real joke is that if diabetes is not controlled properly, there are long-term complications such as retinopathy, neuropathy, kidney disease, heart disease sepsis. All of that costs WAY MORE than test strips, but hey, who's counting?
84. So, I'm off to a fund-raiser barbecue for Susan Hutchison at the home of a former pastor (who I think is a democrat). She does have bi-partisan support. Should be interesting.
85. Dan,
Really? How do you know it will be revenue neutral? Is there a preliminary plan you can point us to, or is this just your faith in hope and change?
Because I follow the process. Senator Baucus, the President, and every major player has said they will not accept a bill unless it's revenue neutral.
Except it's not revenue neutral, is it?
It will be. I follow the process, which is how I know. The CBO has scored an early Finance bill, so there has already been progress on those cost savings.
Share with us, o great oracle, where this mystical bill is, or even the preliminary details can be found!
Why am I a "great oracle"? Because I read the news and have already communicated this information a dozen times? You are not arguing in good faith. You are trying to get petty potshots in. That's why it's "o great oracle" or "centrifuge john." Your ignorance of this aspect of the legislative process has derailed conversations many times over, yes I'm the pretentious spinner? Give me a break. Do some research and stop wasting everyone's time.
Google "Finance committee." You too can follow the process. Not that difficult, by any means.
You seem to be so sure about what it will do, and so familiar with the details that there MUST be a location for us mere mortals to learn more...
Yes, anyone can follow the process and be informed.
Here are two excellent blogs I follow. They are progressive-slanted, but news is news:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_treatment/default.aspx
86. Confused by Logic,
No you have not. There are no implemented models in France, Germany, Singapore, Switzerland that deliver lower cost, increased coverage and better medical outcomes than our current USA system. These systems are what they are. Socialist oppressors of individual freedom.
None of those countries have socialized health care. Please leave the health care discussion to those adult enough to skip the vilification foreign approaches to make their point.
87. Dan,
Government-backed health care costs are spiraling upwards faster than privately-backed health care costs.
This has not been the case since the mid-90's.
88. pudge has to be the most useless commentator on health care in the entirety of this site. While the man is certainly informed on a variety of issues, health care is not one of them. He doesn't know what a health care exchange is, but he opposes it. His party doesn't have a plan, but he opposes the democratic one. And he insists that Republicans have long fought for health care reform, while ignoring that they've prompted no legislation on the schedule
ever on the issue (Medicare Advantage is not health care reform, it is a waste of health care money).
Pudge is arguing on platitudes of liberty and what socialism is. These principles are having and sharing, but ultimately they are irrelevant in the modern age. He urns for an America of the 1910's but that time has past. And while fighting the good fight for those days to return, he'd be fine letting health care reform fall by the wayside because -- honestly -- why should the Federal Government have any laws at all about health care? That's not in the constitution, is it?
A cute argument, but an irrelevant one. His time machine is broken unfortunately.
89. "The average family doesn't understand how Wall Street's dictates determine whether they will be offered coverage, whether they can keep it, and how much they'll be charged for it. But, in fact, Wall Street plays a powerful role. The top priority of for-profit companies is to drive up the value of their stock."
"To win the favor of powerful analysts, for-profit insurers must prove that they made more money during the previous quarter than a year earlier and that the portion of the premium going to medical costs is falling"
"To help meet Wall Street's relentless profit expectations,
insurers routinely dump policyholders who are less profitable or who get sick. Insurers have several ways to cull the sick from their rolls. Why? Because dumping a small number of enrollees can have a big effect on the bottom line. Ten percent of the population accounts for two-thirds of all health care spending."
"
They also dump small businesses whose employees' medical claims exceed what insurance underwriters expected.
All it takes is one illness or accident among employees at a small business to prompt an insurance company to hike the next year's premiums so high that the employer has to cut benefits, shop for another carrier, or stop offering coverage altogether leaving workers uninsured. The practice is known in the industry as
"purging.""
Testimony of Wendell Potter, (former) Vice President of Communications for CIGNA Insurance Company
before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
SOURCE: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/potter_testimony.html
90. I find these health care threads only mildly informative. Mostly sides are drawn up an people spout off rhetoric and are fixated on ideology. However, every so often something informative is brought up that actually makes me rethink my position, so it's not all bad.
The problem is that the discussions never really focus on a systematic analysis of the actual problems that need to be addressed and how any particular approach will address those problems and what new problems might arise from its solution. I am not saying that we don't address such issues, but it is more of an ancillary point it seems rather than a careful analysis.
For example, MikeBoyScout brings up in 89 a key issue with the "Pure market" approach that Pudge advocates and that I am more inclined to favor in theory. If left unfettered, would the insurance agencies simply drop high risk/high cost people in efforts to improve its profits? Profit motivation is a double edged sword. It can drive improvements and it can drive abuses. However, government run institutions can clearly dull the improvement edge while not necessarily dulling the "abuse" edge. This is why I disfavor a pure government solution but I also do not favor an unfettered private solution necessarily.
Points that need to be addressed clearly include such things as:
1. can one lower the cost of an item simply by paying less for it? Does the government plan really address what the root causes for our increasing health care costs? I see nothing that systematically evaluates what the costs are and what the impact of certain actions or policies or approaches will have on the costs as well as the consequences to other things such as R&D and medical advances, etc.
2. How does any heath care system avoid abuses such as fraud, over use of treatment just because it's available, people who avoid paying into the system while healthy but then expecting "Cadillac" treatment if they are hit by a major medical condition, etc?
3. How does the system protect people who are unable to afford catastrophic insurance while preventing people from getting a free ride who can and should pay for their own coverage? This begs the questions of whether catastrophic coverage is a "right" or not.
None of this address the philosophical/ideological issues such as how a moral society would protect its members from serious financial ruin from catastrophic illness. It does not address the concerns of how, when something becomes public that is invariably becomes political with winners and losers. It also does not address that once you allow people to vote on something that you don't have politicians pandering to the "more chickens in your pot" campaigns.
I'm sure I can come up with more, but I have to go for now.
91. AMERICA’S NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY!
It’s official. America and the World are now in a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. A World EPIDEMIC with potential catastrophic consequences for ALL of the American people. The first PANDEMIC in 41 years. And WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES will have to face this PANDEMIC with the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed World.
STAND READY AMERICA TO SEIZE CONTROL OF YOUR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.
We spend over twice as much of our GDP on healthcare as any other country in the World. And Individual American spend about ten times as much out of pocket on healthcare as any other people in the World. All because of GREED! And the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare system in America.
And while all this is going on, some members of congress seem mostly concern about how to protect the corporate PROFITS! of our GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT NATIONAL DISGRACE. A PRIVATE FOR PROFIT DISGRACE that is in fact, totally valueless to the public health. And a detriment to national security, public safety, and the public health.
Progressive democrats the Tri-Caucus and others should stand firm in their demand for a robust government-run public option for all Americans, with all of the minimum requirements progressive democrats demanded. If congress can not pass a robust public option with at least 51 votes and all robust minimum requirements, congress should immediately move to scrap healthcare reform and request that President Obama declare a state of NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY! Seizing and replacing all PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance plans with the immediate implementation of National Healthcare for all Americans under the provisions of HR676 (A Single-payer National Healthcare Plan For All).
Coverage can begin immediately through our current medicare system. With immediate expansion through recruitment of displaced workers from the canceled private sector insurance industry. Funding can also begin immediately by substitution of payroll deductions for private insurance plans with payroll deductions for the national healthcare plan. This is what the vast majority of the American people want. And this is what all objective experts unanimously agree would be the best, and most cost effective for the American people and our economy.
In Mexico on average people who received medical care for A-H1N1 (Swine Flu) with in 3 days survived. People who did not receive medical care until 7 days or more died. This has been the same results in the US. But 50 million Americans don’t even have any healthcare coverage. And at least 200 million of you with insurance could not get in to see your private insurance plans doctors in 2 or 3 days, even if your life depended on it. WHICH IT DOES!
If President Obama has to declare a NATIONAL STATE OF EMERGENCY to rescue the American people from our healthcare crisis, he will need all the sustained support you can give him. STICK WITH HIM! He’s doing a brilliant job.
THIS IS THE BIG ONE!
THE BATTLE OF GOOD Vs EVIL!
Join the fight.
Contact congress and your representatives NOW! AND SPREAD THE WORD!
(http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/publicoption) (http://www.actblue.com/page/healthcareheroes)
God Bless You
Jacksmith – WORKING CLASS
92. AMERICA’S NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY!
It’s official. America and the World are now in a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. A World EPIDEMIC with potential catastrophic consequences for ALL of the American people. The first PANDEMIC in 41 years. And WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES will have to face this PANDEMIC with the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed World.
STAND READY AMERICA TO SEIZE CONTROL OF YOUR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.
We spend over twice as much of our GDP on healthcare as any other country in the World. And Individual American spend about ten times as much out of pocket on healthcare as any other people in the World. All because of GREED! And the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare system in America.
And while all this is going on, some members of congress seem mostly concern about how to protect the corporate PROFITS! of our GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT NATIONAL DISGRACE. A PRIVATE FOR PROFIT DISGRACE that is in fact, totally valueless to the public health. And a detriment to national security, public safety, and the public health.
Progressive democrats the Tri-Caucus and others should stand firm in their demand for a robust government-run public option for all Americans, with all of the minimum requirements progressive democrats demanded. If congress can not pass a robust public option with at least 51 votes and all robust minimum requirements, congress should immediately move to scrap healthcare reform and request that President Obama declare a state of NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY! Seizing and replacing all PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance plans with the immediate implementation of National Healthcare for all Americans under the provisions of HR676 (A Single-payer National Healthcare Plan For All).
Coverage can begin immediately through our current medicare system. With immediate expansion through recruitment of displaced workers from the canceled private sector insurance industry. Funding can also begin immediately by substitution of payroll deductions for private insurance plans with payroll deductions for the national healthcare plan. This is what the vast majority of the American people want. And this is what all objective experts unanimously agree would be the best, and most cost effective for the American people and our economy.
In Mexico on average people who received medical care for A-H1N1 (Swine Flu) with in 3 days survived. People who did not receive medical care until 7 days or more died. This has been the same results in the US. But 50 million Americans don’t even have any healthcare coverage. And at least 200 million of you with insurance could not get in to see your private insurance plans doctors in 2 or 3 days, even if your life depended on it. WHICH IT DOES!
If President Obama has to declare a NATIONAL STATE OF EMERGENCY to rescue the American people from our healthcare crisis, he will need all the sustained support you can give him. STICK WITH HIM! He’s doing a brilliant job.
THIS IS THE BIG ONE!
THE BATTLE OF GOOD Vs EVIL!
Join the fight.
Contact congress and your representatives NOW! AND SPREAD THE WORD!
(http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/publicoption) (http://www.actblue.com/page/healthcareheroes)
God Bless You
Jacksmith – WORKING CLASS
93. John @88:
You can oppose something you know is wrong without having an alternative. The argument that you can't is what gets us into huge stupid govt. programs in the first place. You are trying to quash debate by wrapping a false barrier around the debate itself. Very Democrat.
94. #91 "But 50 million Americans don�t even have any healthcare coverage. "
Source for this please?
Thanks.
95. As a repubilican I feel it is not my porblem that a few others don't have health care - I work hard every day -- let them work for it too- If it weren't for Darwin we would still be monkeys sitting in trees. thre would be no healthcare in the first place. Getting rid of a few weak sisters along the way will serve us well.
Bill Hill
96. As a repubilican I feel it is not my porblem that a few others have no health care. I work hard every day, let them
work for it too.
If it weren't for Darwin we would still be monkeys, sitting in trees. there would be no healthcare in the first place.
Getting rid of a few weak sisters along the way will serve us and Darwin well.
God knows how to take care of his people, don't every forget that God won't !
Bill Hill
97. According to Rizzo at #86 (
John Jensen a self described adult who advertises that he wants to murder conservatives), France, Germany, Singapore, and Switzerland do not have socialized health care systems. Supposedly we should emulate European systems because (in Rizzo's opinion) they are better than ours, and when we implement Obamunist socialist remedies to our Market based system, in fact we are only improving our market based system.
Rizzo proves once again that he is immune to facts so he can make up whatever he likes whenever he likes.
Rizzo is a flat out liar and liberal bullshit artist. There is no legitimate argument but that Europe itself is predominantly socialist and he knows it. France, Germany, Singapore, and Switzerland are only a few of the many European socialist countries whose health care is strictly socialist/government owned and regulated.
Leftist liar/propagandists propagate the idea that this is not so because they wish to create a false notion about economic systems in order to move our country away from economic freedom and into centrally controlled domination by small groups.
Rizzo never answers serious and valid questions about economics because he knows absolutely nothing about it. His grounding is purely partisan propaganda superficially dressed up as knowledge.
Rizzo's shtick is to pretend that his double-talk is the equivalent of technical expertise and useful knowledge when it is only cover to avoid engaging in any real arguments. He does this because he can never answer any truly important questions about solutions for our health care system, and he proves it every time he posts.
We have grown accustomed to nothing but pretentious bullshit from the little twerp, and he fully satisfies our every expectation.
Thanks for the lesson Rizzo
98. Correction: Singapore is not a European country, but it is socialist and has a socialist health care system.
99. Thankfully America is not a Democracy.
At the heart of the "Health Care" debate is freedom. The enduring question is how much freedom to give away in exchange for social security. The enduring limitation in our system is how liberty may be taken away.
Being a liberal used to mean a lover of freedom. Today Liberals laud what they refer to as the "democratic" process but only when it works to establish control over people. They insist that a vote for Obama was a vote for "Health Care" (universal entitlement to access and treatment) as if Democracy itself should (ever) supplant fundamental rights in a representative Republic such as ours. Regardless of their arrogant presumptions, the decision of how much freedom to give away in exchange for entitlement to health care is not theirs alone to make. This fact is at the heart of the founding of our Republic and what makes us different and better than any country in the world. Health care is not a fundamental right nor will it be one based on the election of any candidate or group of candidates to office no matter how many they are, or how persuasive they may be.
America was founded on fundamental rights that are written in the First Ten Articles of the U.S. Constitution, and a vote for any candidate whose avowed mission (Change) is to subvert the U.S. Constitution is not a legitimate mandate nor justification for anything - let alone universal entitlement to health care. If liberals wish to make general entitlement to health care a fundamental right, they must create a constitutional amendment or be guilty of shattering the basis of our Republic and breaching our social contract. Liberals who truly believe that Health Care is a right will be more than willing to do this. Those who wish to crush our system for their projects must be stopped by ANY MEANS.
Many years ago a liberal knot-head (R Taney) perverted the constitution to justify an anti-constitutional outcome in order to secure his constituent's desires and it ignited the Civil War. If a liberal Congress "votes" to establish a national health care system, they will create equally just grounds for another Civil War.
Many of us are unabashedly willing to do what is necessary to defend our right to be left to our own devices as is our right under our American Constitution. Invasion of those rights by snotty liberal dimwits like Rizzo (John Jensen who advertises that he wants to murder conservatives) and other liberals will only drive us closer to a situation where the reality of his craven advertisement will become an inevitability that he will find himself quite incapable of implementing.
There is no good reason to attempt to remedy problems created by government burdening of a healthy market based health care system with more government burdening solutions. Only morons make more holes in a sinking boat, and only liberals are daft enough to pretend that a problem can be resolved by ignoring its source in favor of exacerbating its cause. Obama's political extremism and over-reaching is beginning to unravel his fortunes and soon (hopefully) this debate will be taken over by cooler and more reasoned leaders whose fortunes are not fixated on empty rhetoric and assuaging racial guilt.
100. Confused by liberals, wrote:
France, Germany, Singapore, and Switzerland are only a few of the many European socialist countries whose health care is strictly socialist/government owned and regulated.
He is as knowledgeable in the health sphere as he is in the geographic one.
Switzerland, in fact, has an entirely private health insurance industry. It does not have a single-payer system in the least. But rather than educate, Confused by Liberals would rather vilify and scare.
Stupid, ranting posts like the two proceeding illustrate an ideology unable to contend with modern problems such as health care access. Liberty and Freedom and Prosperity are values we can all identify with. This nation chose last November to sacrifice none of those principles yet still deliver health care to every American. Confused by Liberals would have us believe that anything beyond 200% annual growth in insurance industry profits is an assault on our personal freedoms. I find his platitudes obnoxious and irrelevant, and his repeated personal attacks unnecessary.
101.
John, what is your opinion about those CBO projections as related to the Stimulus that I posted in #27?
102. @85: I see. You believe what the President and the Slavery Party leaders claim to want will be reached. You have no proof nor basis for refuting my statements, just faith.
They said they want revenue neutral and thus they will have it.
You know, one of the first things Pelosi did when she took control was to implement PAYGO. Then-candidate Obama ran on a pledge of PAYGO. Now, nearly $2.2 trillion later in deficits, we're still not implementing it. I know, finances and economics is hard (the President is finding that out daily)! Maybe they cannot do PAYGO, but want to, so it's not that much of a breaking of promises.
Or taxes? You know, President Obama has stated no tax increases on anyone making under $250,000. Except he's already broken that, and his Administration has officially retreated from that statement as well. So his strong campaign promise is already tattered and torn. But again, he's learning that governing - being the President - is hard! You can't just vote "PRESENT".
And how about reading bills, leaving them up for 5 days for review? Surely that could be done - you know, open Government, ethics, etc. Oops, can't even do that one. Heck, we can't even get bills fully assembled before we vote on them!
But you have faith that what they've called for will happen. Yeah, I guess you really are a "HOPE AND CHANGE!" kind of guy...
PS: About Singapore; it's not in Europe, but it's the most European place in Asia! English is the official language, the law in English, they even drive on the wrong side of the road (like the English). For 200+ years, Singapore WAS English, and much of its Governmental structure - including the social net - is based on England. Radically different than Malaysia or Indonesia (it's nearest neighbors). You don't have to be IN Europe to be European!
103. Is Obama's new Science Czar going to have input into this? He's an advocate for forced abortion, and forced sterilization. Is this how they're going to make it deficit neutral?
104. Why do people like john jensen want to hurt poor people at a time when money is so tight?
105. Dan,
You believe what the President and the Slavery Party leaders claim to want will be reached. You have no proof nor basis for refuting my statements, just faith. They said they want revenue neutral and thus they will have it.
You have absolutely no evidence -- none -- that there will be any deficit spending in the final bill. The single biggest focus of the Finance committee is identifying a revenue source. The second biggest focus is identifying cost savings. In other words, the hardest lifts of this package are making it deficit neutral -- and those lifts are occurring right now. But if they don't -- if the final bill isn't deficit neutral -- then it won't pass and I won't support it.
Again, you are either not paying attention to the legislative process or you are purposefully using deceit in your comments to derail these conversations. Knowing you, I predict that you are simply not informed about the process. And just like a few weeks ago, when I taught you what the two (at the time) different CBO estimates meant, and just like a few days ago, when I taught you what Medicaid was, you are still obviously in the process of learning about the contours of this debate. Unfortunately, you seem unable to educate yourself without acting like a know-it-all already -- deriding any facts I present as "pretentious" or mocking the obvious terms of any health care package as "faith."
There is nothing pretentious or delusional about attempting to be well-informed about the biggest legislative issue of the year. And rather than inform yourself about this issue -- Gary is taking the same tactic -- you choose to derail the conversation into Bush's legacy deficits, the stimulus, CIGARETTE TAXES OMG, a 5-day review period on bills, etc. Your agenda is clear: Attack the President and the Democratic Party at every turn. You are not evaluating health care reform on its ideas, nor on who it helps or how much it costs -- but which party is proposing it.
Alphabet Soup, Why do people like john jensen want to hurt poor people at a time when money is so tight?
Fixing health care helps the poor far more than encouraging the status quo. To be fair, the GOP makes it clear that the poor is not their priority in this debate: their priority is insurance industry profits.
106. #105 "Gary is taking the same tactic". Let's see, you cite the CBO as a good source. I point out that they may have their own mistakes, and problems, and I ask you about those, and you call it some sort of distraction. You brought up the CBO to counter Heritage.
What is your opinion about what the CBO said about short term effects of the Stimulus? Were they right?
A bonus question... should Obama consider any of John Holdren's advice from his writings?
Thanks.
107. Rizzo at #100
(John Jensen who advertises that he wants to murder conservatives) as usual completely avoids the subject of the discussion to run for cover like a scared rabbit.
I asserted that "At the heart of the "Health Care" debate is freedom," and that "Being a liberal used to mean [being] a lover of freedom. Rizzo defended his liberalism by stating that "Liberty and Freedom and Prosperity are values we can all identify with." Nice platitude for someone who demonstrates that they are ideologically indifferent to freedom. Obamunist Health Care is a step away from freedom and towards socialized--mandated Health Crane largely or wholly controlled by the government.
In defending Obama's socialist health care scheme, Rizzo at #84 flatly lied that France, Germany, Singapore, Switzerland do not have socialized health care. I called Rizzo "a flat-out liar" to which he responded that, "Stupid, ranting posts like the two proceeding illustrate an ideology unable to contend with modern problems such as health care access." Rizzo, regardless of what Obama proves every day, lying in order to contend with modern problems is not an ideological strength. It will only produce bad results that diminish your freedom.
Rizzo responded, " Switzerland, in fact, has an entirely private health insurance industry. It does not have a single-payer system in the least."
Rizzo, even your beloved "Wiki-Crap" shows that Switzerland has a socialist health care system. "Healthcare in Switzerland is regulated by the Federal Health Insurance Act of 1994. Health insurance is compulsory for all persons resident in Switzerland." Compulsory health care is socialized (socialist) health care. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland
I argued at #84, that "Leftist liar/propagandists (like Rizzo) propagate false ideas about European economic systems in order to compare us unfavorably and thus move the emphasis of discussion away from economic freedom and into centrally controlled domination by small politically bent groups." Rizzo responds that, "But rather than educate, Confused by Liberals would rather vilify and scare."
Rizzo, I vilify the rank lying and stupidity that you demonstrate because (aside from being amusing) it does nothing but harm. I acknowledge your fear of the truth. You are a serial liar motivated by partisan obeisance to liberal stupidity who cannot deal with facts.
As I stated earlier, Rizzo never answers serious and valid questions about economics because he knows absolutely nothing about it. His grounding is purely partisan propaganda superficially dressed up as knowledge."
A casual reader considering Rizzo's comments might be tempted to momentarily waver about whether or not Rizzo is an empty-brained partisan liberal shill or not.
Rizzo . . . thanks for proving my point.
108. Centrifuge John posted:
You have absolutely no evidence -- none -- that there will be any deficit spending in the final bill. The single biggest focus of the Finance committee is identifying a revenue source. The second biggest focus is identifying cost savings. In other words, the hardest lifts of this package are making it deficit neutral -- and those lifts are occurring right now. But if they don't -- if the final bill isn't deficit neutral -- then it won't pass and I won't support it.
The evidence I have are the CBO estimates to date for the various bills, all of which have massive deficits.
And the corroborating evidence of the House and Senate leadership - along with the White House - to ignore their own calls for "Pay As You GO" type financing.
But even more, I rely on the FACT that you have yet to show ONE LINK, one PIECE OF EVIDENCE that the bills will be balanced. It's only by faith that you walk! You ignore the consistent lies from the Pelosi/Obama/Reid triumvirate about the budget and finances, and assume that this time "they'll get it right". Ever heard of the phrase "actions speak louder than words"? Their actions to day scream deafeningly "DEFICITS!"
So come on, John, be honest. You believe there will be a revenue neutral bill because you have faith. There are ZERO facts to back up your statement - just faith. Go ahead, claim it. It's the position you've staked out, you might as well simply admit it.
109. Confused, Compulsory health insurance is not socialism, no more than compulsory car insurance is socialism. None of the countries you've mentioned have socialized health care. All have private hospitals, private doctors, etc.
Singapore is still not in Europe. And your ideas are still hidden behind your crazy rants.
110. Centrifuge John,
You want to talk about the merits of health care. OK, here's one approach I would support: Government mandates for minimum levels of insurance coverage are eliminated. Gone. If I want a plan with a $20,000 deductible then I can get it.
Do you support that? Open up the market to offer plans of a much wider variety than exist today?
111.
John,
With car insurance I do NOT have to cover the value of my car AT ALL. I only have to carry enough to cover damage I may inflict on others, not myself.
Compulsory health care forces me to cover myself. And it doesn't even follow the car model; if you have a record of traffic violations and accidents you pay more for car insurance. In the plans being floated by the Administration and Congress you'll pay the same rate if you smoke, drink, or race motorcycles.
How is that a fair approach? Why can't I choose to insure myself at the level I desire, and accept the consequences that may happen?
And Singapore is not IN Europe, but it is quite European in its governance and benefits. Ever been there? It's a lovely place...
112. Gary,
Let's see, you cite the CBO as a good source. I point out that they may have their own mistakes, and problems, and I ask you about those, and you call it some sort of distraction. You brought up the CBO to counter Heritage.
This is why you should make arguments instead of just ask leading questions.
The CBO makes errors as much as any other predictive element in our society. However, they cannot be accused of bad faith. The Heritage Foundation is clearly and obviously biased. To cite them is to give up any pretense of actually researching an issue.
Dan, You believe there will be a revenue neutral bill because you have faith.
No. I am READING AND FOLLOWING THE NEWS.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_treatment/archive/2009/07/02/here-we-go-again-how-to-read-those-help-numbers.aspx
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/an_inside_look_at_the_senate_f.html?hpid=news-col-blog
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/09/news/economy/health_care_reform/?postversion=2009070907
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_5/news/36692-1.html
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20090709/REG/307099996
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2009/July/10/Senate-Action.aspx
http://www.californiahealthline.org/Articles/2009/7/10/Senate-Committee-Mulls-Alternatives-to-Taxing-Health-Care-Benefits.aspx
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24752.html
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/06/15/Obama-Healthcare-reform-deficit-neutral/UPI-33951245099974/
But I just don't get your point. Obviously, everyone claims that they are working toward a deficit-neutral bill. Why would I come out against that bill if every piece of information in pointing toward me getting a good one? On the other hand, if something goes wrong and the bill isn't deficit-neutral then yes, I will absolutely oppose it.
But that day has not come. It probably will not come. The bills are not done. They're in draft form. You expect them to be done and finalized for some weird reason. If me understanding that the legislative process is unfolding is "faith," then okay, I'm very faithful.
If I want a plan with a $20,000 deductible then I can get it. Do you support that?
No. I want universal health care coverage. A "variety of plans" does not ensure universal health care coverage -- it just ensures that health insurance goes to the healthy and the wealthy. People would go bankrupt and health care costs would skyrocket for the rest of us who chose to insure ourselves responsibly. Cheap insurance plans that only help the very healthy also do nothing to address the skyrocketing costs of health care.
Why can't I choose to insure myself at the level I desire, and accept the consequences that may happen?
Because everyone pays if you under-evaluate your risks. And human beings have a tendency to not predict with accuracy when they'll get struck by a car, stricken with cancer, or just by chance fall seriously ill. Insurance should be our safety-net, not a way for humans to put odds on their life. In your ideal world, the poor will have an incentive to get minimal coverage.
113. #112: "The CBO makes errors as much as any other predictive element in our society. However, they cannot be accused of bad faith. The Heritage Foundation is clearly and obviously biased. To cite them is to give up any pretense of actually researching an issue."
-
Heritage Foundation was right. CBO was wrong. I have to pay for what the CBO does, not for what Heritage does. What difference does it make if the CBO acts in good faith if they're wrong?
Were you supportive of the Stimulus bill? Did you base any of your support on what the CBO said about it?
114. And oh, John. About John Holdren, the new Science Czar. He thinks the government should be able to force abortions on anybody it chooses, and cause mass sterility though the public drinking water systems.
Now, I won't speak for you but I assume you're opposed to those views, because you're not a Nazi. But why do you suppose Obama appointed this man? Was he the best Science Czar in a nation of 300 million people?
115. Gary, you've never illustrated the CBO to be wrong on the stimulus. You've never illustrated the Heritage Foundation to be right on the stimulus.
You have never proved the arguments you're saying you've proven. Try again, please. (Maybe asking leading questions doesn't actually qualify as evidence.)
116. Gary, I understand you disagree with Obama on every single issue. I do not have the ability nor time to argue about the science czar or other roles. We should focus on health care in health care threads, and other topics in other threads.
117. John, I asked your opinion on what the CBO said in #27. Were they right about what is happening now based on what they said on Feb. 11th? I say they missed it. What do you say?
Heritage said it wouldn't work. It didn't work.
118. "According to CBO's estimates, with enactment of H.R. 1, (Stimuls) the number of jobs would be between 0.8 million and 2.1 million higher at the end of this year."
-
Ya think? I doubt it. We'd first have to rehire the few million already lost this year, and then *add* at least 800,000 on top of that.
119. #116. You don't think this Science Czar has anything to do with national health care?
I know why you don't want to talk about Holdren. If my guy had nominated a genocide advocate, I wouldn't either.
That's another hard question that you can't answer, because you probably have no idea why Obama would choose such a lunatic as Holdren.
I understand.
120. Gary, there hasn't even been enough time for you to see whether the CBO estimates were right or wrong. You're guessing.
You're misconstruing the CBO's numbers. It is that "the number of jobs would be between 0.8 million and 2.1 million higher at the end of this year" compared to no action. That is not the same thing has 2 million new jobs. It's 2 million new and saved jobs.
Heritage said it wouldn't work. It didn't work.
It's four months into a two year plan. You've cited no Heritage numbers to show their wisdom.
You're guessing. You have no data.
121. So you were for the Stimulus? I don't if I go that answer.
They said 0.8 to 2.1 million *more* jobs by the end of this year as a result of the Stimulus bill. That's what they said.
"Correspondingly, the legislation would increase employment by 0.8 million to 2.3
million by the fourth quarter of 2009."
I doubt it.
Last fall the projected a $450 (or so) deficit for all of 2009. We're at $1 trillion so far this year. I think they missed that one.
122. They said 0.8 to 2.1 million *more* jobs by the end of this year as a result of the Stimulus bill. That's what they said.
Yes, *more* than no action. That does not mean 2 million new jobs. Again, it means 2 million saved or new jobs.
Here is the quote:
In CBO's judgment, H.R. 1 would provide a substantial boost to economic activity over the next several years relative to what would occur without any legislation. (...) According to CBO's estimates, the number of jobs would be between 0.8 million and 2.1 million higher at the end of this year, 1.2 million to 3.6 million higher at the end of next year, and 0.7 million to 2.1 million higher at the end of 2011.
src
Again. 0.8 to 2.1 million new or saved jobs. And the year isn't over. So there is absolutely no data to back up your claims.
Last fall the projected a $450 (or so) deficit for all of 2009. We're at $1 trillion so far this year. I think they missed that one.
What's your point? They should have guessed that we'd have a stimulus? They should have guessed about TARP? They should have predicted the worst economic crisis in 50 years decreasing revenues?
The CBO is as good as any other predictive body. My point is that it doesn't intentionally mislead people like the Heritage Foundation. The CBO is important to our legislative process, and its numbers can kill a bill. The Heritage Foundation is simply an irrelevant, biased, partisan BS factory.
The two organizations should not be compared.
123. "What's your point? They should have guessed that we'd have a stimulus? They should have guessed about TARP? They should have predicted the worst economic crisis in 50 years decreasing revenues?"
-
Whatever. Wrong is wrong. If you are going to base your vote on the CBO's projections, you need to do so knowing that they are not always right. For whatever reason. If you are talking about taking over huge chunks of the national health care system, and you base it on the CBO, and they're wrong...?
What else should they guess on, that their limited imagination prohibits them from doing?
This Stimulus thing was/is and can never be anything *but* a disaster.
124. Gary,
If you are talking about taking over huge chunks of the national health care system, and you base it on the CBO, and they're wrong...?
What's your solution? No estimates at all? We just randomly guess what the costs of a bill will be?
Any time you do financial predictions for a 10-year-timeline you're going to have error. The CBO is non-partisan and widely respected. You have repeatedly compared it to the Heritage Foundation, which is neither.
What else should they guess on, that their limited imagination prohibits them from doing?
They do not "guess." They use widely-respected models for estimating the costs/revenues of bills. The CBO is widely respected regardless of your numerous efforts to pot-shot their work. Those efforts illustrate more about you and your motives than the CBO's soundness.
125. #124 "Any time you do financial predictions for a 10-year-timeline you're going to have error. "
-
10 years... Last Fall they predicted a $450 billion total deficit for 2009... just a 1 year projection. They are going to wind up being off by a few hundred percent, on a 1 year projection. And you think they know what this is going to be like in 10 years? A few months ago, they predicted some pretty robust GDP numbers for
Q4, the quarter we're currently in. I wonder if they'll be right? I doubt it myself. What do you think the GDP will be for Q4?
How badly did they miss the original Medicare cost projections? Uh... badly.
By the way, I didn't use the word "guess" first. You did. You said:
"What's your point? They should have guessed that we'd have a stimulus?"
Yes. Maybe they should have, because then their numbers would be closer to reality.
Were you in favor of the Stimulus? And was your support (if you supported it) based on the CBO?
This whole business about "saved jobs" is baloney also.
126. What do you think the GDP will be for Q4?
Maybe I should just guess. That's what you're proposing. We should all guess. Or use partisan sources, like you do.
How badly did they miss the original Medicare cost projections? Uh... badly.
The CBO didn't even exist in 1965. Great argument.
Yes. Maybe they should have, because then their numbers would be closer to reality.
The CBO is only allowed to evaluate current programs and laws, since it is not a group of palm readers. It cannot "guess" that legislation will pass.
This whole business about "saved jobs" is baloney also.
It's recognizing the numbers I read. You looked at the numbers and did no investigation into what they mean. That's why you were wrong and looked like a fool.
127. #126
"Maybe I should just guess. That's what you're proposing. We should all guess. Or use partisan sources, like you do."
-
Hmmm. I thought you'd use the CBO forecast.
I don't blame you for not using them.
128. Also, the CBO numbers are for calendar year, not government FY. We are not in Q4 2009. Another error from Gary, who is proving over and over that he has no clue what he's talking about -- but certainly is a partisan hack.
Great citations of the Heritage Foundation, by the way. Looks like you've given up trying to make sense of their BS numbers despite claiming they're more accurate than the CBO.
129. The CBO doesn't use the United States fiscal calendar? No wonder they're confused.
Alright. The CBO has forecast a GDP for Q4. What do you think the GDP for Q4 will be?
I guess you just cannot answer whether you supported the Stimulus. Again. I don't blame you.
130. I already answered your question. Please stop question-trolling me. If you have any data to back up your point that the CBO will be wrong about GDP growth, present it. Otherwise, I have already destroyed all of your arguments and have illustrated that the Heritage Foundation is an untrustworthy resource.
131. Rizzo, at # 109, (
John Jensen who advertises that he wants to murder conservatives),
Socialism refers to any one of various theories of economic organization advocating state or cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Courtesy of your favorite Wiki-crap.
France, Germany, Singapore, and Switzerland and many other countries around the world all have socialized health care closely controlled by their respective governments. In Switzerland for example, state or cooperative ownership and administration of the "quasi-private" hospitals, are closely controlled by government regulation. Health care worker's wages are closely regulated by the government. Equal opportunities (egalitarian method of access to care) for workers was made available at direct cost to private health care concerns for all Swiss citizens through Government mandates under the Federal Health Insurance Act of 1994.
No matter how many lies you tell, Socialism is still socialism Rizzo.
132. #130 "If you have any data to back up your point that the CBO will be wrong about GDP growth, present it."
-
"will".
Well, I presented data to backup the fact that they were wrong about the 2009 deficit total, you said they should not be criticized for not having guessed what actually happened between the Fall of 2008 and now,.
So, when Q4 is over, and their GDP forecast is wrong, you'll make the same excuse.
You answered my question about whether you favored the Stimulus? I guess I missed it. Maybe the support was... tepid.
Anyway, how do you think the Stimulus... oh wait I was about to ask a hard question. Nevermind.
133. Well, I presented data to backup the fact that they were wrong about the 2009 deficit total
That is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with GDP estimates.
Tell me why the GDP estimates will be wrong, Gary? You have no answers, no data, no facts. You have absolutely nothing to back up your guess.
134. Doesn't matter. You won't stand by their numbers, so my point is made. They don't know jack about what's gonna happen 10 years out, do they?
So do you agree with their Q4 projection?
Why is the deficit mistake irrelevant? Hell, I'd say that their primary job is budget numbers, not economic forecasts anyway. So, if they are so wrong about Congressional spending, how the hell can we trust them to forecast medical costs 10 years out?
135. It isn't a
mistake. They made an estimate based on
law at the time. The law changed, and it would be
impossible for
ANYONE IN THE WORLD to
guess the correct numbers. They update their budget numbers
monthly, and those numbers factor in the latest data. To say that they made a mistake in their budget numbers is
wrong.
You expect the CBO to have a crystal ball. I expect them to analyze the data we have in a sound and non-partisan way.
136. #135 "It isn't a mistake. They made an estimate based on law at the time. The law changed, and it would be impossible for ANYONE IN THE WORLD to guess the correct numbers. They update their budget numbers monthly, and those numbers factor in the latest data. To say that they made a mistake in their budget numbers is wrong. "
-
Oh. So when they said the deficit in 2009 would be $450 billion, they were right?
And, if they forecast health care issues 10 years in advance, they base that on the law *never* changing in the intervening decade?
Or, are you saying that is *impossible" for them to ever make a mistake, because whatever happens isn't their fault?
137. No, Gary. Their [budget] mandate is to evaluate things based on current law. How can they possibly guess which laws will pass and what they will cost? By saying they were wrong implies they made a mistake. No. They did their job fine -- the laws changed. Without the CBO estimates, we shouldn't know what impact these changing laws have on our budgetary picture.
And, if they forecast health care issues 10 years in advance, they base that on the law *never* changing in the intervening decade?
They take the proposed laws in the bill, and forecast for ten years. If someone writes a bill changing that law, the new bill will have another CBO score, of course. How can anyone predict what a health care bill in nine years will look like?
Still, what is your solution? Propose no laws which change the revenue picture ever? Have no forecasts of a bill's costs? Do no research what-so-ever? What sort of world of ignorance do you want to live in simply because you'd rather kill health care reform than argue on its merits?
138. Instead of the Marxist socialist solution, at # 32 I wrote,
" I have a far better idea. Why don't we let the free markets fix our health care system by getting government out of it? "The American Health Care system was built by free markets to become the very best system in the world. It's most troubling problems are the result of government interference and the burdens of unfunded mandates. There is no legitimate argument against letting the markets dictate the system especially since markets are the direct will of the people."
Why not?
No one has made a single honest refutation of this assertion and the simple reason for this is that markets work fine unless the metric of success is modern liberal egalitarianism.
Many Americans take freedom for granted. They used to care about liberty, but now they care more about the socialist equalitarianism they were taught by liberal knothead teachers who were indoctrinated by other liberal knothead teachers. Blind followers following other blind followers dumbing deviancy down.
Give a modern liberal (like Rizzo) a book and he will sell it for drugs; give a liberal a library and he will use it as a meeting place to sell drugs. Demand support for a liberal lie, and they go to wiki (unless it doesn't happen to agree with the lie de jour). Any doubt about this has been utterly obliterated by Rizzo (John Jensen who advertises that he wants to murder conservatives).
Rizzo is the very best hapless advocate against leftism that could happen.
Thanks Rizzo.
You are the very one.
139. Why do people like john jensen lie about something so important as our healthcare? Making it inaccessible and pricing it out of the reach of our most vulnerable people sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.
140. Confused by Liberals, what happens when someone can't afford a MacBook Pro? What happens when they can't afford a car? What happens when they can't afford a pair of Nike Airs? What happens when they can't afford a Starbucks latte? They don't get it.
What happens when someone can't afford health insurance? What happens when someone can't afford emergency care? Your solution: They don't get it.
141. #137 "How can they possibly guess which laws will pass and what they will cost? "
Now you're catching on.
142. As someone with experience in health care administration on both the private side and medicare/medicaid side, I can tell you that the administrative costs for government systems are definitely higher. The difference is when you add in the cost of oversight and regulation.
Our company had to hire almost twice as many employees when we made the switch to all government programs because we had to deal with the OIC audits and filings and then spend months of follow-up documentation for anything they didn't fully understand (which was a lot). Normally, they would finally agree to suspend their investigations into merit less accusations just in time for the next audit and filing and the cycle continued.
The only way you make any kind of money with government programs is to have a PMPM charge (per member per month. If they only accepted fee for service no one would take what the government offers.
A study done by Gregoire's own blue ribbon panel found that it would be cheaper for people on the public system to go to the emergency room for treatment when they needed to be see than to continue with a PMPM type of service. However, since the blue ribbon panel was made up of people who not only ran health systems, but contributed lots of money to the Dems, guess what never changed or came up again.
143. Centrifuge John,
How about allowing more choice in insurance? Insurance can actually be cheap, you know... I just moved to a new plan that costs $93 per month (41 YO non-smoking male). And if I didn't have to have the State-mandated chiropractic and psychological coverage, I'm sure it would be down under $80 per month.
Most of those unemployed are younger folks; they can get really low cost coverage. A 24 year old non-smoker can get insurance for $51 per month. Or less than $2 a day. How is that NOT affordable?
144. Gary,
Now you're catching on.
But of course we should evaluate bills on their forecasted costs, and not the potential of other bills in the future to maybe change those outcomes. Those future bills will have their own CBO forecasts.
Certainly being deficit neutral over a 10 year period according to the CBO is much more responsible than having a $600bn deficit spending program.
Dan, I sincerely hope you never have a serious ailment. With premiums like that, your plan is almost certainly more about underwriting than providing health care. In other words, only the healthiest last in that insurance environment -- and premiums will force you out if you get ill. Stay healthy! :)
Why not allow more choice through a health insurance exchange that has a public option to compete with private companies? If health care insurance can already be delivered for so cheap the competition from the government shouldn't be a problem. The problem is that group coverage needs to be offered outside of the workplace. The only way to get group coverage to the unemployed and to small businesses is through a health insurance exchange. Sure, allow for the same competition today but in a group setting.
What does group coverage do? It pools our risk together so the sickest and oldest among us aren't denied the quality care they need.
145. #144 "Why not allow more choice through a health insurance exchange that has a public option to compete with private companies?"
-
Did you read sections 2704 (a,b) of the Kennedy-Dodd bill?
146. Centrifuge John,
Now you're starting to GET IT. Health insurance is JUST THAT - INSURANCE. It's about covering you when you get sick. It's not about covering the costs of 4 doctor's visits a year (if everyone used all 4, then the premiums would go up - think about it).
It covers me if something serious happens; for the usual aches and pains or sprains, I have to pay something... For me, I've built up a small savings account over the last several years that will cover basics and my high deductible. If I don't use it, it just sits there, earning interest. And I save hundreds of dollars per month by not paying high premiums.
Just like car insurance doesn't cover the tires, or your house insurance doesn't cover the cleaning of the rugs.
See, you want 100% free medical care, NOT health insurance. There's a difference - the former is MUCH more expensive than the latter!
So about competing against the public option. Sure, if the public option plays fair: you cannot force private options to provide a list of services (no mandatory chiro, for example), you cannot force private options to have capped profits; you have to leave the public meddling out. In other words, Government doesn't get to set the rules THEN also play in the game.
Sound fair?
147. "Obama says unemployment will keep ticking up"
Wait a second... the CBO told me we were going to add jobs by the end of the year if we passed the Stimulus bill. Isn't that why he told us it was an EMERGENCY! That we had to PASS IT RIGHT NOW!
148. John, what law changed that the CBO didn't know about that is making it miss its economic forecast?
149. See, you want 100% free medical care, NOT health insurance.
Completely false.
150. Gary,
Wait a second... the CBO told me we were going to add jobs by the end of the year if we passed the Stimulus bill. Isn't that why he told us it was an EMERGENCY! That we had to PASS IT RIGHT NOW!
Again, the CBO said more jobs would exist compared to no action, not that unemployment would reverse itself in July (four months after the bill passed). False claim.
John, what law changed that the CBO didn't know about that is making it miss its economic forecast?
Another question troll? Not surprising. You have no evidence for this claim. None. It's almost certainly a false claim.
Gary, why do you find it so hard to argue with actual evidence?
151. Centrifuge John wrote:
Completely false.
So if you cannot afford $50 per month for health care, then you don't get any, right?
152. #150 "Again, the CBO said more jobs would exist compared to no action"
We were told with no action, unemployment would reach levels that are *lower* than they are now *with* action. So how does that make any sense, John?
153. Now now, Gary, we know how accurate the CBO and the Obama Administration are! I mean, just take a look at
this graph of unemployment! Isn't that an accuracy rate that would be the envy of a bank? :)
154. John, Dan posted the evidence. Unemployment is higher because of the Stimulus. Must be the reason because they (your people) told us without the Stimulus, it would be lower than it is now. They're not our numbers, John.
Sections 2704 (a and b)?
155. Their next scheme is to levy a surtax millionaires of 5.4%. 5.4.
And the WH is talking about owning people's homes who are in trouble and renting them back.
These people are making it up as they go along.
20% unemployment here we come!
156. OH yeah, I LOVE the explaination
regarding the cholesterol test....
Unbelievable.
"...we ran out of Tetanus shots, Come back Thursday"
Oh those "lucky" Canadians and their "free" healthcare!
Oooh ... I just bet John Jenson and his fellowbrainwashed comrades are salivating for that opportunity.
157. 153 and 154: That is not from the CBO. Try again.
No evidence. No data. No proof. Just whining.
158. Also, that graph does not show declining unemployment until Q4. And obviously the estimates at the time -- from all economists, not just the White House -- were very off. That's regrettable. But the question isn't how far the estimates are, but how much worse the economy would be without the stimulus.
Much worse. People wouldn't have unemployment and they'd be losing their jobs. State governments would have to do even further severe cutbacks. Our infrastructure would continue to bleed out. And we'd be losing even more jobs at a more rapid clip.
159. Rizzo (
John Jensen who advertises that he wants to murder conservatives) at #140
What happens when someone can't afford a MacBook Pro, a car, a pair of Nike Airs or a Starbucks latte, or Health Care?
If they are a normal honest reasonably intelligent American, they will prioritize their desires, make a plan, go to work and earn enough to afford the best they can afford. If they need emergency health care, we provide a safety net. They are free to do these things for themselves.
However, if they are a liberal like you, they are psychologically retarded from free will, and they will do whatever they can to force others to buy their stuff for them.
And this (of course) is the whole point of the discussion about health care.
If you are able to force me to pay for your care, you will be taking some of my freedom away from me, and I will get back at you for it.
Make no mistake, there are more of us than you.
160. #158 "State governments would have to do even further severe cutbacks. "
Exactly. The only people not losing their jobs are state (gov) employees. Government gets bigger while the tax payers get smaller.
Cannot last.
161. g:
The only people not losing their jobs are state (gov) employees
if you really believe that, you'll probably believe i've got some waterfront property in seattle for $12,000...
a number of city and state employees have been laid off in wa. enough that the state has set up a webpage for helping those gov't workers laid off:
http://www.dop.wa.gov/more/LayoffSupport/EmployeeLayoffInfo/Pages/LayoffListsandGGTP.aspx
162. Wait, mike, EVIDENCE AND DATA? You must be confused. Gary doesn't deal in evidence and data.
163. go to work and earn enough to afford the best they can afford
When recessions hit and we have near 10% unemployment, like now, surely the best answer is that people go without health care. After all, it's just like an iPod in your ideal world: If you can't afford health care, you don't get it.
164. #163 "When recessions hit and we have near 10% unemployment, like now, surely the best answer is that people go without health care."
-
Well then you're really gonna like it when we hits 20%. All of these new burdens are going to strangle small business'.
You guys are all upside-down.
165. Gary, that's why their "deer in the headlights" look of shock and confusion is so funny. They pin all their hopes to elaborate house~of~cards scams and then are befuddled when they spectacularly collapse.
It's just too bad that they hurt and ruin so many innocents with their stupid schemes...
166. Yes Rizzo . . . welcome to earth.
If you can't afford health care, you don't get health care.
No matter what you want to believe or how harshly reality injures your delicate sensibilities, no one including Obama owes you (or anyone else) that.
Health Care is not a right, and it never will be.
The whole point of living free is so that you can be productive and trade with health care providers to protect your health; to allow the markets to work so that people who are willing to work can afford health care.
The worst second choice is to let government decide your options (set "arbitrary" limits) for you.
You want to go backwards and suit the inevitability of your lacking creativity, by forcing me to pay for it.
Be a man and pay for your own health care.
167. Centrifuge John posted:
After all, it's just like an iPod in your ideal world: If you can't afford health care, you don't get it.
So the answer is to provide 100% free health care, right? Is $50 per month - $1.68 per day - too much to spend for health insurance?
168. #167. Apparently it is too much for them. And, as for iPods, anybody receiving public assistance who also owns an iPod... we paid for their iPod. Anybody on public assistance who has cable TV... we paid for that too.
The payers are becoming are becoming fewer and fewer.
It cannot hold up like this for much longer, no matter how much tax they pile on the producers.
169. Confused by Liberals,
If you can't afford health care, you don't get health care.
Yep, that is your party platform. It is heartless and out-of-touch with American values.
Centrifuge Dan, So the answer is to provide 100% free health care, right?
For those who can't afford anything, yes. For those who can pay for some of their plan, the government should give them subsidies. For those who can afford it, they can pay for it. No one is proposing otherwise.
It is not 100% free vs. 100% inhumane. There is a solution that preserves consumer choice and had universal coverage. That solution is reflected in the HELP bill in the Senate and the tri-committee bill in the House.
Meanwhile, Republicans offer no new solutions besides saying that the poor and the struggling middle class don't deserve health care if they can't afford it. Out-of-touch.
170. Gary, the problem is that the right-wing treats health care like an iPod. I don't support subsidized iPods for anyone, but health care is substantially different than iPods.
It's more like education, a justice system, or military protection. We deny none of those things to members of the struggling middle class, yet we deny them health care.
171. #170. "I don't support subsidized iPods for anyone..." Do you support food stamps? Anybody who has an iPod *and* food stamps was able to pay for the iPod because they didn't have to pay for food. That means we paid for their iPod. Does any family with a student taking part in the School Lunch program have Cable TV? They can pay for the Cable TV because they don't have to pay for breakfast or lunch at school. Therefore we are paying their cable TV.
See how it works? It's about choices. It's about freedom.
We've been a nation for over 200 years. Why is it now we have to provide "free" health care to everyone? It's the Paul Poundstone thing all over again. The government creates the crisis, and then acts as the savior.
You want to insure a person who doesn't have insurance? Who is stopping you? Not I.
172. gary: you and other republicans against providing medical care to those that can't afford it
are stopping john and us americans who feel that it's our responsibility and right as a nation to do so.
your choices on healthcare prevent tens of millions of americans from having access to it: in essence, you are not allowing them the freedom to choose.
173. mike, I'm stopping you from providing help to people without insurance?
Explain that to me. You don't stop me. So how am I stopping you? I am able to help people. What is your limitation?
*I'm* stopping million of Americans from the "freedom to choose"? Wow. I'm, pretty powerful.
174. Gary, food and health care are NOT the same as cable and iPods. Your inability to draw the distinction is ridiculous.
Why is it now we have to provide "free" health care to everyone?
Strawman.
You want to insure a person who doesn't have insurance? Who is stopping you? Not I.
I am using the collective power of the country to ensure that health care is provided for all, and you're faulting me for not personally providing health care for all? This is a stupid argument. The country elected a man who wanted and ran on universal coverage. They elected a legislature to do so. The country wants universal coverage and they want a public plan. People are trying to insure their neighbors, while you sit on the sidelines and scream in support of the status quo.
Yeah, I'm sorry I personally don't have enough money to ensure everyone. You're arguing on limited charity terms and I'm arguing in terms of collective fairness. I don't have the power to educate all of my neighbors either, but I support public education. WOW, policy discussions often fall outside of what one person can usually accomplish. HUGE SHOCKER.
Gary, you're all distractions and no substance.
175. #174. "You're arguing on limited charity terms and I'm arguing in terms of collective fairness."
-
Oh. So you refuse.
"Gary, food and health care are NOT the same as cable and iPods. Your inability to draw the distinction is ridiculous."
-
No, it isn't. If a person chooses to *pay* for an iPod instead of for food, because they get the food for free, who's really paying for the iPod, John?
176. #174. "Gary, you're all distractions and no substance."
-
Again. You're the one who brought up iPods originally, are you not? Okay, so the rules are that you can bring up things like iPods, but nobody else can.
Gotcha.
177. If a person chooses to *pay* for an iPod instead of for food, because they get the food for free, who's really paying for the iPod, John?
That doesn't happen.
Again. You're the one who brought up iPods originally, are you not? Okay, so the rules are that you can bring up things like iPods, but nobody else can.
In the free market, people can go without iPods and not much harm is done. In our society, people going without health care causes great harm.
Which is why health care access should exist in the free market like an iPod would. They are fundamentally different. The inability of you and other GOP members who recognize this difference is astounding.
I brought up the iPod to illustrate how inhumane treating health care like a consumer product is. It's not just inhumane, it's bad policy. Your irrational resentment of the poor changes nothing.
178. Also, your distractions have nothing to do with iPods.
I am arguing for a policy position. Your distraction is saying that I should fund health insurance for 36+ million Americans by myself. It's an irrelevant argument and has nothing to do with policy. That's why you're all distractions and no substance.
179. #177 "That doesn't happen."
HAHAHAHA!
180. Gary, oops, I didn't mean to post that because I just don't have an interest in arguing with your irrational resentment of the poor. I thought I deleted it, but was planning on saying "that doesn't happen with any frequency, help is given based on income and is there really a better way?"
I have no idea with what frequency that happens. Do you have any data, or is this just another distraction? If some poor person makes almost nothing, gets food stamps, and happens to buy cable -- it's still not like they're living large and in charge. Is your solution to deny food stamps? Is it to make cable/iPods illegal to own if you get government health care?
You don't have a solution, probably. Just irrational resentment.
181.
I don't resent the poor. I resent the government taking my money to give to other people with *obviously* very few strings attached. And you don't seem to really give a damn because, hey, it's not like "they're living large", and it's not like you give it personally. It's "collective fairness".
John, the assistance is for food.
This is hopeless. People do not care about how *other* people's work is wasted.
182. Yes, the assistance is for food, and food stamps can only be used on food.
Do you have any data to back up your resentment, or not? The aid is given based on income; do you have a better solution, or not? We all know of your resentments, but where are your ideas?
183.
Yeah, I have data:
"If some poor person makes almost nothing, gets food stamps, and happens to buy cable -- it's still not like they're living large and in charge."
See? Or are you back to "That does not happen"?
We work hard. We pay lots of taxes. We give more to the poor privately.
And it will *never* ever be enough. As long as you insist on taking other people's property to give to other people, you're gonna hear about it.
You're gonna have to justify it.
So, again, I have not asked that you take care of 36 million people. How about one, John? How about 1/10th of one?
You can still refuse. That is your choice.
184. Where is your data, Gary? You have none, all you have is resentment.
No, I do not personally provide health insurance for anyone. I am not going to do that. My policy position is to fix the core, large issues that ensure tens of millions of people get health care. It isn't about just one person or one family, it's about the entire country.
You have no data nor solutions, just resentment and distractions. You're till not talking about health policy, and still focusing on me personally rather than the issues at large. This discussion has nothing to do with how good or bad of a person you think I am, and your continued implication that our health care system would be fixed if only I insured 1/10th of a person is stupid.
Do you want to argue about the policy and our health care system, or do you want to focus on me and what I do?
185. #184 "I am not going to do that."
That's fine. I will.
186. The point of all this is simply that Rizzo (
John Jensen who advertises that he wants to murder conservatives) is too dull-witted to recognize that in the end,
Rizzo will pay for his health care either way. He is (typically) not thinking any of this through.
The government way is one that will eventually (if not immediately) seriously diminish quality and considerably curtail service and practically increase cost exponentially just as it has in all of the European countries he loves to cite. They pay indirectly for care delivered by inefficient morons who have no motive to serve people.
Much more importantly, socialized health care hands more and more power over to government to do those things people can do better for themselves and in doing so eventually removes our individual freedoms for the sake of stability and security.
Rizzo's silly hackneyed econ example tells it all.
In a way you can't blame him though, Rizzo has been indoctrinated to slavishly "think" this way by brain-dead liberal teachers and he is incapable of thinking for himself. Liberalism is a mental disease and Rizzo is its product.
Thanks Rizzo
187. Amused, and he has been successfully taught the theories of resentment. He resents wealthy people, and believes that we resent poor people. He's a classic example of a man who has been taught class envy.
If it's the GM execs flying private jets on taxpayer money, or some welfare queen with HD Cable TV, the common element here is the entity that distributed the money... our government. That is where any resentment should be directed.
Neither the GM exec nor the welfare recipient forced me to give them anything. Only some faceless cog in DC did that.
188. Gary, I don't resent the rich. But if I were to, to what end? You apparently want to deny health care and food aid to the poor. I have nothing to deny from the rich.
Again, another distraction from Gary. Still no data to back up his resentments.
Confused by Liberals, you're confused again. No one is proposing socialized health care. You're confused on another point, too: you say "inefficient morons" when you mean "unemployed people." Nearly one in ten Americans are unemployed. In your world, they don't deserve health care.
Turns out that some people really do think Ayn Rand books and resentment hold all of the answers to our pressing policy questions.
189. "You apparently want to deny health care and food aid to the poor."
-
I actually provide it, John. You are the one who said "I will not do that".
190. Gary,
Quite right, liberalism is founded on emotionalism in substitution for reason.
Rizzo actually believes that he is doing people a favor by forcing some of them to pay the share for others.
Liberals are always reeeel generous with other people's money but not their own.
If he actually cared about people, he would start a business, meet a payroll, and contribute something of value to society.
Instead he pretends that being a business person means being an exploiter who must be fleeced to take care of those who will not take care of themselves.
The unsung heroes of our society are taking it in the shorts from Obamunism and the left that employ the second largest number of people (and most of the middle class). This health care nonsense will be placed largely on their shoulders and run them out of business.
Rizzo's ignorance comes at a cost because there are many of him out there tinkering with dynamite in the dark with bic lighters.
191. We pay lots of taxes
false. historically, americans are paying lower rates today than any point in the last 75 years.
192. Oh, okay mike. I'm not paying lots of taxes. Gee, thanks.
193. Gary,
I actually provide it, John. You are the one who said "I will not do that".
Another personal attack from Gary. Another distraction. No data. No facts. Just resentment. Keep it up, Gary.
Confused by Liberals, thanks for another nonsensical rant. Wait, do you prefer "diatribe" or "rant"? I have no problem with spending my tax dollars on health care for the struggling middle class. Everyone in this country deserves health care.
You want to treat health care like iPods: those who can't afford it, go without. That's inhumane and un-American.
194. The "inefficient morons" I referred to were government employees moron.
No wonder you are able to post all day -- government employee -- moron.
Figures
195. What government employees? If you don't want the public option, you can keep your current insurance or switch to a different provider. You can't do that right now without being denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. Obama's plan has more freedom and choice than today, yet you still rant like a crazy loon about socialism where it doesn't exist.
196. #193 "Another personal attack from Gary. Another distraction. No data. No facts. Just resentment. Keep it up, Gary."
-
Quoting John = "attack". How did I attack you, John?
197.
"you can keep your current insurance "
You guarantee that, John?
198. It was a personal attack. I am arguing policy, you are resorting to non-substantial attacks about my personal charitable contributions.
199. Rizzo at 193 (
John Jensen who advertises that he wants to murder conservatives),
You want to treat health care like iPods: those who can't afford it, go without. That's inhumane and un-American. Utterly inane.
Yeah -- liberal government employee -- moron.
Figures
200. #198. You said you don't contribute, not me. You're attacking yourself.
I said, "That's fine". How is that an attack, John?
I even said, "That's your choice." Nowhere did I attack you.
See... you have learned emotional resent well.
201. I am not a government employee. I work for a private company completely unrelated to politics and policy. Where do you work?
But don't let that stop your wingnut anger from shining through. Perhaps you should pen another rant for us. What topic though? Maybe... socialism. Why don't you rant about socialism?! That'd be original and illuminating.
202. Gary,
Listen to Rizzo at 193 (John Jensen who advertises that he wants to murder conservatives). He doesn't make personal attacks, just policy.
203. Gary,
Rizzo at 202 (John Jensen who advertises that he wants to murder conservatives)
but makes no personal attacks (that he knows of) is worried that we will know he is a government employee.
Amusing
204. Amused, yeah. John has called me a "f'ing partisan hack", a "bigot" (who he said he would never talk to again) and he asked me to "shut the f... up" too many times to count.
But if I quote him, *that*'s a personal attack.
205. Gary, I do contribute to charity. I do not personally purchase other people's health care out of the goodness of my spirit and I seriously doubt you do as well. But these facts are irrelevant.
Even with our generous charity contributions, we still have 36+ million Americans without health care coverage in this country. I want a collective investment in universal health care so that no one falls through the cracks. Simply because I don't personally provide health care for my neighbor or co-workers doesn't mean that this country doesn't have an interest in doing so.
206. #205 "I do not personally purchase other people's health care out of the goodness of my spirit ..."
-
That's fine. Nobody makes you.
207. Gary,
God help us you don't suppose Rizzo (John Jensen who advertises that he wants to murder conservatives) is one of those inefficient morons who screens old ladies and puts babies through the x-ray machines at the airport?
He's getting awful sensitive.
208. Yes, I know it's "fine." And it has nothing to with health care policy.
Obviously my tax dollars pay for Medicaid and Medicare, and obviously I am willing to pay for my share of the burden. The problem with your implicit solution (charity) is that the costs of health care are out of control. Health care reform needs to fix that problem just as much as universality.
Relying on the status quo fixes neither problem.
209. Confused by Liberals, um, I work in the private sector. Still.
210. Rizzo (John Jensen who advertises that he wants to murder conservatives) damn it, get back to work, what the hell do you think we pay you for?
211. #208 Hey! You quoted me! ("fine") Is that a personal attack???
212. Yes, it was a personal attack, Gary.
213. I'll see you guys. I gotta get going and I think we've beat this one to death. At least I have.
Adios. Have a good night. You too, John. I have a good time doing this.
214. Rizzo
(John Jensen who advertises that he wants to murder conservatives), with all of the
outright obvious lies you tell here about numerous things week in and week out, why should anyone believe a word you write?
Gary has never lied to us (that I know of) so we can believe him, and because he is not a dimwit, he wouldn't bother caring if we know where he works. Rizzo, this is a blog.
"Methinks thou does't protest too much"
It doesn't matter in the least anyway.
Unless you lack confidence in your inane dishonest bullshit, why worry?
215. Why would we do it otherwise? :)
216. you probably aren't paying
lots of taxes, gary.
and if you are, you would have been paying nearly double in taxes 20 years ago. so yeah, we should keep cutting taxes, cos it's caused massive growth the last few years, right? btw, remember the 50s? fastest sustained growth? people making over 8k were paying in taxes (34%) what the current top margin is (35% @ 186k)
217. mike, I've asked you before... how much do you want me to pay before you'll get off my back? And no, "more" is not an answer.
John, have you read either the House bill, or those sections I referred you to several times?
Does this legislation permit private insurance companies to sell *new* policies?
218. No, it shuts down the private market but the media isn't covering that because the media, as you know, is a liberal conspiracy.
219. since you kids seem to love reagan so much, and don't mind that he expanded the debt by 420% or took us from the largest creditor nation, to the largest debtor nation...
i have no idea how much you pay in taxes gary, i'm sure for all the gov't dole you are on, it's not enough.
i personally have no problems paying more in taxes, if we have a net positive benefit for society as a whole (and not just for my selfish benefit, which seems to be the kicker for conservatives these days) - i value efficient public transportation, inexpensive secondary education, nationalized health care,
i'd have no issue w/ rolling back tax rates to what they were in 1986 (head of household): in this scheme i'd pay 10% more per year in taxes, which i have no qualms with. we have zero debt minus the mortgage. since we pretty much bike everywhere, we rarely drive the auto.
0% $0 - $2,480 (4,800 in 2008 dollars)
11% $2,480 - $4,750 (8,159 in 2008 dollars)
12% $4,750 - $7,010 (12,041 in 2008 dollars)
14% $7,010 - $9,390 (16,129 in 2008 dollars)
17% $9,390 - $12,370 (21,248 in 2008 dollars)
18% $12,370 - $16,190 (27,810 in 2008 dollars)
20% $16,190 - $19,640 (33,736 in 2008 dollars)
24% $19,640 - $25,360 (43,561 in 2008 dollars)
28% $25,360 - $31,080 (53,387 in 2008 dollars)
32% $31,080 - $36,800 (63,212 in 2008 dollars)
35% $36,800 - $48,240 (82,863 in 2008 dollars)
42% $48,240 - $65,390 (112,323 in 2008 dollars)
45% $65,390 - $88,270 (151,625 in 2008 dollars)
48% $88,270 - $116,870 (200,752 in 2008 dollars)
50% $116,870 +
220. #218. John, you said you wanted to talk policy, so I talk policy, and you don't engage on it when I do.
Nevermind.
mike, thank you for the answer. It's exactly what I wanted.
221. Gary,
For once at #192 Rizzo made a useful contribution to this discussion by summarizing his unvarnished core rationale for legislation socializing our health care system.
In his idiotic imputation of my supposed motives about the disposition of my own property, Rizzo stated that "You want to treat health care like iPods: those who can't afford it, go without. That's inhumane and un-American. "
Rizzo's assertion that any American's FREEDOM TO CHOOSE, is "un-American," displays the extreme self-righteous arrogance and emotionalism of his core belief.
Unlike the other outright lies he tells, Rizzo truly believes that anyone who wishes to decide what to do with their property free from his overbearing interference is un-American. Very possibly this is why Rizzo (John Jensen) advertises that he wants to murder conservatives). In essence, people like Rizzo assert this idiotic emotionally charged meme because he is incapable of any better reasoning.
This type of pseudo-reasoning (emotional appeal) has been widely recognized around the world and is most aptly termed -- Fascism.
222. Amused, that's right. And now we are being told that we have a *right* to health care, and that the *right* is also MANDATORY! They have rights and freedom all backwards.
By the way, the CBO just said that this plan will *increase* costs, not reduce them as Obama has claimed.
So much for that.
223. Gary (#220) the answer to your question is obvious to both of us. Why would you even ask it? I just wish you'd argue your points rather than ask questions you know the answer to. Yes, of course private plans will still exist. And they will probably cover the vast supermajority of Americans under 65 just like private plans do today.
Confused by Liberals, thanks for another rant. Who chooses to go without health care? Once again, you think health care is like a toy that a kid can go without. If a kid doesn't get a toy, he can cry. If a kid doesn't get health care -- well, you can figure out what a likely outcome is.
224. And yes they'll have new policies, both to employers through group markets and individuals in the health care exchange.
225. @219
No. That's not not thinking of yourself at all. "I'd like." You as a single person saying that what you like is what you'd like to see for all.
226. Rizzo:
"Even with our generous charity contributions, we still have 36+ million Americans without health care coverage in this country."
Not true. Stop lying rizzo.
227. Rizzo (
John Jensen who advertises that he wants to murder conservatives) writes,
"Who chooses to go without health care?"
Anyone dimwitted enough not to recognize the folly in such a question as this, obviously has so little understanding of the basic problem that any answer would be a total waste of time.
The important fact in evidence is that Rizzo lacks respect for his freedom to such an extent that he is happy to insist that others surrender their freedom to choose what they do with their own property. Our founders recognized that no one should ever be restrained from the right to their own property by the likes of a Rizzo type.
Rizzo move to France where you can drink your own piss without shame and get low quality health care after standing in long lines and still not afford the co-pay. They don't care about personal freedom there any more than they care about anyone's health.
228. Alphabet Soup, according to the NCHC, 38.6 million native or naturalized citizens (Americans) do not have health care
coverage.
Confused by Liberals, thanks another crazy rant. There's already one Glenn Beck in the world -- we don't need another. You didn't answer my question. Who chooses to go without health care?
229. "Who chooses to go without health care?"
Anyone who doesn't avail themselves of our healthcare system. Likewise to those who do not avail themselves with healthcare coverage
230. John cannot fathom people choosing anything other than what he wants. I chose not buy health insurance for many years. Soon that will be a choice nobody will have.
John, how do you know private insurers will be able to sign up new customers the day the legislation becomes law? What section of the bill affirms that? The obligation is on you, not me.
Where have we come to when talking about freedom is a "crazy rant"? John, the Founders recognized that freedom also mean the freedom to make mistakes.
Thanks.
231. Rizzo, (
Numbnuts, John Jensen who advertises that he wants to murder conservatives)at 228
"Who chooses to go without health care?"
Quite obviously the 38.6 million native or naturalized citizens (Americans) (or rather how ever many there actually are) who don't have health care dimbulb.
232. (Oh wait . . . looks like maybe Rizzo is gonna trap me
in another of his crafty snares where I have admitted that he
has justification to steal my property to pay for his whims.)
233. He is a wily little feller ;}
234. I chose not buy health insurance for many years.
And you feel that this was an epic decision reasoned in terms of liberty? Or was it a symptom of unaffordable insurance. Our founding fathers did not fight for your right to avoid health care coverage, and most of the country agrees in a shared responsibility.
I do not want to "force" people to do things, but in the end a universal mandate makes sense. The alternative is that you have pre-existing condition denial and deny people health care if they make the dumb choice of avoiding insurance. If I choose not to buy an iPod, my consequences are relatively small. If I choose not to buy insurance, my consequences can be very grave. Consumers are not empowered to make informed choices about whether they'll get cancer or fall gravely ill: it sometimes happens by chance.
And in the end, since we go provide emergency care, all of us do end up paying for my irresponsibility but I still couldn't get the treatment to avoid the emergency care in the first place. If we're going to say that hospitals should cover emergencies, then we should go a step further and say that people should cover themselves. It's the only responsible thing to do.
We have certain rights which are wholly inalienable. I do not think we were born with a right to avoid health care coverage. Most of us will be unaffected by this new law, but those who have to go get insurance will surely not be too upset: now they can see a doctor or go to a hospital. Hardly the scariest form of government intervention.
And any reform bill, from either party, is going to have a individual mandate. I'm glad you have the Obama boogieman to blame for this, but McCain's plan once it set foot in the legislature would have had the same requirement. I mean, it basically did: it has a tax credit for health care, which if you didn't use it one would lose it. That meant higher taxes for everyone who skipped health insurance. Which is a similar mechanism as the house health bill.
Freedom is unassailable -- who would disagree with that? Confused by Liberal's nonsensical rants have nothing to do with freedom, and everything to do with being an unstable, unable person. I have ranted here as much as anyone, but at least I usually have a point.
235. Rizzo (
John Jensen who advertises that he wants to murder conservatives),
Visions of piled dead babies are not justification for anyone to give away their freedom
simply because the rational argument for or against socialized health care does not involve an either-or proposition.
Your sophistry is ill-founded, inanely manipulative and dunder-headed.
Try another tack or continue to look like the addled nitwit that you are.
236. Wily like a weasal.
237. His preoccupation with ipods is very troubling, and emblematic of deeper afflictions. I wish he would stay focused...
238. Confused,
Quite obviously the 38.6 million native or naturalized citizens (Americans) (or rather how ever many there actually are) who don't have health care dimbulb.
Oh, so all of them can afford it, so they choose to go without? You sound confused, as usual. Health care insurance -- particularly for individuals -- is often very expensive. And don't even try to apply if you've ever been sick before!
People can't afford insurance. They want it. They'd choose to get it. But they can't afford it.
239. #234 "We have certain rights which are wholly inalienable. I do not think we were born with a right to avoid health care coverage."
-
I... I don't know even know what to say. I'm sorry, but this is most inane thing you have ever said. And that's saying something.
The rest of this is now a waste of time, because no matter what we talk about, you are of the opinion that the state can force me to have health care coverage. So, regardless of what your CBO says, you will *always* believe that nobody has the *right* to *not* have health care coverage.
You are so screwed up on the meaning of rights, and such, we can't unscrew you, John.
You don't even know what the word means. That's how bad the schools have become, I guess.
240. Confused,
simply because the rational argument for or against socialized health care does not involve an either-or proposition.
I agree with you, that's why you're so confused! It is not either/or. Which is why no one is proposing socialized health care and no one is proposing a single-payer system. It is not free market utopia or government-run health care. There is a huge middle ground where we find compromise.
Mostly, the health care reform bills are a group of common sense ideas. The two largest remaning issues are taxes, which are always controversial, and a public option, which the CBO says will cover just ten million people by 2019. You think ten million people will destroy health care as we know it. I think you're confused and are trying to scare Americans out of the health care reform we need.
241. Gary, is that really your point? I don't know what a right is?
We are born with a right to free speech, to organize, to participate in democracy.
We were not born with a right to skip health care coverage and the detriment of the rest of society. Our society has made a decision that emergency care WILL be provided, and the only responsible thing is to state that there is a cost to that guarantee. That cost is an individual mandate.
242. Amused by liberals isn't the one who is confused here (As if I needed to say it!).
Do they even teach Civics anymore?!
243. Gary,
You put it right.
Rizzo's hasty generalizations, assumptions and speculations about the meaning of the number of people without health care is weak and ultimately irrelevant.
The show stopper for me was, "I do not think we were born with a right to avoid health care coverage."
There's plenty to say but, in service to what end?
I gotta hand it to Rizzo for illustrating the "thinking" process that is behind the myriad justifications posed by many advocates of socialized heath care.
It is helpful to get beyond the superficial (irrelevant) bantering over statistics and to the moral essence of the issue.
Rizzo tries hard to overcome the loss of individual liberty aspect of the issue but utterly fails.
Whether he learns anything from it is up to him. I find it doubtful because I believe that he is truly indoctrinated (a damn shame).
This discussion has been a helpful one in that it lays open the critical front lines of the issue and exposes them to the light of reason.
Thanks
244. Give me a break. Everyone in this country has a responsibility to pay taxes, and everyone has a responsibility to purchase health care coverage. Even better if the government helps out the middle class and the poor so the burden is shared.
Avoiding your responsibility with health care is not fundamental right like free speech. Many forms of liberty are worth dying for, but do you really believe that you have a paramount right given to you by your Creator to skip purchasing health care coverage?
You oppose Obama's plan, I get it. That doesn't mean you're standing on the pedestal of freedom and your cause is backed by the blood of American heroes. The shroud of liberty you want to shape your disagreement in is laughable.
Any health care plan from any party would have a mandate. It's common sense. You don't get universal coverage without it.
245. No, I won't "give you a break". And I'll be damned if I'll bleed any more for the likes of you, either. You may "have a responsibility to purchase health care coverage" but I certainly do not. I especially do not have a responsibility to purchase "pig in a poke" crap health care coverage from Obamination. If you swing that way then happy days, but
leave me out!
My responsibility is to tend to my business and the welfare of my family. You dhimmis would be well served to do the same.
246. Tending to the welfare of your family includes purchasing health insurance, does it not? Do you truly believe that the pinnacle of freedom is choosing to deny yourself and your family health care?
Who here lacks health insurance by choice and is ruing the day when they'll have to purchase it? When I went without coverage during college I certainly wanted it, but didn't have the income to buy it.
247. Buy fewer ipods, change your priorities, and perhaps you could...
248. Great rational conversation, buddy.
I have health insurance. My employer provides it. I'd prefer a choice on my insurance company, but I don't have that choice right now.
249. Quit leaning on other people to fulfill your own responsibility. If you don't like what your employer offers, get your own. Or change jobs. Or buy a clue.
Just don't expect others to subsidize you.
250. alphabet,
please stop driving on our roads, using our utilities, flying in our airspace, relying on our military, relying on our post office, relying on our fire departments, libraries, police, etc.
we're sick of subsidizing you.
251. No one subsidizes me, azzwipe. I pay my taxes - and probably a fair share of yours.
Get off my road!
252. $24 Quadrillion for Pack of Smokes
Quote:
A New Hampshire man says he swiped his debit card at a gas station to buy a pack of cigarettes and was charged over 23 quadrillion dollars. Josh Muszynski checked his account online a few hours later and saw the 17-digit number _ a stunning $23,148,855,308,184,500
On a related note, President Obama stated today that he has recently found the means to balance the budget and fully fund Obamacare.
253. i doubt it on both counts.
also, here's a nota bene for you:
"Most of us aren't free to choose our health care providers; we just have to take whatever program our employers can afford. Where's the freedom there?"
254. also, this is the attitude w/ conservatives that really irks me, mostly due to how inhumane and unamerican it is:
I pay my taxes - and probably a fair share of yours.
255. I'm glad it irks you :}
There is nothing inhumane or unamerican (sic) about it. I take care of me & mine (and then some). I expect you to do the same.
256. Alphabet Soup, you don't understand.
I am perfectly willing to pay for my own health insurance. I do not have the choice to, without sacrificing a portion of my income which my employer automatically spends on my health benefits. Since my tax dollars pay for that health insurance deduction, I would in effect be subsidizing a pay cut. Switching jobs because of my health insurance makes no sense -- my health insurance shouldn't be linked to my job! My employer shouldn't be able to change my plan and tell me to switch doctors. There is no consumer choice in the health care market, and conservatives frequently point to this as the cause of skyrocketing health care costs. (You seem to not even understand your own party's ideas on health care.)
I am looking for no subsidies. I can pay my own way, and do right now. Please stop being such an arrogant jerk and assuming you're better than those who disagree with you. I make plenty of money, as if that is the sole determinate of how good of a person you are.
257. Anyone who thinks Obamacare is about heathcare is a moron. It is about the pursuit of power. You simpletons look at the smorgasbord of choices available now and whimper
"There is no consumer choice" - Pull your head out of your nethers and take a look at what the dhimmicrats are proposing.
You think queuing up for the healthcare lotto is an attractive choice? You think enforced euthanasia is an attractive choice? You think paying half-again to twice as much as you do now is an attractive choice?
If you think you can't afford it now, wait until it is "free"...
258. Centrifuge John,
How about negotiating with your employer to buy your own insurance? I've paid for my own for the last 12 years. And even when I contracted with a few of the larger contract vendors (like Volt) I chose to take the cash, not the benefits.
Of course, that means you need to actually take the initiative and responsibility for your own life, rather than expecting everything to be handed to you...
259. You think queuing up for the healthcare lotto is an attractive choice?
first, there won't be a 'lotto' and any staffing shortages can be mitigated by educating more g.p.'s. other countries do not queue - are you british?
You think enforced euthanasia is an attractive choice?
red herring, no one will be euthanized. besides, our current system already allows passive euthanisia: those that can't aford health care are effectively euthanized via the rationized u.s. health insurance scam. patients are also allowed to take their own lives. eg: my aunt passed away 4 years ago w/ severe cancer in her brain, lungs, heart and stomach. she was given an open drip of morphine, said her goodbyes and effectively pulled her own plug. this happens on a daily basis.
You think paying half-again to twice as much as you do now is an attractive choice?
only in america would morons pay nearly twice as much as every other country for higher infant mortality rates and shorter life expectancy. that is quality to you? p.t. barnum is laughing at you right now. and you really think costs will go up that significantly? only if you vote against a public option or single payer. if health care in other countries actually was rationed, the life expectancy of these countries would be severely lowered or their prices would be as much or more than ours. guess what: they're not. so please, spread more lies about how awesome our system is, for those that can afford it.
this "take the initiative and responsibility for your own life" is bunk - many americans do 'pull up their bootstraps' but still can't make ends meet, still struggle with unemployment, try to figure out how to pay for their medication, feed the kids and keep up with the bills. i am amazingly shocked at the ridiculousness of your arguments.
260. rationed, not rationized.
261. Dan, because there is no such thing as a functioning individual insurance market. Group insurance rates are much cheaper on average and never vary based on health, age, or other factors. Which is why a health insurance exchange -- which brings the benefits of group risk pooling -- is one of the fundamental reforms of in the various health care bills.
I do take initiative and responsibility of my own life. I worked my way from poverty into a private college and am now gainfully employed. The class arrogance of at least two of you conservative commenters is disgraceful. You dismiss every legitimate issue with, "HARD-EARNED MONEY & TIME, BOY."
Yes, I did work hard to earn my money. Which is why it's ridiculous that I pay twice as much for health care as other industrial nations, and have worse results all the while denying 36.8 million American citizens access to our "world-class" health care. My tax dollars subsidize my employer-provided health insurance, but I have no right to complain since I'm not taking "initiative"?
Bullshit. I've taken plenty of initiative simply by actually learning the serious issues in our system, instead of parroting that the status quo is fine and presenting absolutely no fixes or solutions besides the trite yelling of the word "SOCIALISM!!!"
262. Centrifuge John,
I see, no functioning individual insurance market. I guess I don't have coverage, then, as an INDIVIDUAL consumer of insurance for the last few years?
And I guess that $90 I pay each month is fictional, too? Or the money sitting in my HSA doesn't exist?
You're shirking your responsibility because you are, in fact, lazy. There is a market, and you and your fellow idiots want to kill it, because you don't understand it exists and you refuse to educate yourself.
How will killing my plan (and it will die; read the IBD editorial about how you cannot switch to any plan other than the public option, after this bill is passed) increase savings? Will the public plan cost less than $90 per month? Better yet, will replacing my privately paid $90 per month with a State-paid $200+ per month save the State money?
Go and talk to an insurance broker. You'll find a market that exists, but one that is being destroyed by the State. You'll find there are millions of INDIVIDUAL consumers of health insurance.
And yes, you are lazy, and you are pissing on your own "life story". IF you drug yourself up from poverty, then why do you CHOOSE to waste your money? Why do YOU accept paying such a high rate? If you really are so self-motivated and independent then the compassionate - and logical - thing to do would be to get individual insurance for a lot less than you pay now, and donate to COVER a few more people.
You're lazy, you refuse to actually learn what really exists out there, you simply take what your party line claims, and you whine "poor us!"
You are, in fact, a Slave. A Slave to your ideology. You wear the chains, and you refuse to break them. It is politics ahead of decency, it is politics ahead of logic or fact. You accept the will and words of your masters because it's convenient.
John, open your eyes, educate yourself. I will make you the following challenge:
I bet I can find you health insurance in the individual market for half of what your company 'pays' for your plan. Tell me your age, and how much your company pays today. And I'll get you insurance for half that amount.
You want to take me up on it?
263. Misfit Mike,
only in america would morons pay nearly twice as much as every other country for higher infant mortality rates and shorter life expectancy.
So you mean other countries pay less than $90 per month to insure a person like me? They have less than $1100 per person in health insurance costs?
264. dan, $90 per month? really, dan - you aren't being subsidized at all? or is this what you pay,
after your employer pays several hundred? obviously you don't have a wife and kid to pay for...
washington state's basic health coverage (which is actually pretty decent coverage - my neighbors kid is on it) is like $105 pp.
either that or you are with qliance, which isn't health insurance, and doesn't provide catastrpohic coverage.
265. and read the actual bill, not just an intentionally misleading summary. the bill doesn't state you can't switch employers. stop lying. stop reading malkin. she's not too bright, about as dimwitted as that drug addicted bloviating cesspool of hate you
ideological slaves worship.
I'll get you insurance for half that amount.
i'm sure you can find coverage for that amount (because junk insurance is not illegal) - with higher co-pays, higher prescription costs, and less overall coverage on the plan. but why would anyone want that? sure, it's great if you don't get sick, but that's not the point of the health care debate, is it.
266. Mike,
I am self employed, have been for 12 years. I pay my own insurance. I have Lifewise WiseSimplicity for my coverage. The monthly cost is $93 per month for a male aged 41 nonsmoker.
Here's the kicker - this is health insurance! It will cover me if something big happens. I will pay out-of-pocket for more than a few visits annually to a doctor. In other words, if I stay healthy - eat right, exercise, take care of myself - I have nothing more to pay than $93 per month.
If something major happens, I have the bulk of the costs covered.
And as a self-employed person I have an HSA bank account set up as well, which I have been funding for the last few years with the savings in health insurance premiums. It now earns 3% tax-free, and has enough in it to cover my entire annual deductible.
Guess what - this is a good plan for me. And it is a good plan for a lot of people. And I would posit that many here on this blog would be well served with such a plan and the appropriate HSA set up. Is it for everyone? No, but it is good for quite a few people.
Health insurance (it's NOT health care) can be affordable if the consumer would get involved. By being like John, and shirking your own responsibility to get involved in the costs that you incur, you are adding to the problem.
Open up your eyes. Go talk to an insurance broker. Sit down and figure out what you really need - is one or two visits a year for a physical enough? Do you want to pay an extra $200 per month just so you can maybe see the doctor 1 or 2 times more?
Do you buy maintenance insurance for your car or house? You know such things exist! Or do you cover the small costs yourself and get insurance for the big ones?
I treat my health insurance as insurance; it will provide basic coverage for an annual visit, and if I have to go to the emergency room will have an affordable ($100) copay. And it will cover everything beyond $10,000. For me, that makes sense.
Of course, I have saved a good chunk of tax-free-interest money over the last 5 years (about $150 per month, on average) to build up a $10,000+ HSA for just such a deductible! And as my HSA grew, I moved to higher-deductible plans, knowing I had the maximum out-of-pocket annual cost covered.
We have so twisted the concept of health insurance that most no longer realize what it was supposed to be! The fact you didn't even realize such low cost plans exist (hey, a fresh college grad can get this catastrophic coverage for $51 per month) is telling. You don't know what's available, because you aren't involved in your own health care, and you simply take what your masters in Washington DC and the media say.
So I say once again - why should we pay more than $90 per month to cover any of those uninsured in the US? Most are temporarily uninsured, getting insurance through work or other means after 6-10 months. We could cover 36 million people for $3 billion per month - $36 billion annually, about 1/5th what DC wants to spend. And that's just turning around to a private insurance company and saying "have at it".
267. you should read your plan. the copay for emergency visit is $100, and then all costs incurred up to $10,000 (if you are 'preferred') - unless you go to the emergency room for a cold, you're going to incur additional costs...
medicine's not included - so you pay full price?
stints, prosthetics, casts not included.
we could provide coverage on average for significantly less than $90 per month. but the reason the gov't plan costs so much is that it's not just covering routine maintenance. it's covering significant health problems for people too poor to obtain adequate coverage. poor people tend to wait longer to get health care and that drives costs up. significantly. people with pre-existing conditions cost significantly more to insure.
268. From the CBO:
Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, because federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. Although great uncertainty surrounds long-term fiscal projections, rising costs for health care and the aging of the population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly under any plausible scenario for current law.
The problem is that GOVERNMENT expenditures (not private) on health care are bankrupting the nation. What's the Slavery Party solution to this? ADD MORE PEOPLE TO GOVERNMENT COVERAGE.
In other words, the solution is to spend more (I guess with Joe Biden's recent "spend yourself out of bankruptcy" comment this makes some sort of sense...)
So John or Mike, can you guys tell me how we can reduce the budget deficit, and shrink it by adding more people to Federally paid-for health coverage? NO ONE has addressed this simple fact... How is adding anothre $1 trillion in expenses going to shrink the total expenditures, or even reverse (not slow down - that doesn't solve the problem) the growth in Government health care expenditures?
Explain this, please. How does adding another 30 million people to the Government plan actually reduce the absolute number of dollars the Government spends.
269. adding anothre $1 trillion
i believe this number is false, that almost 2/3 of it will be redirected from already existing medical programs.
and maybe the answer is to stop building bridges to nowhere, stop paying for planes our country (and air force) don't even want or need, reduce wasted spending and refocus it on areas that will reduce the burden on businesses and the poor. we seemed to have no issues paying trillions of dollars for a war. but medical care? that's "too hard"
sorry, but a path of principle may be hard, it's still the right path.
and whenever you use the term "slavery party" my eyes roll into the back of my head and i lose consciousness for a second. hilariously ironic, SD.
270. Mike,
I know what my plan covers. And apparently you didn't read where I said I have built up an HSA that allows me to take this high deductible without concern. My prescription plan has a $30 copay, and costs $22 per month, which is covered by the interest I earn on my HSA.
The point is - I actually participate in that "non functioning individual insurance" market that John talks about. It functions, but it means you actually have get educated and do a little work.
Is my plan for everyone? No. But the solution is not to remove my plan (which the new AAHCA bill will do). The market will address needs, if we give the market a chance. The problem is that we have never given the market a chance, and we'll go ahead and add trillions more to our balance and our unfunded liabilities without a concern.
271. Misfit Mike,
So the solution is to get the DEMOCRAT (there better?) CONGRESS to stop wasting money?
And we're only going to add $333 billion, not $1 trillion? Boy, that's a relief - we'll only increase our unsustainable debt a little, not a lot.
LOOK: the problem is SPENDING. You even said as much! Congress spends TOO MUCH. So how is adding even MORE spending going to solve the problem?
You don't cure alcoholism by saying "instead of a 6 pack each night, I'll drink 9 bottles". Doesn't work.
Likewise, the solution to trillion dollar deficits is not to pile on even more spending. It's simply insanity.
272. yes, when the democrats start
wasting money then it needs to be stopped. however, part of the problem here is when republicans oversaw $4.3 trillion in additional debt over just a few years, no one stopped it. some dems tried. republicans rubber stamped the sh*t out of it. all this on top of $750 billion in tax cuts for the uber rich. we would not be where we are if republicans in effect weren't trying to kill government by starving it. yes, some spending is wasteful, but some spending is neeeded. we gave up certain liberties (yay! i get to hoard all my loot) to live in a civilized nation.
my understanding is you won't lose your plan, but people won't be able to get your current plan after the switch over.
273. No, Dan, there is not an individual market. Especially if you're ill and need coverage.
Just because you can find cheap-o health care insurance doesn't mean that's what I want. I want strong insurance coverage that doesn't have an incredibly high deductible and low life-time or annual limits.
If I wanted the same plan as my work offers, I'd pay the same or more as my employer -- and only because I'm young. If I were older, or was ill, I'd either be outright denied or charged much, much more than my employer pays. And I won't get the same tax break my employer gets.
You think everything comes down to laziness, it really is disgusting. Do you honestly believe that 36 million people skip insurance because of laziness? That we charge twice the amount of other countries because of laziness? Or are these fundamental problems that should be fixed?
By the way, for the last number of posts I have outlined conservative problems with our health care system that -- i.e., these are problems that conservatives have with the system. The free market is completely broken and distorted because of a massive government subsidy to employer-provided insurance. Every conservative plan tries to fix this problem the most. Yet, you deny it exists.
This shows me that you're both wholly uninformed at the serious problems in our health care system as well as more invested in shutting down any health reform on partisan terms than on policy terms.
The point is - I actually participate in that "non functioning individual insurance" market that John talks about. It functions, but it means you actually have get educated and do a little work.
The market does not function well. I'm glad you got your bare-bones plan that you love, but most folks aren't looking for that type of coverage. For true coverage with reasonable deductibles and limits, you're going to be paying exuberant amounts. And forget if you've had any history of being ill. A health care coverage market that doesn't work for those who need health care the most is a completely broken market.
How is adding anothre $1 trillion in expenses going to shrink the total expenditures, or even reverse (not slow down - that doesn't solve the problem) the growth in Government health care expenditures?
None of that $1T is deficit spending. I agree with you that the bills need more cost control measures, but those measures involve hard choices. The dishonest GOP opposition to everything related to health reform (see your arguments) make these choices very difficult. The GOP opposes obvious changes to Medicare efficiencies, such as using science & research to determine the best course of action. These scare tactics aren't just mindless political games, they have serious cost consequences.
However, it falls on the democrats to pass responsible legislation regardless of opposition. The House bill in particular needs stronger cost controls, such as independent commissions to determine Medicare reforms. The Senate Finance bill probably will have more.
So how is adding even MORE spending going to solve the problem?
The health care reforms are worth funding because they will make our country stronger. I want no additional deficit spending, and I do want to see cost cuts in other areas of government. But that is a separate issue than health care reform, and we should address it outside of that context.
274. Centrifuge John wrote:
No, Dan, there is not an individual market. Especially if you're ill and need coverage.
Either you're lying or you're amazingly ignorant. I just linked to individual market options... And have you not heard of HIPAA? Guess what - exclusions on pre-existing conditions are limited BY LAW.
If you lose your job, and CHOOSE not to continue your coverage through COBRA or CHOOSE not to get coverage with a low cost plan that is readily available, then you CHOSE to take the consequences.
You're simply a fool, John. I don't know what else to say - you state you don't want 100% free health care, yet you refuse to acknowledge the role each individual has in their own health care. You want to eliminate all penalties, and give all rewards.
No one has addressed how extra spending will result in a lowered budget deficit OR a shrinking expenditure of Federal dollars. No one. Even the CBO says it's unetenable, yet you want that path.
I don't know what else to say - you simply will not listen to logic or reason. Truly it is a religion to you!
275. Mike,
yes, when the democrats start wasting money then it needs to be stopped. however, part of the problem here is when republicans oversaw $4.3 trillion in additional debt over just a few years, no one stopped it. some dems tried. republicans rubber stamped the sh*t out of it. all this on top of $750 billion in tax cuts for the uber rich.
Who's had control of the purse strings for the last 2 budgets? It wasn't the Republicans. Who saw the budget deficits balloon from $160 billion to $440 billion to $2 trillion? It wasn't the GOP. Who got a tax cut? EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THE US.
You're simply lying here, and you know it. Good luck with that...
276. Dan,
Are you familiar with the process of the budget? The congress sets it, but who signs it? who has the power to veto, the bully pulpit, the threat of the line item veto? It wasn’t Pelosi. It wasn’t a democrat. It was a republican. So I ask you again, are you telling me the president is powerless? That the president bears no responsibility for it? well, I guess conservatives really aren’t the “personal responsibility” party we thought they were…
Debts ballooned $4.3 trillion under the republicans, dan. Not an opinion, not a lie.
Yes, every single person got a tax cut. 90% got a very small tax cut. The uber rich made out like bandits (yet again)
Are you uber rich, dan? Or do you just shill for them?
277. Mike,
Who signed the $2 TRILLION dollar deficit of FY2009? Hint: it was a guy who was a sitting Senator who voted passage of that bill.
Debt increased under the GOP by $3.2 trillion (the other $1.1 trillion was with a Democrat Congress). The current Democrat Congress and White House have added another $3 trillion.
You are all concerned about that budget deficit - what are you and your party planning to do to cut that deficit and reduce the debt? Right now, the solution seems to be spending more and more. Is your excuse going to be "it was bad when Bush did it, so we can do even more"? Because that appears to be the Slavery Party - excuse me, Democrat - position!
As far as tax cuts, what was the percentage income tax cut per income tax bracket? Answer that...
278. Dan, you are lying again.
No one signed a $2 trillion dollar deficit for FY 2009. Obama signed a budget, which was something like $1.3 billion or something of that nature. The numbers have been revised, I think to 1.8 billion. Part of this increase is because tax receipts are waaay down due to the flailin economy he inherited. You also make it out like the whole budget is obama’s – but it’s not. Something like 40% is continuing Bush policies.
My position is it was bad when bush did it over and over and over and over again. Obama has done it once. Yet the teabaggers are all bent out of shape. Where were the teaparties before the scary non-white guy took over?
The numbers are projected to fall back to$ 1.4 trillion in FY10.
I think bush’s tax cut was 3% for everyone but the top tier, which was 4.5%.
To put that in perspective:
People making $50,000 paid $333 less in taxes. If you have kids, it was greater (due to tax credit)
People making $300,000 paid $8,000 in reduced taxes.
Wow. $333. I can get finally get that ipod I’ve always wanted. Personally, I’d rather have viable public transportation and health care for all.
279. lqvYoJ
ysvkhetwcesu, [url=http://udshwsensouo.com/]udshwsensouo[/url], [link=http://cmhwainlklbn.com/]cmhwainlklbn[/link], http://bbwbcepywsmt.com/
280. Misfit Mike,
The fact is that Obama will have direct deficits - not including off-budget expenses - of $3.4 TRILLION in just two years. the GOP and President Bush added $3.2 trillion over 4 years.
You don't like that, do you?
And your defense is "well Bush did it". Great. Fine. Bush did it. So now will you hold Obama accountable for the same massive waste of dollars? After all, as a Senator he passed the FY2009 budget, and as President he signed it. President Bush did neither - he has NO connection to the $2 trillion deficit for this fiscal year.
As far as the tax cuts, you're way off. Educate yourself. The lower tax rates were slashed by 33% to 47% (either the bottom or next-to-bottom rate). The top tax rate was reduced by 17%. Tell me who got the bigger percentage tax reduction?
And you also need to educate yourself that the tax cuts boosted the economy. Why do you think we had shrinking deficits after the Slavery Party was booted out of control of the Senate? Reduced spending AND increasing revenues. It's only when the Slavers took over in 2006 that the budget deficits exploded and receipts shrank.
