Democrats want anything that can be legitimately called historic heath care reform so badly they can taste it. It is just a problem of definition of what constitutes reform. Right now it is the Senate version of Obamacare but solid Republican opposition, significant public hostility, left wing demand for single payer, pro and con on abortion coverage appear to be preventing Madam Speaker Pelosi from garnering the votes to pass the Senate bill in the House. If she can horse trade or coerce enough Blue Dog Democrats and liberals with doubts to get the bill passed, Obama will sign it. Once law, it will be with us forever. Even if Republicans win back both the House (possible) and Senate (only if the stars align), they will not have enough votes to override an Obama veto of repeal. A Republican sweep in 2012 will still leave two years to collect Obamacare taxes, set roots deep in the bureaucracy and fundamentally change the health care industry in America.
It is only March. The threat continues not just until the November 2 elections but all the way to January 3, 2011 when, hopefully, Mr. Speaker Boehner will preside. The danger is the end of summer yellow jacket phenomenon; can't feed, will die soon but still can sting. What is the chance House Democrats, losers, and survivors about to be in the minority, will convince themselves that political immortality lies in passing Obamacare in a lame duck session of Congress?
Scary.
Cross posted on clear fog blog
Posted by warrenpeterson at March 11, 2010 09:30 PM | Email Thishttp://www.globaltvbc.com/video/index.html?releasePID=uZw0DDsWlTFOeiP3R9Ca87X59I68lPqk
Posted by: daveo on March 11, 2010 09:44 PMFortunately, we should have Health Care Reform passed, signed and into the Law of the Land well before next January.
Just curious though, what is it about Health Care Reform that scares you folks so much? I thought everyone agreed that we can�t just do nothing.
The question is not about health care reform verses no health care reform. its about ramming a piece of garbage through as if that were the only real option available.
It's false choice to say that we either do this bill or we do nothing. The better choice might be to start with something that actually solves a real problem and then find legislation that will affect that change.
If you have a patient having a heart attack you can't simply give him chemotherapy and say well it's either that or do nothing. A wrong prescription IS worse than doing nothing, but it is not the same as saying that is your only choice.
Posted by: Eyago on March 12, 2010 09:23 AMWhich of the plans are bad?
What sort reforms would you like to see?
Palouse:
Higher taxes? The CBO says this will cut costs.
Massive Govt Bureaucracy? You mean like Social Security and Medicare?
Unconstitutional Mandates? Let's let the Supreme Court decide that one.
Trillions in debt, huge deficits? The CBO says this will cut costs. (where were you during the Bush Administration?)
"Higher taxes? The CBO says this will cut costs."
Uh... it *does* mean higher taxes. Where have you been?
Why do you want to have to beg politicians for your health care? What kind of mentality leads one to *want* to live like that, and basically be a "subject" rather than a "citizen"?
Posted by: Gary on March 12, 2010 09:49 AMThe CBO says it will cut Medicare reimbursements which will hurt all hospitals.
You mean like Social Security and Medicare?
Yes. And those are practically insolvent. This makes it worse.
Trillions in debt, huge deficits? The CBO says this will cut costs.
Yes. When you start paying higher taxes for 4 years before any benefits kick in, of course the CBO would say it doesn't add to the deficit.
Posted by: Palouse on March 12, 2010 09:56 AMWhen you use words like "foisted" and "treason", you sound shrill and unreasonable.
This Health Care Reform package was put together by duly elected representatives of the United States Government and will be enacted by a majority of those representatives according to the lawful rules and procedures of those representative bodies.
So where is the foisting?
Where is the treason?
When you tell us to move to Cuba, you sound ridiculous, just like I would sound if I told you to move to Somalia where you can have all the liberty and freedom you seem to love.
Unkl, why the hell do you place so much trust in the government? Did the CBO tell us a few years ago that we were gonna have trillion-dollar deficits for years to come? I must have missed that one.
Posted by: Gary on March 12, 2010 09:59 AMI can't believe we've come to a point in this country where there are Americans who condone this.
Posted by: Gary on March 12, 2010 10:05 AMWhy do I "trust" the government?
Well... that's a good question.
I guess I trust the government because I have to. What's the alternative? Anarchy?
To my way of thinking, the United States Government has done a pretty good job of providing for our general welfare over my lifetime (since 1951). And it has been remarkably resilient despite some pretty bad leadership over the years, including Jimmy Carter and George W Bush.
Some of that has been due to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, but mostly it's been just fabulously good luck.
The Foisting and the Treason is acting against the Will of the People when, Big Government is trying to ram this Health Care down our throats. Get it? Probably not...you're a Liberal.
Yes, let's talk about what we are actually trying to fix.
First of all let's separate health insurance from health care.
Health insurance is an issue. about 15 million people who might want insurance cannot get it. Maybe. the 44 million or the 30 million numbers are misused 44 million takes into account people in this country illegally. the 30 million include people who choose not to buy insurance.
That leaves about 15 million. some of these people already have access to existing programs, Maybe a full analysis of these people and their needs will result in a specific, targeted solution rather than a complete and unnecessary government restructuring of the whole program designed to force insurance on people and fine them if they don't choose to participate.
Part of the problem with insurance is that it is tied up with employment, making portability and choice a problem. The government plan does nothing to address this problem. IN addition, people have fewer choices in what kinds of coverage they want. Maybe I don't need a plan that covers pregnancy. Maybe I don't want a plan that covers smoking cessation. I DO want catastrophic coverage, and maybe I want something for chiropractic. shouldn't I be able to choose what I want? The government program does not address that either.
Now we can also talk about health care. The program the government is proposing is ostensibly designed to cut the cost of care. but it is doing it in the worst possible way. It is setting up government panels that decide what is covered and by how much. A one size fits all that has nothing to do with doctor recommendations or patient needs. that is a prescription for disaster. The only way large bureaucratic organizations know how to cut costs is to create large amounts of paperwork and set artificial reimbursement schedules. that will not improve health care.
The solution I want is one where people are covered under a catastrophic plan that will keep them from financial disaster if they should have a medial disaster, and then let the open market compete for any other kinds of additional coverage they might want including reproductive care or alternative medicine or whatever they think is valuable for them.
The cost of an item being paid for should be made very clear to the consumer of the item so they can decide what they want. The government program does nothing to address that.
Posted by: eyago on March 12, 2010 10:31 AMUnkl, now (today) they've changed the cadillac insurance tax amounts, so what happens to the CBO projections now?
Thank you for your thoughtful response. It is a pleasure to get away from the hyperbole and have an honest exchange of ideas on this.
I have to agree with almost everything you say, particularly the last paragraph.
However I think you might be misinformed on some the issues.
You say the plan does nothing to address portability. I believe it does. But more importantly, it addresses the insurance carrier's ability to cancel coverage for someone who gets sick.
You say the government plan would set up panels to determine what is covered and by how much. I quite sure though, that you are aware of the fact that this is exactly what health insurance carriers do now. The difference between the status quo and the proposed plan is that the government panels would include patient advocates, and (hopefully) the government panel would be making the decision based on reasonableness and efficacy of care rather than increasing shareholder value.
The problem with providing only catastrophic coverage is that it is of no benefit to those at the bottom of the economic ladder (you know, those folks the plan is trying to help). They don't need catastrophic coverage because they have no assets to protect. They need basic, preventative health care to keep them away from the emergency room.
So, yes, your right. That means folks like you and me are going to have to -sob- subsidize their health care. I'm willing to do it because I believe it saves money in the long run and most importantly, because it's the right thing to do.
And you like that? Once you give the federal government the power, that's it. You have no place else to go if you don't like it.
Posted by: Gary on March 12, 2010 11:09 AMActually, isn't that the way it is supposed to work?
The government makes a decision the polity does not like, there is a great hue and cry, then the government changes the decision. Sounds good to me. That's democracy and responsive government. Exactly the way it should work.
Anybody? Bueller?
(probably the same people who think it won't cost anything)
Posted by: Gary on March 12, 2010 11:30 AMHey! Why not? What other crap can we cram in that bill since it can't get 60 votes in the senate? Why not amnesty and cap-and-trade too?
If we're gonna abuse the Republic, why not go all-in???
I have never before advocated such a tactic, and I can't see myself doing it ever again. But this is THAT important. Killing this bill is more important than anything else, except for national defense.
No. The Congress and the President agree to an oath to uphold the Constitution. That REQUIRES them to decide for themselves whether something violates the Constitution, in areas where the Court has not spoken.
And there's no rational argument that forcing everyone to buy a product is anywhere within the scope of the Constitution. Anyone who thinks so is unfit for office.
Did I "moan" when I said that? I'm sorry, I certainly didn't mean to moan.
Yes, the duly elected officials of our government took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. And I'm quite certain, in each of their own minds, they feel that they are doing so. You may not agree, but that is merely an opinion. We have a Supreme Court to act as umpire in those situations where it is important enough to translate those conflicting opinions into settled law. So yeah, let's let them decide. I am quite certain they will get an opportunity to do just that.
I understand your opposition to all this, and I applaud it. I truly believe a loyal opposition is healthy for our government.
What I don't understand is the hysteria. What is being proposed here is not that radical. In fact it's not nearly as radical as Social Security or Medicare. Yet those programs didn't end our way of life, they made it better.
I am not a hard left liberal. I am liberal and left of center, but I have campaigned for, worked as a paid staffer for, and donated money to - Republicans.
So if you really are proposing to shut down our government over this thing, I believe we will both regret it. Because the backlash will be such that there are fewer, a lot fewer Republicans in our national legislature come January 3, 2011.
You want the government to make me buy something as a condition of my citizenship. And you don't think that's radical?
Posted by: Gary on March 12, 2010 12:56 PMI have to admit I am no expert on the 2000 or so pages of the bill, so I do rely on others to distill it down for me, and in all probably I am getting a rightward slant on that distillation, so if you have something that explains portability, that might help
But more importantly, it addresses the insurance carrier's ability to cancel coverage for someone who gets sick.
This is a sticky wicket. On the one hand, I agree that insurance companies should not violate the contract they made with a client and deny coverage or cancel a policy without cause. However, if I enter into a contract with an insurance agency knowingly concealing information that would have an impact on my insurance rate, does not the insurance company have a rights to protect itself from fraud? If you make the laws such that it is very hard for an insurance company to protect itself in that way, you will force the company to redesign it pricing structure to accommodate. It will be forced to raise the rates for all users to cover the losses due to abusers. Ultimately, an insurance company has to make sure premiums cover payments plus costs. You cannot magically make that go away. I also believe there are plenty of ways to to address insurance company abuses short of sweeping government intervention - those courts that you refer to in other posts exist for that redress and I do not think new legislation will improve on that.
You say the government plan would set up panels to determine what is covered and by how much. I quite sure though, that you are aware of the fact that this is exactly what health insurance carriers do now. The difference between the status quo and the proposed plan is that the government panels would include patient advocates, and (hopefully) the government panel would be making the decision based on reasonableness and efficacy of care rather than increasing shareholder value.
No. I think you have too much faith in government. Profit motive does not inherently remove people from being moral beings (and conversely government paycheck's do not either). The problem with the government is the difficulty in redressing your issues verses with private companies. With private companies, a bad insurance company will lose clients. Where does one change his business to when it is the government that is making a bad judgment because of budget constraints? The government program reduces consumer options and one usually cannot sue the government the way they can a business. Business are not monolithic, but Government can be. Plus, government is subject to political favoritism. Winners and losers are determined by a complex game of favor trading which makes the individual less in control over all. Sure, we can vote the scoundrels out, but often ideology takes precedence and thus at least they are OUR scoundrels. Also, politics is a many faceted issue, and we do not really have the option of voting directly on an issue but on people who may or may not represent our needs on a particular issue and we may not vote them out due to that ONE issue because the other scoundrel has a different letter after their name and they are more evil even if they agree with us on one issue. Finally once a bureaucracy sets in, even major changes in political landscape will have negligible effect on that bureaucracy. Government works to preserve it's place in many ways similarly to companies, but you have less direct impact on government verses private companies. (This is assuming there is true competition in the marketplace where one company can step up to fulfill a need that others are ignoring - which is not the case with the current private insurance arrangements due to state laws)
The problem with providing only catastrophic coverage is that it is of no benefit to those at the bottom of the economic ladder (you know, those folks the plan is trying to help). They don't need catastrophic coverage because they have no assets to protect. They need basic, preventative health care to keep them away from the emergency room.
I disagree. I think the poor are in greater need because their overall quality of health from cancer or heart disease is lessened due to their inability to get access to proper care after the event over the long term. And as far as preventive care, I think the problem can work itself out if insurance companies wanted to reduce their own financial risk by incentivising their policy holders to get regular checkups to prevent the catastrophic claims that might otherwise occur.
So, yes, your right. That means folks like you and me are going to have to -sob- subsidize their health care. I'm willing to do it because I believe it saves money in the long run and most importantly, because it's the right thing to do.
I also agree that it is the moral thing to do to care for those who cannot care for themselves; I just disagree with national programs that aren't well suited for that task.
Posted by: Eyago on March 12, 2010 02:08 PMThen they are unfit for duty. Shrug. And I don't believe it anyway. I've known too many liberals to believe that. They know damned well they are violating the Constitution. They just don't give a damn ... or, to be charitable, they just care more about their own agendas than the Constitution. Justice Stephen Breyer has written extensively on his "consequentialist" legal philosophy about "ordered liberty," where he explicitly ignores what the Constitution or law actually says because he believes that the result of the following the law would have a bad result.
(As such, Breyer is unfit for duty, too. A judge who cannot follow the law first and foremost is simply incapable of serving as a judge.)
You may not agree, but that is merely an opinion.
It is the ONLY opinion consistent with the Constitution. For example, I have a Constitutional right to NOT associate with certain types of businesses, including, for example, health insurance companies. I can not imagine any governmental interest that can override that right, let alone the lie that "we need everyone in the system for the system to work." Even if it were true, then tough: get a new system. You can't say, "we need to restrict everyone's speech in order for the system to work," so what makes you think you can override my other rights?
We have a Supreme Court to act as umpire in those situations where it is important enough to translate those conflicting opinions into settled law. So yeah, let's let them decide.
Again, no: each legislator who votes for it is responsible for explaining why they think such a blatant violation of the Constitution is NOT a blatant violation of the Constitution.
I understand your opposition to all this ... What I don't understand is the hysteria.
The second sentence disagrees with the former. If you really understood my opposition, you would understand my fervency.
What is being proposed here is not that radical.
False.
In fact it's not nearly as radical as Social Security or Medicare.
Ummmmmm. What?! You think an OPTIONAL insurance program for a MINORITY of Americans is MORE radical than MANDATORY insurance for ALL Americans?! This would be the first time in history that ANYTHING would be required of every person in the country.
You're just being stupid.
And no, this is more radical than even Social Security, since Social Security takes nothing but my money away from me, whereas this health insurance takes away a huge amount of freedom: directly punishing me for having not enough, or too much, health insurance, and so on.
Yet those programs didn't end our way of life, they made it better.
False. It didn't end our way of life, true, but it made it far, far worse. If nothing else, we are worse off because those programs have pushed us down a slippery slope where absolutely any infringement of our rights is justified by piggybacking off of Social Security and Medicare. But in themselves we are worse off too: we don't have fewer people in need now than we did before the Great Depression, so how can you argue we're better off?
I am not a hard left liberal.
False. This discussion proves otherwise.
So if you really are proposing to shut down our government over this thing, I believe we will both regret it.
I certainly won't.
Because the backlash will be such that there are fewer, a lot fewer Republicans in our national legislature come January 3, 2011.
No, because Republicans would be elected TO KILL THE LAW. The people wouldn't kick them out of office for doing what the people put them there to do. That's what makes the possibility so ... possible. Because for the first time we'd actually have a mandate from the people to go to such extremes.
But even if you're right, fine. At least then we can have an honest debate.
And that's the worst part: the Democrats are so damned dishonest. They are trying to reshape the country in unconstitutional ways and doing it on the sly, ignoring the law, ignoring their oaths, trying to change the country one step at a time instead of telling the people up front, "is the direction I am taking you, to a more central government, where you don't have freedom of association, or the Tenth Amendment, or any of these things that helped make America what it is ... is that where you want to go?"
If they did that, of course -- if they were actually honest -- then they would lose every election. Hence, they are dishonest. Just like in health care ... we all know for a fact that Obama and his people have, as a goal, single-payer health care that eliminates private insurers. Obama has said that it will take time to get there, but he wants to get there. The man who designed the public option said it was DESIGNED to kill private insurers. But they don't talk about that much, because they know they'd get killed in the elections if they did.
Too bad for them we have an Internet so it only takes saying it once.
Anyway, nice of you to pop in and say who like and who you don't.
"Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance..."
-
Oh! I change my mind! I'm all for it now. Wouldn't want artists to have to work after all.
Posted by: Gary on March 12, 2010 02:35 PMThe so called "death panels" are already present. WellPoint and Aetna are two prime examples of companies that deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and cancel coverage for expensive conditions. The problem is they have a near monopoly in some areas. This is one of the issues that the health bill is attempting to address. What gets me is the lack of solutions from the Republican leadership on this very issue (i.e., denial of coverage, both for pre-existing or known high cost health conditions). The root cause in many cases is lack of competition. Yet, the proposals from the right don't talk about this. They mention opening up competition across state lines, but this won't solve the issue, since they are only basing this solution at the cost and not at the coverage end. Lower costs plans from out-of-state are not going to magically cover known expensive conditions. They will instead "suck" out the well people who want to lower their coverage, which in turn will raise the rates on the more expensive group (high cost groups). The solution needs to address providing reasonable cost coverage across a base standard. Without a base standard, health insurance will be worthless. Right now, companies (and unions) negotiate this base standard of coverage in return for access to the large pool of mixed health consumers. The Health Exchange of Private Insurers (ala FEHB model) is the Democrats approach to provide standard coverage in the non-corporate world. I have not seen an adequate alternative from the Republicans, which is where they have missed the boat (in my opinion). We all agree the status quo is unacceptable. So, what is the large pool alternative that is fully private sector based (i.e., no government involvement) and that is available in the smaller markets, where there currently is little to no competition?
Posted by: tc on March 12, 2010 02:50 PMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVAhr4hZDJE
WRONG! What's certain is that most of the socialists trying to shove this crap down America's throat have NEVER read the document. Otherwise they would never write junk like this, McCain-Feingold, etc., or don't care. To knowingly pass violating legislation should be an impeachable offense.
Leave my health care alone!
Posted by: yaddacubed on March 12, 2010 03:13 PMdidn't find anything about this in a Google search but did find this
http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Health/DiabetesHealthCoverageStateLawsandPrograms/tabid/14504/Default.aspx#New%20York
it states that basically that New York required diabetes coverage since 1993
Posted by: Ron K on March 12, 2010 03:17 PMGiven that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has publicly stated we need to pass the bill to learn what is in it, I do not think we can assume the CBO estimates are accurate.
As far as not supporting this bill, I oppose it because it does not address cost containment. It is well proven that HSAs coupled with high-deductible plans are a way to significantly cut health insurance costs. And those are to be eliminated per the bill.
We know that when individuals are involved in the purchase and expenditure of their own insurance, they tend to be careful to contain costs themselves; yet we will not provide the same tax benefits for this type of positive action that we give to businesses, thereby penalizing those who are proactive.
Simply put: the bill does not attempt to contain costs, and it does not allow proven, essentially free methods of containing costs by getting the consumer directly involved in the financial side of health insurance.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 12, 2010 03:55 PMBelow is the original Wash Post article regarding the insurance company, Guardian Life. I did find a Miami based newspaper article (the individual now lives in Florida, but the Father's commutes to NY to work and the insurance is through NY) that stated the insurance company changed its mind (after the media coverage).
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/14/ny-insurance-company-tries-to-rid-itself-of-high-c/
Posted by: tc on March 12, 2010 03:57 PMWould you expect your homeowner's policy allow you to buy flood insurance as your basement is filling up?
I know things are a little more complex than that, but basically when you make a blanket statement about pre-existing conditions you open yourself to that argument. An insurance company should not be liable for covering people who basically wait until after the flood to buy their flood insurance. However, there are reasonable exceptions to this for the case where someone is transferring from one insurance program to another. In car insurance, if you remain uncovered for a certain length of time, your initial rates are at one of the highest levels, but if you are continuously insured, you do not pay high rates when swapping carriers. Something similar should be in effect for health insurance.
The root cause in many cases is lack of competition. Yet, the proposals from the right don't talk about this. They mention opening up competition across state lines, but this won't solve the issue, since they are only basing this solution at the cost and not at the coverage end. Lower costs plans from out-of-state are not going to magically cover known expensive conditions. They will instead "suck" out the well people who want to lower their coverage, which in turn will raise the rates on the more expensive group (high cost groups).
This does not make sense. If certain rules were set up in only one state that allowed outsiders to have one set of rules while local companies have more strict rules, than I can see outsiders siphoning off the more "profitable" clients. this is not open competition and thus not a solution I would support. I would want a solution that allows fair and equal access to all people provided that they also cannot abuse the system by avoiding coverage until after they get sick.
I also agree that insurance companies need to be restricted from denying coverage such as in your example. If the diabetic has been maintaining coverage consistently, then they should not be dropped simply because they got too expensive to cover. The point of insurance is to mitigate high costs for some against the lower cost for others by averaging the costs among the pool. But that only works if all the people are paying into the pool in the first place. People who refuse to join in should be refused coverage later and people who have paid in should not be refused coverage later.
Posted by: Eyago on March 12, 2010 04:15 PM
So in essence you are saying that public pressure prevented a company from doing what you say is systemic. That "public pressure" argument is the same one Unkl Witz said is how we would deal with the Government program that might have done a similar thing, so I am at a loss as to what you have proven other than that with any system than deals with billions of "cases" each year there will be some examples of problems. The question is, which problems would be worse and which problems would be more likely to be impacted by public demand for correction. I tend to think government would b less responsive to public pressure than companies, especially if consumers had real choice in the market and bad press could cost a company large amounts of revenue.
Posted by: eyago on March 12, 2010 04:25 PMIt's bizarre to say the least.
We already know also that if you belong to a class of people that the current government prefers (unions contributing money to politicians) then your tax burden will be less than for an American who isn't in a union.
What I don't understand is how otherwise rational people excuse this, or don't think it's corrupt simply because mommy government is doing it.
Posted by: Gary on March 12, 2010 04:32 PM"Ian would be lucky, or unlucky, to survive more than a matter of weeks or months," Mrs. Pearl said. "One-on-one skilled nursing is essential." "
guess you missed that in the article.
Posted by: ron on March 12, 2010 04:44 PMSpeaking of Medicaid, do you proponents know how the states are going to pay for the extra Medicaid burdens imposed by this "reform"?
Thanks.
Posted by: Gary on March 12, 2010 04:46 PMAnd that's the worst part: the Democrats are so damned dishonest. They are trying to reshape the country in unconstitutional ways and doing it on the sly, ignoring the law, ignoring their oaths, trying to change the country one step at a time instead of telling the people up front, "is the direction I am taking you, to a more central government, where you don't have freedom of association, or the Tenth Amendment, or any of these things that helped make America what it is ... is that where you want to go?"
What about the dishonest Democrats forcing us to kill cute puppies? Why did you forget to throw that in?
Off topic: Give a Gun for St Patrick's Day (While You Still Can)
Once again, thank you for taking the time to reply with thoughtful posts that are on point and avoid demagoguery and name calling.
You have several good points and what appears to be a good understanding of the basic principles of insurance.
You pose the question "Would you expect your homeowner's policy allow you to buy flood insurance as your basement is filling up?
Of course not. But that's not what is being proposed. In fact, that is exactly why an incremental approach won't work.
You say "In car insurance, if you remain uncovered for a certain length of time, your initial rates are at one of the highest levels, but if you are continuously insured, you do not pay high rates when swapping carriers. Something similar should be in effect for health insurance."
Exactly the point. This program would require everyone to get into the pool Not just the bad risks.
Your analogy to car insurance is good one, but not quite the same. Everyone (who drives) is required to have insurance or pass a financial responsibility test as protection for everyone else.
Also, what about tying this up in Court for awhile. Haven't heard much lately about the legality issue...but rest assured, it will be contested.
Posted by: Mr. Cynical on March 12, 2010 06:40 PMYour analogy to car insurance is good one, but not quite the same. Everyone (who drives) is required to have insurance or pass a financial responsibility test as protection for everyone else.
So why do I (and most others) find I (we) have to carry coverage against Uninsured Motorists? There's a big hole in your argument there.
Posted by: It Takes A Village To Convene A Grand Jury on March 12, 2010 06:54 PMAnd again, how will Washington State (just rolling cash) pay for the extra Medicaid coverage?
Can you also explain how the House can approve the Senate version without actually having the "up or down vote" as the President requested? They do have the votes, don't they?
It's your plan, not mine.
Thanks.
The prohibitionists (aka progressives) are close-minded about other alternatives for Health Insurance reform such as incrementally reforming it. Whether this passes or not, the Democratics will lose big in November - it is apparent that Congress and President are going against the will of the people and subverting the constitution and out to pass it any way - illegally if they have to. This is an anarchy within the Government and there is a real threat of martial law if Obama-losi care is illegally & unconstitutionally enacted.
Posted by: KDS on March 12, 2010 09:55 PMThat's an interesting piece of trivia, but not relevant to whether Obamacare is either constitutional or wise. Social Security is required of just about anyone who works, and while technically no one has to work (or could subsistence farm, etc.), as a practical matter work is virtually essential for most people. Most people (and courts) live in the real world and wouldn't care about your theoretical distinction.
Posted by: Bruce on March 13, 2010 02:12 AMAs opposed to a massive, for-profit insurance company bureaucracy whose STATED goal is to reduce payouts to maximize shareholder returns? Gee..I'll take the government panels, thanks! At least they have my interests at heart, and don't have a profit motive.
Posted by: proteus on March 13, 2010 06:05 AMLOL, did I really read that. Excuse me, but when Uncle Sam runs low on bucks let's see how YOUR interest are taken care of.
As a retired Fire/Medic. I've seen the medicare nightmare up front.
Man are you in for a shock.
As opposed to a massive, for-profit insurance company bureaucracy whose STATED goal is to reduce payouts to maximize shareholder returns? Gee..I'll take the government panels, thanks! At least they have my interests at heart, and don't have a profit motive.
That's already been covered. Read a little more carefully. You are creating a false dichotomy. Private insurance is not monolithic, and except for the state enforced restriction on choice and other systemic constraints on the consumer imposed by government, you would have the ability to chose a company that was more responsive to your health needs. If you turn it over to the true monolithic entity in the government who has no more interest in your needs than a groundhog would, you will discover not only will they more likely hide behind bureaucratic rules, you will also discover that you have no one else to turn to when they decide you can't have what you and your doctor think you need.
You appear to have an irrational disdain for profit and assume that everyone who tries to actually make money could only be a cold-hearted scrooge. In reality, the vast majority of people are compassionate and do care, and that include people working in the private sector. A good company knows that you can create a good business that earns profits by meeting customer needs. A bad company would go out of business trying to screw consumers. However, if you create virtual monopolies by government intervention, you have a less likelihood of ferreting out the bad companies, which is what happens today in some respects.
So it appears to me that your solution to fixing a problem generated by government is to turn the WHOLE thing over to government.
Posted by: Eyago on March 13, 2010 08:12 AMIf you want to look strictly at profit motives and be as cynical as possible, consider the following:
Insurance companies exist to maximize profits. Thus they want to raise rates as high as possible, without losing customers (it's basic economics that it's more expensive to get new customers than to keep old ones).
Additionally, they want to cut costs as much as possible, but not so far as to kill customers from denying services. You want to keep them barely alive, but healthy. This maximizes the time the person pays into the system, while minimizing your expenditures.
What about Government? Government likewise wants to keep as many taxpayers around as possible. That maximizes their revenue. And they want to force everyone to participate. And there is no restriction about how high they can raise the rates because where else will the people go? No choice.
And Government wants to minimize expenses too, especially when it is running deficits. Thus it will reduce service. HOWEVER, Government tends to benefit when services are reduced below what would keep people alive, since Government profits from estate taxes for some, and from eliminating Social Security payouts for all (there is no lump-sum distribution).
So, taken together:
- Both want to maximize revenue; however, insurance companies cannot force you to participate and stick with them. They have a lower threshold of premiums they can charge without losing customers.
- Both want to minimize expenses; however, only Government actually benefits from potential additional revenue and greatly decreased expenses in Social Security if you die.
Overall, from a purely profit-driven, cynical motive, the insurance company is forced by the free market and profit ideology to treat its customers better than Government would.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 13, 2010 08:38 AMPeople are so easily fooled.
Tell me why anything they propose is better than the $160 a month Regence health care plan I can buy now in Washington State.
And tell me why its better to create a "whole new system" than to fund the $33 a month health care insurance plan for poor people (WA state public option as defined by Maria Cantwell) that we currently have?
Posted by: John Bailo on March 13, 2010 08:43 AMSpeaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has scheduled a vote next week on a House rule to get ObamaCare passed without one Representative having to vote on the bill. This may be unconstitutional. I have to be careful not to say that "Pelosi will schedule a vote on ObamaCare," because the plan right now is to pass the Senate version of ObamaCare without a vote in the House. The procedure is purposefully confusing because liberals in Congress hope the American people don't figure out this procedural fraud until it is too late. So much for the Constitution that says that a bill does not become a law until the House and Senate pass identical bills, and then the President signs that legislation.
According to the AP:
Under White House pressure to act swiftly, House and Senate Democratic leaders reached for agreement Friday on President Barack Obama's health care bill, sweetened suddenly by fresh billions for student aid and a sense that breakthroughs are at hand. "It won't be long," before lawmakers vote, predicted Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The Pelosi agreement is to allow the House to vote on a rule that will preclude a vote on ObamaCare. First, the House will take up a rule that will "deem" the Senate passed version of ObamaCare to have passed after the House passes a reconciliation bill. The reconciliation bill is a yet to be released budgetary bill to reconcile current law and it amends the Senate ObamaCare bill. The left assumes that the American people are too dense to understand that they are going to pass an unpopular bill in the House, yet House members can run back to the district and claim they never voted for the bill. Win-win for Members of Congress and lose-lose for the American people.
I posted this at The Foundry Blog:
Just to restate a shocking development in the Obamacare debate; Congressional leaders have found a way to ignore the Constitutional requirement that a law be signed by the President before it is considered a law. Outrage is not a strong enough word for the feelings many American's have toward elites in Washington, D.C. who will do anything to pass Obamacare.
Posted by: KDS on March 13, 2010 10:25 AMOnce again, thank you for taking the time to reply with thoughtful posts that are on point and avoid demagoguery and name calling.
Well, I still believe that most people are good and want to do what is good, though we disagree on philosophy and methods. Name calling and invectives will never help the conversation and are just a waste of time.
You say "In car insurance, if you remain uncovered for a certain length of time, your initial rates are at one of the highest levels, but if you are continuously insured, you do not pay high rates when swapping carriers. Something similar should be in effect for health insurance."
Exactly the point. This program would require everyone to get into the pool Not just the bad risks.
require There is the rub. There are those of us who believe that kind of "requirement" is not constitutional, is a violation of our freedoms and is counter to the original intent of the founders. Some might feel that all our ideology is counter-productive and that for the good of society we must change things so that we get the outcome they think is better over-all. I think that is the key sticking point between the two sides.
I think that there can be ways of covering people left out of the system without forcing people into a system not of their choosing. First thing you need to do is take away mandated coverage requirements that people don't need or want. Second, you allow people to chose any insurance program they wish as along as it is fairly and equitably priced so as to not penalize someone. Then you give vouchers to the needy so they can purchase a plan that they want. All this can be done without forcing people into a centrally managed insurance bureaucracy.
Posted by: Eyago on March 13, 2010 01:24 PMThe founders were wise but never claimed that they knew the answers to everything -- otherwise they would not have created a legislature to make new laws. Nowhere is it written that we need to honor the founders' intent 200+ years later, and I doubt even the founders would wish that. Of course, the founders did write some basic groundrules into the constitution, and those can't be changed without amendment. I don't think Obamacare violates the constitution, but it is a legitimate question, and the Supreme Court will have the final say. But just because a policy violates the intent of our founders doesn't make it unconstitutional -- or bad.
Posted by: Bruce on March 13, 2010 01:50 PMHow do we know the bill isn't unconstitutional? After all, Nancy Pelosi has told us that we cannot know what's in the bill until after it's passed. It very well may contain unconstitutional provisions.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 13, 2010 02:46 PMConsidering that Unkl Witz has been called just about every name in the book in the last 4-5 years I've seen him posting on this blog I doubt that any additional names from me would have any impact at all. Secondly, I have never seen, nor would I ever expect to see a person swayed through ad hominems. If his ideas are a problem, I'll tell him straight up, that is sufficient. Thirdly, if there is a fence sitter, or a person who simply has only heard one side of the story before coming across this blog, they are more likely to consider arguments contrary to their current understanding if those arguments are presented in a rational and non-attacking manner. Finally, I try to treat people with respect until such time as they earn something otherwise.
The HMO model is used for some of these countries, with a formulary for prescriptions, and restrictions on treatment (just like almost EVERY private US plan).
So, in a nutshell, its Medicare for all, but without hundreds of small insurance companies, with detailed electronic medical records, and without the 30% billing and processing overhead in our system. THIS is the system we need. Contrary to the blather here, I don't know ANYONE of retirement age who would give up their Medicare. Coupled with a private, comparitively low cost supplemental policy, it provides good value and quaity. In order to cover everyone in the US, all we'd have to do is up the current medicare tax from 1.5% to around 8-15%, like other countries. Considering a standard family policy is around $12k per year, this would still be a good deal.
Posted by: Proteus on March 13, 2010 09:27 PMdo you understand medicare tax is not 1.5% it is 2.9% 1.45% from employee and matched by the employer, so it totals 2.9%
Posted by: Ron K on March 14, 2010 01:59 AMThe problem is that Medicare is more expensive to administer per patient than private health care. Why should we increase our total administrative costs by going to a Government plan?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 14, 2010 03:22 AM'legitimately'?!?!
What's even remotely legitimate about socialized health care?
R.I.N.O. Peterson again proves that wasting bandwidth is a great way for outting himself as a fool...
I wonder if R.I.N.O. Peterson is smart enough to read Shanghai Dan's link and understand its contents?
Posted by: juandos on March 14, 2010 08:51 AMMedicare and Social Security are the two big reasons the deficits are exploding, and will continue to do so. We're spending tens of billions of dollars more on SS benefits than we are taking in.
As far as nuclear deterrence, that's always been a big Democrat/liberal target of derision.
And the Iraq War? Hate to tell you, but it's been won. In the last 6 months more policemen in the Seattle area have been killed than US combat deaths in Iraq. It's over, you can thank General Petraeus and George W. Bush for winning it.
Perhaps you'd care to actually address the topic at hand? Maybe you can address the issue of Medicare having higher administrative costs than private industry? How will forcing even more people on to that plan result in lower costs?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 14, 2010 08:24 PMAt the risk of, yet again, exciting your inability to understand that President Clinton signed surplus budgets, those programs are not driving our debts. The Bush tax cuts and endless wars do that.
As far as nuclear deterrence, that's always been a big Democrat/liberal target of derision.
Care to give an example? Please, tell us of your interesting little world, where the atomic bomb was not developed under FDR, the H-Bomb under Truman, etc. Remember when senile old Reagan, superficially impressed with Gorbachev in Iceland, proposed throwing away our nuclear deterrent? Remember what we liberals said at that time? I thought not.
And the Iraq War? Hate to tell you, but it's been won. In the last 6 months more policemen in the Seattle area have been killed than US combat deaths in Iraq. It's over, you can thank General Petraeus and George W. Bush for winning it.
What on earth are you talking about, Dan? Have you fallen for my evil liberal propaganda? We were greeted with chocolates and flowers, oil revenues paid for our brief occupation, Iraqis stood up as we stood down, and regime change was a huge success. You've been deluded by liberal propaganda, Dan; soon, you'll claim we suffered combat deaths after Pres. Codpiece declared combat operations over on Mission Accomplished Day. (What are you doing to celebrate Mission Accomplished Day this year? Seven is a lucky number, after all.) Why do you hate President Codpiece, Dan?
Maybe you can address the issue of Medicare having higher administrative costs than private industry?
Sorry, I'm not an author of fiction. Perhaps you can explain why America, alone of the western industrial democracies, has medical bankruptcies?
Entitlement programs were started by Democrats and it is difficult nigh impossible to repeal them once the infrastructure is in place.
Yeah, it's like voters want them, or something. (Like light rail. What kind of democracy follows the will of the voters?)
...(with the exception of the Iraq War only because it is not an entitlement)...
You should ask Halliburton or Blackwater about that. Which former Halliburton exec helped to start said war?
Both parties must be held accountable for the $67 Trillion on unfunded liabilities.
You're aware that's a prediction, right? Not an actual figure?
We need creative solutions, folks. All over the world, such as in Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, and yes in Europe, there are very good healthcare schemes with government oversight. It's like Americans are completely incapable of imagining that there are other countries in the world who have "been there and done that".
I pay $10,500 per year for health insurance, that is for myself my wife and our kids. I own a company. It's ridiculous.
Many Americans are extremely obese, eat poor diets, and lack exercise. Why should those of us who eat well and exercise subsidize the drunk couch potatoes?
Think about it. Let's get a new program that rewards good lifestyle choices and offers incentives for others to get healthy. All the while providing some level of care for anyone unfortunate enough to need life threatening care.
Posted by: GV on March 15, 2010 12:29 AMI well recall working for a small company, a garage start-up. Every year, we'd have another health-care plan; I felt sorry for those of my fellow employees who had children, as they always had difficult choices to make.
I have since obtained a union-represented position at a major multi-national corporation. The administrative staff at my dentist's office were visibly and audibly appreciative at this news, as they had become used to having my *every* claim, even for routine, preventative care, immediately and summarily rejected.
European and Canadian firms have a tremendous competitive advantage over their American counterparts. I wonder when America's entrepreneurs will demand we achieve parity?
Posted by: tensor on March 15, 2010 02:51 AM
You're aware that's a prediction, right? Not an actual figure?"
Wrong, they are actual estimates and just over half ($34 Trillion) is from Medicare - a program passed by the Democrat congress.
"Yeah, it's like voters want them, or something."
Wrong again, its the politicians that want them, who are owned by lobbyists. Voters would not want them if they knew the consequences and don't have a chance to vote on these entitlement programs anyway.
Posted by: KDS on March 15, 2010 08:19 AMIt's not a fantasy that the US Government is paying out more for SS than it is bringing in. That's a deficit position. What do you propose - higher SS taxes, or cutting SS benefits?
I have yet to see an endless war; I know you love talking about them but Iraq is over. The "righteous" war or Afghanistan is still going on, but it too shall end.
And Newt Gingrich thanks you for your commendation on a balanced budget. You do know how budgets are created in the US Government, don't you?
But tell us - you still dodge the question - why it is better to use a higher administrative solution to "solve the healthcare crisis". Why should we spend those missing dollars in greater numbers?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 15, 2010 08:36 AM"This proposal adds almost a decade of solvency to Medicare,"
Oh, yay! Almost a decade, not quite.
And the liberals here like it. Being a Constitutional Republic is just too hard for them.
Posted by: Gary on March 15, 2010 11:10 AMhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704416904575121541779736742.html
The survey shows astonishing intensity and sharp opposition to reform, far more than national polls reflect. For 82% of those surveyed, the heath-care bill is either the top or one of the top three issues for deciding whom to support for Congress next November. (That number goes to 88% among independent women.) Sixty percent want Congress to start from scratch on a bipartisan health-care reform proposal or stop working on it this year. Majorities say the legislation will make them and their loved ones (53%), the economy (54%) and the U.S. health-care system (55%) worse off—quite the trifecta.
Seven in 10 would vote against a House member who votes for the Senate health-care bill with its special interest provisions. That includes 45% of self-identified Democrats, 72% of independents and 88% of Republicans. Three in four disagree that the federal government should mandate that everyone buy a government-approved insurance plan (64% strongly so), and 81% say any reform should focus first on reducing costs. Three quarters agree that Americans have the right to choose not to participate in any health-care system or plan without a penalty or fine.
It ain't just us crazy right wingnuts who believe this.
Posted by: Eyago on March 15, 2010 12:33 PMIt begins.
"Kick open that door, and there will be other legislation to follow."
And that's supposed to make us want this?
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/01/news/economy/medicare_cuts_rates_consumer_impact/index.htm
Because Medicare is busted. By all means let's blow up the rest of the system.
Liberals think that magic fairies will just make it all work.
Now, to the peanut gallery of clapping chimps who claimed President Bush was an idiot: What do you think of the brainiac (president teleprompter) in the white house? A little fast and loose with the facts is he?
Posted by: Attila on March 15, 2010 02:18 PMI'm telling' ya... they've given up thinking for themselves. It's too hard.
From the Washington Post.
You liberals like this? You don't have the votes, so you just declare it passed? You like your government doing this?
Instead of thinking for themselves, and saying "Hey... what? What did he say?", they just cheer like robots.
Posted by: Gary on March 16, 2010 08:24 AMI know if it looks like health insurance reform will pass, I'm going to rush out and sign up for a $1500/month policy, so that when it passes my costs will go down by 3000% and the Government will end up paying me $43,500 per month.
Thanks, Obama!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 16, 2010 08:45 AMPalouse, I think with the Slaughter thing being on the front page of the Washington Post, and Nancy actually this: "But I like it, because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill."... it will be even *worse* for a House member to vote 'yes' on the Slaughter thing than the actual Senate bill.
I'm hopeful the Slaughter thing will die. Clyburn said today that this might slip past Easter.
They still don't have the (Democrat) votes.
And today Obama said that he won't campaign for any Democrat who votes 'no'. Yes, he actually believes that House Dems facing tough re-elections *want* him anywhere near them.
This man's ego is incredible. It's even more awesome than his math.
You haven't heard the best part - I'm going to franchise my new plan in all 57 states! I'm gonna make millions - billions!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on March 16, 2010 10:29 AMBig surprise.
OBAMACARE by nitwitz . . . the mock-bravado of proud spontaneous circular firing squads staged in the midst of huge crowds of innocents.
Empty dishonest stupidity and arrogance slavishly following empty dishonest arrogant leftist stupidity seeking absolute power.
At least he's consistent.
Posted by: Amused by Liberals on March 18, 2010 10:28 AM