The Cost of Health Coverage in 2016

Health • Views: 7,882

Here’s an eye-opener at Nate Silver’s blog: FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Why Progressives Are Batshit Crazy to Oppose the Senate Bill.

Silver’s post centers around this graph, and he explains in great detail how he came up with the numbers:

Read it all before we start fighting about it. If I can save 40-50% on my health insurance costs, that’s a big incentive — because as a self-employed lizardoid, I pay a freaking fortune for my insurance and hardly ever use it. If you think Silver is full of crap, tell me why.

Jump to bottom

599 comments
1 Bagua  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:07:38pm

Somethings to consider in the health care debate:

When considering overall life expectancy and comparing two countries, there are variables such as genetics and life style differences that must be factored in. Longer life expectancy can be much more a question of that persons genetic make-up and lifestyle choices.

Americans in particular tend to have more risk factors for and prevalence of diseases such as diabetes and heart disease because of being more likely to be overweight or obese, and also have a much wider genetic variation than Britain or European countries.

A better caparison is between survival rates for specific diseases, but even with this there is a strong genetic influence and often being overweight can make for a worse prognosis.

Lastly, some variations are difficult to measure, for example, my friend on a six month NHS waiting-list for surgery for multiple abdominal prolapses had to wait another 8 months when a different problem needed surgery.

Either way he will likely have the same life expectancy as this condition is not fatal, but the discomfort of having to live with this for any extra year or more is a factor to consider. For this reason, many in Britain who can afford it will go to the US or even India for medical treatment.

2 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:08:57pm

Even if the math is right, that graph just makes me oppose the bill even more. I’ve got no desire to see massive government subsidies poured into health care. It strike me as recipe for permanent government growth and eventual fiscal collapse. It also sounds the death knell for limited government.

3 djughurknot  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:10:18pm

Even though Nate makes good points, I still reserve the right to be pissed off that the people I voted for lived down to my expectations.

4 Killgore Trout  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:10:26pm
If I can save 40-50% on my health insurance costs, that’s a big incentive — because as a self-employed lizardoid, I pay a freaking fortune for my insurance and hardly ever use it.


I’m self employed as well and my premiums have doubled in the past 5 years. Self employed people see this cost but those with regular jobs don’t see their monthly premium because their employers take care of it. I can guarantee that employment would increase if insurance rates were lowered. Just because your boss is sending in the checks doesn’t mean the money isn’t coming out of your pocket.

5 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:13:34pm

No disagreement here. Main quote:

For any “progressive” who is concerned about the inequality of wealth, income and opportunity in America, this bill would be an absolutely monumental achievement. The more compelling critique, rather, is that the bill would fail to significantly “bend the cost curve”. I don’t dismiss that criticism at all, and certainly the insertion of a public option would have helped at the margins. But fundamentally, that is a critique that would traditionally be associated with the conservative side of the debate, as it ultimately goes to mounting deficits in the wake of expanded government entitlements.

Points:
1. he’s absolutely right that it will be a monumental achievement, which is why the GOP has been so desperate to oppose it by any means necessary (death panels! euthanasia!)
2. He doesn’t dismiss the critque that the bill doesn’t go far enough, esp because it lacks a public option— except to say that’s a traditionally ‘conservative’ critique. Not so; it has reasons to recommend it beyond the fiscal ones.

It’ll remain the case that passing this will still be better than passing nothing, but that doesn’t mean I have to be completely happy with it either.

6 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:14:37pm

Politics is the art of compromise, and I think that’s what we have here. Seems like everyone is unhappy, which might be an indication it’s the best we’re going to get.

7 Racer X  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:15:26pm

re: #4 Killgore Trout

I’m self employed as well and my premiums have doubled in the past 5 years. Self employed people see this cost but those with regular jobs don’t see their monthly premium because their employers take care of it. I can guarantee that employment would increase if insurance rates were lowered. Just because your boss is sending in the checks doesn’t mean the money isn’t coming out of your pocket.

I have great health care through my employer. My portion of the costs have gone up dramatically in the past few years. Close to $3500 a year now. And I hardly use it.

8 Mark Pennington  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:16:49pm

re: #5 iceweasel

No disagreement here. Main quote:

Points:
1. he’s absolutely right that it will be a monumental achievement, which is why the GOP has been so desperate to oppose it by any means necessary (death panels! euthanasia!)
2. He doesn’t dismiss the critque that the bill doesn’t go far enough, esp because it lacks a public option— except to say that’s a traditionally ‘conservative’ critique. Not so; it has reasons to recommend it beyond the fiscal ones.

It’ll remain the case that passing this will still be better than passing nothing, but that doesn’t mean I have to be completely happy with it either.

Ditto! Every word!

I don’t think Silver is full of crap at all and I’m for Health Reform so…

9 Killgore Trout  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:18:08pm

Semi-ot: The Dems sure caved pretty quick on nixing the public option to appease Lieberman. I strongly suspect this is like the Stupak anti-Abortion ammendment in congress. They are probably making some quick concessions with the knowledge that they’ll just take them out later on when they consolidate the bills. It’s has been a very big mistake for conservatives to think of Obama and the Dems as bumbling idiots. They are clever and they are passing their agenda by playing the game and playing smart.

10 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:18:42pm

re: #2 Dark_Falcon

Even if the math is right, that graph just makes me oppose the bill even more. I’ve got no desire to see massive government subsidies poured into health care. It strike me as recipe for permanent government growth and eventual fiscal collapse. It also sounds the death knell for limited government.

The GOP was saying that about Medicare back in the 60’s too:

According to Reagan, Medicare would lead federal officials to dictate where physicians could practice medicine, and open the door to government control over where Americans were allowed to live. In fact, Reagan warned that if Medicare became law, there was a real possibility that the federal government would control where Americans go and what they do for a living.

In a line that may sound familiar to Sarah Palin fans, Reagan added, “[I]f you don’t [stop Medicare] and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.”

With the benefit of hindsight, we now know these crazy warnings were completely wrong. As Chait put it:

You’d think conservatives would be embarrassed about this sort of talk. After all, can there be anybody who doesn’t live in a militia compound who believes the passage of Medicare represented the death knell of that freedom in America? Does anybody think this business about the government dictating what city doctors live in has come true? Yet conservatives continue to trumpet it.

Why? Reagan’s diatribe is “still fresh” because it’s exactly the same sort of rhetoric conservatives employ against health care reform today. I imagine his readers are supposed to consider it “fresh” because they’re supposed to substitute “Obamacare” in their head every time Reagan refers to Medicare. This allows them to sustain a mental condition wherein hysterical conservative predictions about the last social reform are forgotten in the specific, but remembered in the general and applied to the next social reform.

Reagan’s misguided diatribe from 48 years ago also serves as a reminder that we hear the same arguments from conservatives, over and over again, every time real reform is on the table. Republicans, Fox News, and Limbaugh, for example, reflexively shout “socialized medicine” whenever the issue comes up — just as the right has done for 75 years.

11 Surabaya Stew  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:19:30pm

re: #2 Dark_Falcon

Even if the math is right, that graph just makes me oppose the bill even more. I’ve got no desire to see massive government subsidies poured into health care. It strike me as recipe for permanent government growth and eventual fiscal collapse. It also sounds the death knell for limited government.


Families facing fiscal collapse due to unaffordable cost of caring for a loved one won’t be happy to know that their bankruptcy saved the Feds. In addition, I’m afraid limited government died when we decided to have an proactive foreign policy.

12 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:19:44pm

re: #2 Dark_Falcon

Even if the math is right, that graph just makes me oppose the bill even more. I’ve got no desire to see massive government subsidies poured into health care. It strike me as recipe for permanent government growth and eventual fiscal collapse. It also sounds the death knell for limited government.

I think you point out the obvious thing that a lot of people either don’t care about or they actually want… that is the control the government will have over many aspects of a persons life if this passes.

If you have even managed to skim through the bill, the is page after page of amendments to IRS tax codes, amendments to Medicare and Medicaid, amendments to many existing laws.

It’s a package of laws that has multiple tentacles that will attached itself in numerous ways to all sorts of US law.

It’s not just the death knell for limited government, it is a paower grab for the future, controlled by one party.

13 cliffster  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:20:25pm

So how much of a surplus is Medicare running these days?

14 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:20:48pm

re: #12 Walter L. Newton

I think you point out the obvious thing that a lot of people either don’t care about or they actually want… that is the control the government will have over many aspects of a persons life if this passes.

If you have even managed to skim through the bill, the is page after page of amendments to IRS tax codes, amendments to Medicare and Medicaid, amendments to many existing laws.

It’s a package of laws that has multiple tentacles that will attached itself in numerous ways to all sorts of US law.

It’s not just the death knell for limited government, it is a paower grab for the future, controlled by one party.

Quite Concur.

15 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:21:57pm

re: #2 Dark_Falcon

Even if the math is right, that graph just makes me oppose the bill even more. I’ve got no desire to see massive government subsidies poured into health care. It strike me as recipe for permanent government growth and eventual fiscal collapse. It also sounds the death knell for limited government.

Sorry, I just think this is hopelessly overblown rhetoric that bears very little resemblance to reality. You’re ignoring the very large potential benefits of removing the incredibly burdensome cost of health insurance from small businesses, and the effect on the economy of freeing up a huge amount of money that’s currently tied up in the tangled mess of the current system.

It’s not going to destroy America. That’s just ridiculous.

16 Racer X  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:22:03pm

re: #12 Walter L. Newton

I think you point out the obvious thing that a lot of people either don’t care about or they actually want… that is the control the government will have over many aspects of a persons life if this passes.

If you have even managed to skim through the bill, the is page after page of amendments to IRS tax codes, amendments to Medicare and Medicaid, amendments to many existing laws.

It’s a package of laws that has multiple tentacles that will attached itself in numerous ways to all sorts of US law.

It’s not just the death knell for limited government, it is a paower grab for the future, controlled by one party.

I’m in favor of one entity running the insurance aspect of health care in America - with everyone paying in. The current bill is a cluster-fuck.

17 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:22:28pm

Charles, thank you for shining a light on this issue.
It’s near & dear to most of our hearts.
I’m still trying to decide what to think of it all.
You information is very helpful.

Walter #12
“If you have even managed to skim through the bill, the is page after page of amendments to IRS tax codes, amendments to Medicare and Medicaid, amendments to many existing laws.”

expresses some of my concerns.

18 Jack Burton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:22:43pm

re: #10 iceweasel

And hows that looking fiscally?

19 Killgore Trout  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:22:48pm

re: #11 Surabaya Stew

In addition, I’m afraid limited government died when we decided to have an proactive foreign policy.


…and interstate highways, public education, food and drug standards, postal service, transcontinental rail service, air safety, publicly funded Bollywood theater, communal free range chicken farms…..
/oh, got carried away there for a minute

20 LegendXXX  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:23:03pm

And where is the “subsidy” coming from? The Government? Meaning the taxpayers? Only the “rich” taxpayers (which means small business?) As a disabled vet, I’m already in a government health plan. Trust me, you all do NOT want this…

21 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:23:19pm

re: #10 iceweasel

Ultimately, Reagan was right, ice. Medicare tied millions to the government and saddled the Federal Government with a financial burden that may bankrupt it. Taking on more obligations right now is foolish, unless the ultimate objective is really the extension of government power.

22 Racer X  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:25:13pm

Something needs to be done - the state of our health care is a mess. I have very little confidence that this rushed through bill will be successful. In addition to health care, I think our current political system is a mess.

23 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:25:30pm

re: #21 Dark_Falcon

Ultimately, Reagan was right, ice. Medicare tied millions to the government and saddled the Federal Government with a financial burden that may bankrupt it. Taking on more obligations right now is foolish, unless the ultimate objective is really the extension of government power.

Just ask anyone if this bill is going to lessen the governments power.

24 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:25:45pm

re: #19 Killgore Trout

don’t forget the FDIC, FEC, FERC, FMC, IRS, ICC, OSHA NTSB, SBA and SSA to name a few

25 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:26:17pm

re: #15 Charles

Small business these days are lucky if they can afford payroll, much less benefits like health insurance.

26 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:26:32pm

re: #21 Dark_Falcon

Ultimately, Reagan was right, ice. Medicare tied millions to the government and saddled the Federal Government with a financial burden that may bankrupt it. Taking on more obligations right now is foolish, unless the ultimate objective is really the extension of government power.

Bollocks. Even McCain ran promising health reform. The existing system sucks. Too many people going without care, and too many people paying too much.

And Reagan was NOT right: he claimed it would destroy America. Wrong.

27 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:26:32pm

Cue Imperial March

Youtube Video
28 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:26:32pm

re: #15 Charles

I’m sorry Charles, but for me it all comes back to the following:

Regarding matters not related to security and physical infrastructure:

In Government, Dark_Falcon Does Not Trust.

29 Charles Johnson  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:27:57pm

re: #21 Dark_Falcon

Ultimately, Reagan was right, ice. Medicare tied millions to the government and saddled the Federal Government with a financial burden that may bankrupt it. Taking on more obligations right now is foolish, unless the ultimate objective is really the extension of government power.

No, Reagan was not right about Medicare — he was actually completely wrong. Medicare has been a huge success, and it’s pretty easy to find evidence of this.

30 reine.de.tout  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:28:13pm

re: #7 Racer X

I have great health care through my employer. My portion of the costs have gone up dramatically in the past few years. Close to $3500 a year now. And I hardly use it.

I hardly used mine, either, for 25 years.
Now I use my insurance to the tune of close to $10,000 a month.
Compared to that, the $600 we pay each month for insurance is nothing. AND, there was zero wait time to begin getting the meds I need.

For me though, the bottom line for support or non-support of this isn’t going to be based on my personal situation, because for every person in this country, there is an individual and unique situation, and there is no plan on the face of the earth that will make everybody happy.

I’ve posted this before, that is, there are other ways to provide health care, NOT just ER visits, to the indigent and uninsured that don’t require, as Walter puts it, “… a package of laws that has multiple tentacles that will attached itself in numerous ways to all sorts of US law”.

And I would much prefer to see those options explored before resorting to this.

31 cliffster  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:28:48pm

re: #26 iceweasel

Bollocks. Even McCain ran promising health reform. The existing system sucks. Too many people going without care, and too many people paying too much.

And Reagan was NOT right: he claimed it would destroy America. Wrong.

I disagree, he was right, it will. The trends are undeniable. Social Security and Medicare are in a race to see who will kill us first.

And I’m sure you know, McCain is not a good spokesman for the people to whom you are directing this comment.

32 Irenicum  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:29:30pm

I just read that this afternoon. Nate Silver is amazing. I love his stuff. Great link Charles.

33 Surabaya Stew  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:30:16pm

re: #25 Sharmuta

Small business these days are lucky if they can afford payroll, much less benefits like health insurance.

Which is why I suspect that a real public option would lead tens of thousands of small businesses to drop their employee health coverage. It would make their lives quite a bit easier….

34 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:31:03pm

Most people when they went to renew their company insurance this year found a substantial increase in co-pays, monthly rates, deductibles, or all of the above. So far the numbers I have seen suggest an almost across the board increase of close to 20% over last year. It should seem familiar, rates have been increasing by the double digits percentage wise for every year over the last decade. Employer health care costs have more than doubled in the last decade and they simply cannot and will not continue to absorb the majority of the costs any longer. (even though they get to “write off” the cost it isn’t a lot of help for small business.)

Even if you have great health care through your work you might want to consider what that is costing your employer and how that affects any potential raises you might otherwise have gotten. It costs all of us, whether we have great insurance or almost worthless insurance. The burden on small business owners who want to do the best they can for their employees has become disastrous, I know this first hand, and I “quit” this game in 2006.

35 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:31:19pm

re: #33 Surabaya Stew

Many small businesses wouldn’t need to drop it because they don’t provide it now.

36 Racer X  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:32:32pm

I heard John McCain say on the radio today that this bill is a huge pile of pork spending - he does not know what is in it and neither did Senator Dick Durbin (D) when he asked him.

He said that this will be the first time in the history of our country that such a huge spending bill will be passed without any bipartisan support. It will be the first time in history that such a huge spending bill will be passed when the majority of Americans do not want it.

We can do better.

37 djughurknot  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:32:48pm

re: #33 Surabaya Stew

Which is why I suspect that a real public option would lead tens of thousands of small businesses to drop their employee health coverage. It would make their lives quite a bit easier…

Yep. I can’t think of too many other things that are so blatantly pro-business than a subsidized public health insurance option.

38 Mark Pennington  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:33:14pm

I’m not happy with the current bill but like Ice said, its better than nothing. It will be decades before another administration will take on health reform again.

39 NJDhockeyfan  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:33:22pm

re: #35 Sharmuta

Many small businesses wouldn’t need to drop it because they don’t provide it now.

They will be force to provide it or be fined. How would that help small businesses?

40 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:33:55pm

re: #29 Charles

No, Reagan was not right about Medicare — he was actually completely wrong. Medicare has been a huge success, and it’s pretty easy to find evidence of this.

Medicare is still projected to go bankrupt. Its my belief that its great harm is yet to come. The demand to save it without passing cost along to those it insures will be great, and everyone will end up getting taxed to prevent that from happening.

41 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:33:59pm

re: #33 Surabaya Stew

Which is why I suspect that a real public option would lead tens of thousands of small businesses to drop their employee health coverage. It would make their lives quite a bit easier…

You’re right, of course they will. When it’s cheaper to pay a fine then supply the health care, they’ll will just pay the fine and then the employee will have to use the public option. That’s what this this bill does, eventually push everyone towards a government sponsored health care policy.

42 Stanghazi  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:34:17pm

“And I would much prefer to see those options explored before resorting to this.”

Reine - I agree with what you said, so this is nothing against your statement, but when we talk about exploring other options - we’ve had plenty of time for that, years and years and years, and this is the first time something is being actually voted on. I fault the pols for not doing anything when they could, and now those bitching about it get no respect from me.

43 soap_man  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:35:10pm

re: #9 Killgore Trout

First of all, a more general comment about how much a like and respect Nate Silver. I don’t always agree with what he stands for, but my god that man leaves no stone unturned. He backs up what he says. Very important.

As for the public option, I never got the impression that Obama was that crazy about the whole thing. Not to say he didn’t want it, just that he didn’t feel it was vital. Just one point among many in the bill.

Keep the most controversial thing in there and try to pass it. If you can’t, drop it to make sure 90 percent of what you want goes through. Pretty simple, really.

44 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:35:10pm

While Kos et al. are calling for the bill to be killed I still support it.

Colbert just called Lierberman a “hermaphrepublican” with “Joementia.”

45 Surabaya Stew  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:35:15pm

re: #35 Sharmuta

Many small businesses wouldn’t need to drop it because they don’t provide it now.

And the ones that still do will end it when they have an easier option.

46 stuck in california  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:35:17pm

[Link: www.tenthamendmentcenter.com…]
The Feds need to get out of our lives….this is not the function of the federal government.

47 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:35:47pm

re: #42 Stanley Sea

“And I would much prefer to see those options explored before resorting to this.”

Reine - I agree with what you said, so this is nothing against your statement, but when we talk about exploring other options - we’ve had plenty of time for that, years and years and years, and this is the first time something is being actually voted on. I fault the pols for not doing anything when they could, and now those bitching about it get no respect from me.

So, that’s a good reason to go ahead and pass this… because this pile of shit is at least a pile of shit where as in the past, they didn’t even offer us a pile of shit?

48 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:36:28pm

re: #46 stuck in california

good luck with that

49 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:36:28pm

re: #46 stuck in california

[Link: www.tenthamendmentcenter.com…]
The Feds need to get out of our lives…this is not the function of the federal government.

That statement can’t get said often enough. Entirely Concur!

50 Stuart Leviton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:36:33pm

OT: Christopher Hitchens at 1:15 into video says

Is not whether there is any warming but whether or not human activity or to what extent human activity is responsible for it. My line on that (global warming) is we should act as if it is.

Christopher Hitchens on Global Warming (September 5, 2007)

51 JoyousMN  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:37:19pm

To insure our family of four is currently $1500 per month. My employer pays half, leaving our share at $9000 per year. Our out-of pocket is $1500 with a $3500 deductible. My husband requires two CT scans a year to monitor his disease which we pay $900 for (because of the out-of-pocket). With meds, office visits, etc we are often over $12000 per year in medical expenses.

With my salary this means we pay about 22% of my gross wages for health insurance. This is a huge expense, only slightly less than what we pay for our mortgage. Our insurance costs have been rising at over 20% the past two years. Next year my husband turns 55. Our monthly rate will increase $200.

I’m furious with Joe Lieberman. I was thrilled that my husband could possibly go into medicare (if they lowered the age), but because Lieberman will filibuster a bill that lowers medicare age eligibility that’s out the window. How are we supposed to afford this?

If I get laid off we cannot afford to pay COBRA rates for health insurance. Here in MN we have a catastrophic care called MNCare that helps people buy affordable health insurance, but our lovely Gov Pawlenty just slashed that budget so who knows if there will be money for that program. If we don’t keep health insurance my husband becomes uninsurable because of his pre-existing condition.

How is this sustainable? How is it that our country, out of all the 1st world countries can’t figure out how to provide reasonable health insurance for it’s citizens?

You may think health insurance works just fine. If you do, I guarantee you’ve never really had to use it. The only people who think health care is fine are those who’ve never needed it.

52 Surabaya Stew  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:37:43pm

re: #37 djughurknot

Yep. I can’t think of too many other things that are so blatantly pro-business than a subsidized public health insurance option.

Agreed. There isn’t a business community in a country with publicly subsidized insurance that is clamoring for a system like ours.

53 NJDhockeyfan  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:37:55pm

re: #40 Dark_Falcon

Medicare is still projected to go bankrupt. Its my belief that its great harm is yet to come. The demand to save it without passing cost along to those it insures will be great, and everyone will end up getting taxed to prevent that from happening.

With the rampant fraud in Medicare this gigantic health care bill will make the Medicare fraud pale in comparison.

54 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:38:04pm

re: #34 ausador


Even if you have great health care through your work you might want to consider what that is costing your employer and how that affects any potential raises you might otherwise have gotten. It costs all of us, whether we have great insurance or almost worthless insurance. The burden on small business owners who want to do the best they can for their employees has become disastrous, I know this first hand, and I “quit” this game in 2006.

There are other losses too— the many people who would start small businesses but don’t, because they can’t risk going without health insurance and can’t afford it. Freelancers who pay far too much and/or can’t move across statelines or get coverage for a pre-existing condition. All this affects our economy too.
Finally— the many people who are losing health care all over the place because they’ve lost their jobs and can’t afford COBRA. Not to mention medical bankruptcies— I happen to have a friend whose family lost everything over the last couple of years when their teenage son was in an accident.

*Bonus fun fact: Guess what else some insurance companies consider ‘elective surgery’ and won’t cover? Facial reconstruction.

55 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:38:05pm

What I want to know is how are costs going to be brought down? This just looks like shoving the costs off onto “rich” taxpayers. (Most people would be surprised to learn how soon you are “rich.”)

If the US is spending too much on health care, making us pay through taxes rather than through premiums is not a fix.

56 freetoken  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:38:18pm

re: #36 Racer X


We can do better.

Not disagreeing with you, but the operative word is “can”. The question is one of “will”: Will we do better?

Speaking of will, over in Copenhagen the LCA group has pulled an all-nighter. They have finally produced this document:

[Link: unfccc.int…]
[PDF]

The USA is part of the LCA group, and the US rep just spoke a few minutes ago, wanting to bracket the entire end section, as well as words here and there.

Among those words is “Kyoto”. The US rep wanted to bracket it out, for obvious political reasons. If Obama were to sign an agreement with “Kyoto” mentioned in it (in a positive light), there would be plenty of people in this country (Drudge, Breitbart, etc.) who would spin it as if Obama had resigned the Kyoto protocol.

57 Mad Al-Jaffee  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:38:28pm

OT: Gap Unveils New ‘For Kids By Kids’ Clothing Line

58 Killgore Trout  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:38:47pm

re: #43 soap_man

Nice comment. It’s certainly possible.

59 djughurknot  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:38:48pm

re: #41 Walter L. Newton

Meh. Wal-Mart already does this- by paying their workers so little that they still qualify for Medicaid or state-run insurance. They slough off their health costs onto the government already. No public option needed.

60 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:39:36pm

re: #36 Racer X

I heard John McCain say on the radio today that this bill is a huge pile of pork spending - he does not know what is in it and neither did Senator Dick Durbin (D) when he asked him.

He said that this will be the first time in the history of our country that such a huge spending bill will be passed without any bipartisan support. It will be the first time in history that such a huge spending bill will be passed when the majority of Americans do not want it.

We can do better.

Please. If the Party of No had anything better to propose, they should have proposed it. They have exactly one proposal: Whatever the Dems want, we’re against.

61 Irenicum  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:39:39pm

re: #26 iceweasel

Bollocks. I love that word!

62 Political Atheist  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:39:44pm

I have no argument with the numbers.
For me the real point is access to care. I have insurance. I’m fine. I can not get it for my wife with the juvenile rheumatoid arthritis as a her existing condition. That cost burden will either be spread out among the far larger group, left to the government, my available cash or nothing happens.

The real “death panels” are at the insurance companies. Particularly when the rat bastards find pre existing conditions right at the outset of some expensive procedure.

As above this is personal for me. BTW, she will have plenty to say in threads of this topic. One more thing from her-Our family doctor still has NO H1N1 vaccine. It’s all elsewhere.

WHAT THE F&*#?

63 cliffster  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:41:09pm

Medicare is a case-in-point that government-run health care works

64 soap_man  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:41:12pm

re: #51 JoyousMN

You may think health insurance works just fine. If you do, I guarantee you’ve never really had to use it. The only people who think health care is fine are those who’ve never needed it.

I rarely use my insurance, being relatively young and healthy and all. But I still think my insurance sucks. My premiums are high, my deductible is high and the insurance only covers a portion, even for basic procedures and visits.

But it’s my only option. Either I get my insurance through work or not at all (I could go without insurance in theory; many people my age do exactly that. But my family has a history of cancer and I would rather not take the risk). But I want to be able to shop around. I don’t care how we get there. Just get there.

65 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:41:25pm

re: #44 Conservative Moonbat

While Kos et al. are calling for the bill to be killed I still support it.

Colbert just called Lierberman a “hermaphrepublican” with “Joementia.”

Heh. My favourite bit of fun with the GOP URL shortener today was when people popped in Lieberman’s webpage. :)

66 NJDhockeyfan  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:41:29pm

re: #55 EmmmieG

What I want to know is how are costs going to be brought down? This just looks like shoving the costs off onto “rich” taxpayers. (Most people would be surprised to learn how soon you are “rich.”)

If the US is spending too much on health care, making us pay through taxes rather than through premiums is not a fix.

Aren’t we going to be paying for this new heath care plan 3 or 4 years before it goes into effect?

67 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:41:58pm

re: #59 djughurknot

Meh. Wal-Mart already does this- by paying their workers so little that they still qualify for Medicaid or state-run insurance. They slough off their health costs onto the government already. No public option needed.

And this bill will stop that? Of course not, so, you want to add layer and layer more of government control on all citizens to enable business’s to do what you just implied was wrong? Yea, that’s the ticket.

68 Killgore Trout  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:42:11pm

re: #46 stuck in california

[Link: www.tenthamendmentcenter.com…]
The Feds need to get out of our lives…this is not the function of the federal government.

Look at where that article came from: [Link: superliberty.com…]

Don’t fall for the Paulian fantasies about the Constitution and what the founding father intended. It’s all fiction. I have many issues with conservatives but Ron Paul is certainly not the the future and the sooner conservatives realize this the sooner they can get back on track and help the country.

69 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:42:31pm

re: #40 Dark_Falcon

Medicare is still projected to go bankrupt. Its my belief that its great harm is yet to come. The demand to save it without passing cost along to those it insures will be great, and everyone will end up getting taxed to prevent that from happening.

Hmmm…maybe increaseing the programs cost by 32 trillion dollars while giving it exactly 0 dollars in increased revenue via “medicare part D” might have something to do with that?

70 Surabaya Stew  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:42:38pm

re: #41 Walter L. Newton

You’re right, of course they will. When it’s cheaper to pay a fine then supply the health care, they’ll will just pay the fine and then the employee will have to use the public option. That’s what this this bill does, eventually push everyone towards a government sponsored health care policy.

In addition, small companies will be freed from being forced to fire sick employees in an attempt to keep their premiums under control. (This happens more often than might be supposed.) I doubt many small business owners will miss the paperwork and yearly plan shopping either.

71 Racer X  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:43:37pm

re: #36 Racer X

I heard John McCain say on the radio today that this bill is a huge pile of pork spending - he does not know what is in it and neither did Senator Dick Durbin (D) when he asked him.

He said that this will be the first time in the history of our country that such a huge spending bill will be passed without any bipartisan support. It will be the first time in history that such a huge spending bill will be passed when the majority of Americans do not want it.

We can do better.


re: #60 iceweasel

Please. If the Party of No had anything better to propose, they should have proposed it. They have exactly one proposal: Whatever the Dems want, we’re against.

Cute.

But care to refute any of the points made?

72 Racer X  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:44:49pm

re: #63 cliffster

Medicare is a case-in-point that government-run health care works

Ouch!

From the Washington Post no less.

73 Irenicum  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:44:52pm

re: #44 Conservative Moonbat

Is there a link for that yet? I so need to see that!

74 Bagua  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:45:38pm

re: #29 Charles

No, Reagan was not right about Medicare — he was actually completely wrong. Medicare has been a huge success, and it’s pretty easy to find evidence of this.

It depends on how one defines success. Medicare Fraud: A $60 Billion Crime or
Report details billions in Medicare fraud.


The government paid more than $47 billion in questionable Medicare claims including medical treatment showing little relation to a patient’s condition, wasting taxpayer money at a rate nearly three times that of the previous year.

It also depends on the time frame, the unfunded obligations could result in a future bankruptcy. Medicare and social security do not appear sustainable without growth in funding, not unlike a Ponzi scheme.

75 cliffster  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:45:47pm

re: #60 iceweasel

Please. If the Party of No had anything better to propose, they should have proposed it. They have exactly one proposal: Whatever the Dems want, we’re against.

Always politics.

76 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:46:09pm

re: #71 Racer X

Cute.

But care to refute any of the points made?

Sure— after you provide proof for them. Hint: “McCain said” doesn’t count.

77 laZardo  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:46:36pm

Since this debate is proceeding faster than a patient into the ER I’m gonna toss in this point…

My take on the James Taranto NHS ‘horror stories’ is that they are indicative that the nationalized health-care systems having run for decades are starting to show flaws and need reform in order for their operations to run more smoothly in the future. However I am also convinced that these stories are, compared to the American system anyway, exceptions to the rule.

78 Political Atheist  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:47:13pm

I’d like to point out that if you compare the first year Social Security and what a decade of adjustments worked it into as we see today, then you will see that this bill is a start to a process. Not an end by any means.

79 JoyousMN  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:47:19pm

re: #70 Surabaya Stew

In addition, small companies will be freed from being forced to fire sick employees in an attempt to keep their premiums under control. (This happens more often than might be supposed.) I doubt many small business owners will miss the paperwork and yearly plan shopping either.

That’s exactly what happened to my hus after he was diagnosed. The company he’d worked for for 10 years laid him off.

Later I had a job offered rescinded after I asked about health insurance.

Also, I haven’t had a raise in three years, but I’m still thrilled to just have a job with insurance. I’d love to be an independent contractor, but there’s no possibility of that with our circumstances.

And no, I don’t think our situation is in any way unique.

80 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:47:43pm

re: #76 iceweasel

Sure— after you provide proof for them. Hint: “McCain said” doesn’t count.

What are going to be your health care option in Scotland. If I’m correct in assuming you are going to be living there?

81 Irenicum  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:48:12pm

re: #51 JoyousMN

1st time I’ve seen you here. Great comment and welcome aboard!

82 djughurknot  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:48:24pm

re: #67 Walter L. Newton

I’m not sure I’d ascribe such cold-blooded motives to the business community. Many small-business owners in their hometown communities take on health insurance for their workers because they value them as a resource. The face you hire can also be your neighbor. A friend of mine who runs a tech firm took his entire staff onto a plan for no reason other than to keep them healthy. Taking that burden off of him would likely free up pressures on his bank account to expand and employ more people. Wal-Mart is a bloated, malign aberration in my view, which doesn’t see its workers as resources, but as disposables.

83 Racer X  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:49:22pm

re: #76 iceweasel

Sure— after you provide proof for them. Hint: “McCain said” doesn’t count.

Well, there is no bipartisan support. And there are polls showing the majority of Americans do not want this type of health care. And almost all politicians who are being asked to vote on it do not know what all is in it. They are being told to vote on it by Harry, Nancy, and Barry.

So yes, it is politics as usual.

84 JoyousMN  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:49:48pm

re: #81 Irenicum

Thanks. Glad to be a lizard. Great site, great commenters and host. I love that there both types here: country AND western. LOL

85 BruceKelly  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:51:30pm

re: #15 Charles

re: #15 Charles

Sorry, I just think this is hopelessly overblown rhetoric that bears very little resemblance to reality. You’re ignoring the very large potential benefits of removing the incredibly burdensome cost of health insurance from small businesses, and the effect on the economy of freeing up a huge amount of money that’s currently tied up in the tangled mess of the current system.

It’s not going to destroy America. That’s just ridiculous.

No, it’s not going to destroy America. We will pay out of pocket, through our employer or taxes. All monies come from the productive. I’m just concerned about having all those dollars filtered through current, and newly created, government bureaucracies.

86 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:51:39pm

I’m self-employed and bipolar and therefore uninsurable. About 25% of my annual income goes to pay for the medications I need to be stable enough to work to pay for my medications.

87 acwgusa  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:51:43pm

Anyone who thinks Government, any government, can run health care needs to look at what happened to the Medi-Cal system in California when the budget went south.

In home services and services for children went first. Breast cancer and mammograms are going next. Dental coverage for adults was completely cut.

88 Bagua  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:51:50pm

re: #63 cliffster

Medicare is a case-in-point that government-run health care works

The report, issued yesterday by the trustees who monitor the government’s two main forms of help for the elderly, shows that Medicare has become more fragile as well and is at greater risk than Social Security of imminent fiscal collapse. Starting eight years from now, the report says, the health insurance program will be unable to pay all its hospital bills.

How jolly. Let’s expand the collapse out to our entire health care industry shall we?

The party which says no to this historic boondoggle is the correct party.

89 Irenicum  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:52:33pm

re: #57 Mad Al-Jaffee

Damn that’s harsh! But sadly accurate. The Onion strikes again.

90 steve  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:53:56pm

Right at the beginning he states, at the end of the first paragraph,

some $10,286 of which the government pays.

Which comes out of your pocket and mine in the form of higher taxes! Not a savings after all!

91 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:54:09pm

re: #82 djughurknot

I’m not sure I’d ascribe such cold-blooded motives to the business community. Many small-business owners in their hometown communities take on health insurance for their workers because they value them as a resource. The face you hire can also be your neighbor. A friend of mine who runs a tech firm took his entire staff onto a plan for no reason other than to keep them healthy. Taking that burden off of him would likely free up pressures on his bank account to expand and employ more people. Wal-Mart is a bloated, malign aberration in my view, which doesn’t see its workers as resources, but as disposables.

Then you need to read the small business and health care sections of the bill, I have, it’s going to be MORE of a burden on small business than it is now.

Most everything in this bill is simply a conduit to eventually push people toward a one provider system, the government.

They have made modifications from the original house bill right up through the senate version, modifications that step back a bit from a fast track to single payer, but all the mechanisms are in place in this current version to open up further and future bills to fill in the gaps that they are leaving right now for political reasons.

They didn’t go this far just to give up everything they have been wishing for during the last 50 years. If you think otherwise, you are fooling yourself.

92 Irenicum  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:54:20pm

re: #62 Rightwingconspirator

“The real “death panels” are at the insurance companies”
Amen!

93 Racer X  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:54:42pm
The liberals’ weaselly panic

Harry Reid can rightly claim to be making history.
If he passes health-care re form, he’ll depend on a series of historic “firsts.” It’d be the first time Congress had passed a major new entitlement program without bipartisan support; it’d be the first time it passed such a program without popular support; and the first time it passed such a program without knowing or particularly caring what’s in it.

John McCain complained last week that he had no idea what constituted the highly touted backroom deal that Reid sent to the Congressional Budget Office for evaluation. The No. 2 Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin, reassured McCain that he didn’t know, either. This is bipartisanship Harry Reid-style — nontransparency for everyone.

Hey!
My memory still works!

94 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:55:26pm

re: #88 Bagua

How jolly. Let’s expand the collapse out to our entire health care industry shall we?

The party which says no to this historic boondoggle is the correct party.

If the republicans had allowed negotiating medication prices as part of medicare reform it would likely be in much better shape. There’s no reason for medicare to pay more for medications that people in other countries and people on group plans that can negotiate.

95 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:56:06pm

re: #80 Walter L. Newton

What are going to be your health care option in Scotland. If I’m correct in assuming you are going to be living there?

Yep. I don’t know for certain yet what my health insurance situation will be there; lots depends on how soon I have a spousal visa, etc. Bottom line is I’ll have the NHS at a minimum and will report back on the differences.

Ask me in a couple of weeks— I just got back to the US tonight for wedding arrangements and I’m jetlegged as hell.

96 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:56:15pm

la la
la la
la la la laaa

Youtube Video
98 cliffster  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:57:10pm

When a company operates at a loss, it goes out of business. When a government program operates at a loss, it goes broke gets funded (through treasure bonds - IOU’s) to provide “solvency” for another decade.

Unless, of course, the government provides “solvency” for “too big to fail” businesses.

Don’t worry, we have plenty of money.

99 Racer X  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:57:24pm

re: #93 Racer X

Yikes - it gets better worse:

Reid reportedly proposed giving the uninsured aged 55-65 entree into Medicare, a departure from the program’s long-standing limit to retirees age 65 and older. This is a radical change that didn’t have a full and frank airing among senators, let alone a committee hearing. Reid wanted the provisions of the deal kept secret because — as recounted by Joe Lieberman — he thought they’d be “mauled” if made public. Who needs openness and legislative details when you’re remaking one-sixth of the economy?

This isn’t the behavior of a self-confident majority secure in the knowledge that history is on its side. In fact, it’s panicked, weaselly and willfully careless. The historian Richard Hofstadter wrote of the “paranoid style” in American politics. Obama Democrats have perfected the “impatient style.” Reid’s latest exertions fit the pattern of a headlong rush to a slapdash social democracy, justified by whatever arguments happen to be at hand and effected by whatever means necessary.

100 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:57:28pm

re: #85 BruceKelly

re: #15 Charles

No, it’s not going to destroy America. We will pay out of pocket, through our employer or taxes. All monies come from the productive. I’m just concerned about having all those dollars filtered through current, and newly created, government bureaucracies.

And if you read the bill, you will see that the NEW bureaucracies that will be created through this bill is are larger than any agencies we currently have except for the DOD.

And those bureaucracies will have their tentacles into all sorts of other laws, from the IRS tax code to the movement of your medical information.

My advice, get a copy of the current senate bill and at least skim the topics, or read as much as you can. Be informed as much as you can and let your congress critters know how you feel.

101 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:57:56pm

re: #92 Irenicum

“The real “death panels” are at the insurance companies”
Amen!

That statement is beyond dispute.

102 freetoken  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:57:59pm

re: #98 cliffster

The government is not a business, nor should it be.

103 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:58:00pm

re: #94 Conservative Moonbat

and evil big pharma will be squeezed further and they can cut more R&D.
should work

104 JoyousMN  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:58:06pm

So for those who oppose this bill, what would you suggest we do about health insurance?

105 NJDhockeyfan  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:58:06pm

Medicare broke in 8 years

re: #83 Racer X

Well, there is no bipartisan support. And there are polls showing the majority of Americans do not want this type of health care. And almost all politicians who are being asked to vote on it do not know what all is in it. They are being told to vote on it by Harry, Nancy, and Barry.

So yes, it is politics as usual.

And if they don’t do what they are told they revert to extortion.

This is completely despicable.

While the Democrats appease Senator Lieberman, they still have to worry about other recalcitrant Democrats including Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson. Though Lieberman has been out front in the fight against the public option and the Medicare buy-in, Nelson was critical of both. Now that those provisions appear to have been stripped from the bill, Lieberman may get on board, but Nelson’s demand that taxpayer money not be used to fund abortion has still not been met. According to a Senate aide, the White House is now threatening to put Nebraska’s Offutt Air Force Base on the BRAC list if Nelson doesn’t fall into line.

Offutt Air Force Base employs some 10,000 military and federal employees in Southeastern Nebraska. As our source put it, this is a “naked effort by Rahm Emanuel and the White House to extort Nelson’s vote.” They are “threatening to close a base vital to national security for what?” asked the Senate staffer.

Indeed, Offutt is the headquarters for US Strategic Command, the successor to Strategic Air Command, and not by accident. STRATCOM was located in the middle of the country for strategic reasons. Its closure would be a massive blow to the economy of the state of Nebraska, but it would also be another example of this administration playing politics with our national security.

106 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:58:27pm

re: #95 iceweasel

Yep. I don’t know for certain yet what my health insurance situation will be there; lots depends on how soon I have a spousal visa, etc. Bottom line is I’ll have the NHS at a minimum and will report back on the differences.

Ask me in a couple of weeks— I just got back to the US tonight for wedding arrangements and I’m jetlegged as hell.

That’s ok, just curious.

107 cliffster  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:58:30pm

re: #102 freetoken

The government is not a business, nor should it be.

But it can go broke. And it will, the way we are headed.

108 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:58:39pm

re: #30 reine.de.tout

I paid into my employers health insurance plan for around 15 years, at $300 a month and never used it. Then my appendix ruptured. Yes, the surgeon who fixed it, verified it ruptured. It was over a $48,000 bill, I saw it, sue to some adress mix ups. When the insurance paid, it was IIRC, about $12,000. Now, $12,000 is conceivably something I could have paid, over a couple of years. $48,000? No way. So, there is a definite disconnect between a private pay of $48,000 and an insured pay of $12,000. I just do not know what the solution is.
Tort reform? Limiting punishment settlements? Eliminating medical malpractice suits? I don’t have the answers.

I’m very glad for the chance to learn, here.

109 cliffster  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:59:10pm

re: #104 JoyousMN

So for those who oppose this bill, what would you suggest we do about health insurance?

Open up competition, close insurance companies’ immunity to litigation.

110 Irenicum  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:59:13pm

re: #66 NJDhockeyfan

Actually, there was a floor debate earlier today just about that between Thune and Franken.

111 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 8:59:20pm

If this socialist communist patrio-psychotic anarcho-materialist government death-panel health care fiasco goes into effect, the 3 or 4 highest-paid executives might have to go from making billions and billions of dollars per year, to only making billions per year. We shall all mourn together on that day.

112 Surabaya Stew  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:00:25pm

re: #79 JoyousMN

That’s exactly what happened to my hus after he was diagnosed. The company he’d worked for for 10 years laid him off.

Later I had a job offered rescinded after I asked about health insurance.

Also, I haven’t had a raise in three years, but I’m still thrilled to just have a job with insurance. I’d love to be an independent contractor, but there’s no possibility of that with our circumstances.

And no, I don’t think our situation is in any way unique.

Am sorry to hear that, JMN; the same thing happened a a dear former coworker of mine. What’s the real shame is that our former employeer bore the burden of the risings costs for over 5 years, even shedding me over her when the housing market nose-dived (we did single family housing.) It took 1 more year, but he did lay off a 50 year old woman who had beaten back stage 3 liver cancer, fully aware that her job prospects were dim. (He barely staved off bankruptcy even so.)

His unspoken resoning was perfectly logical, yet it destroyed the office moral for the survivors completely in the process. Why any boss should have to put staying afloat over his employees health is a trategy, yet our stories are far from uncommon these days.

113 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:00:50pm

re: #109 cliffster

sure, tort law isn’t broken.

The bus company that brings a band to a show which burns down is liable for the entire settlement if they have they money.

good stuff

114 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:01:35pm

re: #65 iceweasel

How did I know that you would use that?
LOL!
HI Ice!

115 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:01:38pm

re: #92 Irenicum

“The real “death panels” are at the insurance companies”
Amen!

And a government managed insurance “company” will be any different?

I don’t go for the “death panel” moniker, it’s a silly scare tactic, but, the point can me made that a government sponsored insurance plan will have to maintain themselves in a similar manner as existing private insurance companies, and there is no way that a government plan will be able to operate to far out of the same parameters that currently control the model of private health care.

Is all shakes out to the same shit, different boss.

116 BruceKelly  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:01:54pm

re: #102 freetoken

The government is not a business, nor should it be.

Still no excuse for waste and malfeasance.

117 Kewalo  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:02:30pm

re: #36 Racer X
[Link: www.seniorjournal.com…]

118 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:02:43pm

re: #103 iheartbolton

and evil big pharma will be squeezed further and they can cut more R&D.
should work

They spend more on marketing than they do on R&D so that’s total bullshit. They can spend less money sending physicians to conferences they run in tropical locations and spend more on R&D. Hell, half the new meds they put out out are reformulations of meds that have been out for decades with small tweaks just to keep them under patent protection. If they were spending it on R&D I wouldn’t be bitching.

119 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:03:10pm

re: #104 JoyousMN

So for those who oppose this bill, what would you suggest we do about health insurance?

Pay out the ass or die.

120 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:03:25pm

re: #102 freetoken

The government is not a business, nor should it be.

Then they shoud stay out of… em… health care? Because if they pass this bill, they will be setting up one hell of a large corporation… try the reading about the Health Care Workforce sections of the bill… sounds like an awful big company to me.

121 Racer X  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:03:31pm

re: #71 Racer X

Cute.

But care to refute any of the points made?

re: #76 iceweasel

Sure— after you provide proof for them. Hint: “McCain said” doesn’t count.

Hi Ice!

122 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:03:54pm

re: #108 Floral Giraffe

Yeah, I saw the “real” bill for a delivery once. Opened my eyes.

(And that was a no-complications, nothing out of the ordinary delivery. Well, what was out of the ordinary was that the baby was such a remarkable, beautiful, intelligent girl, but that wouldn’t show up on the bill.)

123 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:04:00pm

re: #106 Walter L. Newton

That’s ok, just curious.

I have excellent US coverage at the moment, but it’s incredibly expensive—and I have a lot of friends here in the US with health insurance horror stories, like my friends who lost their house and savings when their insurance company wouldn’t pay for their son’s facial reconstruction surgery, considering that and rebuilding much of his jaw (!) “elective”.

The issue will remain near and dear to my heart regardless of whatever my own health insurance situation is.

124 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:04:19pm

re: #118 Conservative Moonbat

they only put out remakes / remixes of currently approved drugs is because they can’t get anything through FDA trials.

125 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:04:23pm

I am on board with the bill. It doesn’t have everything I want, but it has a bunch of stuff I want, and that’s a good thing. It is a solid improvement.

126 Bagua  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:04:34pm

re: #94 Conservative Moonbat

If the republicans had allowed negotiating medication prices as part of medicare reform it would likely be in much better shape. There’s no reason for medicare to pay more for medications that people in other countries and people on group plans that can negotiate.

Weakening Pharma profits is a slippery slope, they are the source of the majority of medications that make the modern medical miracles a reality.

And what of the $47 to $60 Billion dollars in fraud? How do the hated republicans make something worse when its already terminal?

127 eric  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:04:51pm

The point is not the money. The point is control. I’m easy, but I’m not cheap and no matter what the cost, the quality will decline. Sure it looks great because I can save money. Sure if you want Cuban style health care.

128 Bagua  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:05:38pm

re: #95 iceweasel

Yep. I don’t know for certain yet what my health insurance situation will be there; lots depends on how soon I have a spousal visa, etc. Bottom line is I’ll have the NHS at a minimum and will report back on the differences.

Ask me in a couple of weeks— I just got back to the US tonight for wedding arrangements and I’m jetlegged as hell.

You’ll get the NHS of course, which is fine as long as you remain healthy.

129 Racer X  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:05:51pm

re: #117 Kewalo

[Link: www.seniorjournal.com…]

Yep. Politics suck. And now we are seeing payback because the dems are doing the same exact thing.

130 cliffster  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:05:56pm

re: #118 Conservative Moonbat

They spend more on marketing than they do on R&D so that’s total bullshit. They can spend less money sending physicians to conferences they run in tropical locations and spend more on R&D. Hell, half the new meds they put out out are reformulations of meds that have been out for decades with small tweaks just to keep them under patent protection. If they were spending it on R&D I wouldn’t be bitching.

If you know someone who has cancer and is still alive, thank a pharmaceutical. If you know someone with HIV/AIDS and is still alive, thank a pharmaceutical. I have brothers and sisters in both these circumstances, and I’m very thankful for the treatments that have given life to the people I love. And profits to the ones that found the them.

131 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:05:57pm

re: #125 WindUpBird

I am on board with the bill. It doesn’t have everything I want, but it has a bunch of stuff I want, and that’s a good thing. It is a solid improvement.

I want… interesting… I want to be taller.

132 bubba zanetti  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:06:07pm

re: #54 iceweasel

And don’t forget the business costs of just trying to figure out what insurance to offer your employees. The small company I work for has gone through 4 insurance companies in the 9 years I’ve been there - they either drop us or double the rates so we drop them. And then my boss has to go back and do piles of research to find us new coverage that will work for everyone and still be affordable. And then we have to do the paperwork all over again. It’s insane.

133 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:06:22pm

Tort claims pushed US makers of the flu vacine offshore

anyone complain about the availability of the flu vacines this fall?

134 JoyousMN  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:06:25pm

re: #119 Conservative Moonbat

Pay out the ass or die.

Should I assume you’re missing the /// tags or just young and healthy and certain nothing bad ever happens to “good” people? Because the only people who have bad things happen to them obviously deserved it, right?

135 Surabaya Stew  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:06:34pm

re: #82 djughurknot

I’m not sure I’d ascribe such cold-blooded motives to the business community. Many small-business owners in their hometown communities take on health insurance for their workers because they value them as a resource. The face you hire can also be your neighbor. A friend of mine who runs a tech firm took his entire staff onto a plan for no reason other than to keep them healthy. Taking that burden off of him would likely free up pressures on his bank account to expand and employ more people. Wal-Mart is a bloated, malign aberration in my view, which doesn’t see its workers as resources, but as disposables.

Even the altrustic small business owner may rue his generosity when an employee comes down with an expensive disease and his premimums skyrocket.

136 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:06:59pm

re: #128 Bagua

You’ll get the NHS of course, which is fine as long as you remain healthy.

Unlike the current situation in the US, where you can pay an insurer for years while you’re healthy, and then get booted once you’re sick.

137 laZardo  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:07:02pm

re: #126 Bagua

Weakening Pharma profits is a slippery slope, they are the source of the majority of medications that make the modern medical miracles a reality.

And what of the $47 to $60 Billion dollars in fraud? How do the hated republicans make something worse when its already terminal?

AFAIK Big Pharma are more like distributors than innovators. They have the resources to mass produce and get things where they need to go, but their only major innovation as of late is Viagra. Most innovations come from labs, usually in universities.

138 Irenicum  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:07:38pm

re: #104 JoyousMN

Why trust the good-hearted pharmaceuticals and insurance companies of course!
/

139 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:07:52pm

re: #124 iheartbolton

they only put out remakes / remixes of currently approved drugs is because they can’t get anything through FDA trials.

And you say that like it’s a BAD thing?

140 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:08:14pm

re: #137 laZardo

again - you have to get through FDA trials. how much do you think that costs now?

141 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:08:19pm

But this is America dammit, we are a washed up, kaput, broke, the spirit is gone, everyone just wants to milk the government not work! How dare people want healthcare for their sicknesses that can actually be afforded! Don’t they know that the American era of supremacy is over and we can’t afford such grandiose gestures anymore? You’ll get sick and then go bankrupt just like everyone else and you will smile while doing it like a true patriot damn you!

///

The meme is getting old, this isn’t italy that owes like the next hundred years of it’s GDP (exageration), we owe less than half of one years and some people have given the fuck up on our own country. I’m sick to death of the doomsayers and the negative vibes of defeat, we could easily beat this in 10 years if we wanted to badly enough.

Get a gripe people, the pundits get paid to tell us how bad it is, that doesn’t mean that you have to believe their bullshit.

142 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:08:32pm

re: #121 Racer X

Hi Ice!

Hi Racer!
BTW, you’re aware that you’ve been cutting and pasting from an op-ed, right?

143 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:08:38pm

re: #118 Conservative Moonbat

How is this sustainable? How is it that our country, out of all the 1st world countries can’t figure out how to provide reasonable health insurance for it’s citizens?

You may think health insurance works just fine. If you do, I guarantee you’ve never really had to use it. The only people who think health care is fine are those who’ve never needed it.

Upding for truth, and thanks for sharing your story.

144 reine.de.tout  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:08:38pm

re: #108 Floral Giraffe

I paid into my employers health insurance plan for around 15 years, at $300 a month and never used it. Then my appendix ruptured. Yes, the surgeon who fixed it, verified it ruptured. It was over a $48,000 bill, I saw it, sue to some adress mix ups. When the insurance paid, it was IIRC, about $12,000. Now, $12,000 is conceivably something I could have paid, over a couple of years. $48,000? No way. So, there is a definite disconnect between a private pay of $48,000 and an insured pay of $12,000. I just do not know what the solution is.
Tort reform? Limiting punishment settlements? Eliminating medical malpractice suits? I don’t have the answers.

I’m very glad for the chance to learn, here.

Many providers have a stated fee, but it is rarely what is actually paid to them by an insurance company, Medicare or Medicaid. The insurance companies have all sorts of agreements with various medical providers as to what the insurance will pay for various services provided to its insured.

In return, the insurance company promotes those particular providers to the people it has insured - doesn’t your company have a list of preferred providers? The medical providers in your area do not have to recruit you; the insurance company is doing it for them.

If you go to a provider not on the list, you have less coverage than you would have when you go to a provider who is ON the list. That’s because the insurance company has to pay THAT provider his/her regular stated fee. So for you, the insurance company will pay a lower percentage of the bill, and you will pay more if you go to a provider not on the list.

And so that’s why what was actually paid for your procedure was way less than what the bill said it would be. Your insurance company paid that hospital and the doctor based on their agreement with them, not based on what their stated fee is.

145 JoyousMN  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:08:39pm

re: #136 iceweasel

Unlike the current situation in the US, where you can pay an insurer for years while you’re healthy, and then get booted once you’re sick.

I wish I could upding you for that.

146 Bagua  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:09:11pm

re: #136 iceweasel

Unlike the current situation in the US, where you can pay an insurer for years while you’re healthy, and then get booted once you’re sick.

People who live in glass houses… and all that. It’s always possible to nitpick and find fault.

147 Kewalo  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:09:12pm

re: #51 JoyousMN

I’m really sorry this is happening to you. I have lupus but lucky for me it didn’t get bad until I was old enough for medicare. Don’t believe what you hear..it’s works just fine and I’ve never been turned down for anything. I refused to join the damned drug bill and buy my drugs from Canada and save money that way too. I just don’t believe in pharmaceutical welfare.

It’s a real pisser that lowering the age wasn’t passed. I’m so upset with congress right now and the wussiness of the dems I can hardly see straight.

148 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:09:26pm

re: #139 Conservative Moonbat

ask cancer patients who can’t get phase 2 drugs

149 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:09:31pm

re: #122 EmmmieG

But, that’s my point.
It’s NOT a “real bill” unless that is what is paid!
If everyone could pay the insurance companies negotiated rates, this would be kind of a different conversation.

150 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:09:51pm

Military tribunals in Illinois?

The White House announced Tuesday that in addition to using Illinois’ Thomson prison to hold terror suspects, it plans to conduct military tribunals for detainees there.

The disclosure came as Republican lawmakers launched an attack on the Thomson plan that could pose a serious threat to President Barack Obama’s efforts to move the detainees to northwestern Illinois from the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Under the Obama plan, the federal government would buy the prison from Illinois. The Pentagon would upgrade the facility from maximum security to “super-max,” and would oversee construction of a mini-courthouse within the facility, similar to the one at Guantanamo.

As many as 75 detainees could face tribunals at Thomson, officials said, though the final number to be tried could be far smaller.

151 laZardo  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:10:01pm

re: #140 iheartbolton

I’m not sure, but considering all the products on the market that don’t have any “FDA-certified benefits”, it doesn’t seem worth the costs.

152 Bagua  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:10:09pm

re: #145 JoyousMN

I wish I could upding you for that.

Good grief, not another one.

153 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:11:07pm

Yes, I understand that our current system has problems.

But…

Is there anyone here that was in the military? Can you describe base housing?

154 jordash1212  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:11:10pm

Where did that chart come from? I don’t see a source on it and he doesn’t explain where he got the numbers from. Or are these well established facts?

155 Racer X  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:11:16pm

re: #142 iceweasel

Hi Racer!
BTW, you’re aware that you’ve been cutting and pasting from an op-ed, right?

Yes. Are any of the statements in dispute? If so, which?

BTW - I am in favor of total government control of the insurance aspect of health care. I would like to see everyone paying in.

Just not this current bill.

156 BruceKelly  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:11:25pm

re: #127 eric

The point is not the money. The point is control. I’m easy, but I’m not cheap and no matter what the cost, the quality will decline. Sure it looks great because I can save money. Sure if you want Cuban style health care.

You can’t get Cuban cigars in Cuba, or Chinese takeout in China. That’s all you need to know about communism. - P.J. O’Rourke

157 Irenicum  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:11:30pm

re: #118 Conservative Moonbat

Aw, but where would I get my daily dose of newscast ads for erectile disfunction? You’re such a meanie!

158 Surabaya Stew  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:11:41pm

re: #132 bubba zanetti

And don’t forget the business costs of just trying to figure out what insurance to offer your employees. The small company I work for has gone through 4 insurance companies in the 9 years I’ve been there - they either drop us or double the rates so we drop them. And then my boss has to go back and do piles of research to find us new coverage that will work for everyone and still be affordable. And then we have to do the paperwork all over again. It’s insane.

Only 4 insurance companies in 9 years? That’s better than lots of places. A few interviews ago, my prospective employeer confessed that he had changed plans every year for the past 8 years! You can’t convince me that this fact alone has nothing to do with the rising cost of health care.

159 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:11:43pm

re: #127 eric

The point is not the money. The point is control. I’m easy, but I’m not cheap and no matter what the cost, the quality will decline. Sure it looks great because I can save money. Sure if you want Cuban style health care.

So people who are uninsured (entrepreneurs, small business owners, self-employed contractors) or who cannot afford care, who could now afford care under this bill… how does their quality decline from zero?

160 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:11:44pm

re: #148 iheartbolton

ask cancer patients who can’t get phase 2 drugs

Agreed. Some trials drugs should be opened up. Even if they might subsequently prove lethal, some cancer drugs might be worth trying because the people who need the drug will die otherwise.

161 Jaerik  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:12:23pm

For those arguing over Medicare, keep in mind that the CBO has scored every Democratic bill in both chambers as costing less over 10 years than leaving Medicare as it is now. In some cases to the tune of $200B in savings, while covering 30M more people.

You can’t have it both ways: you can’t argue that Medicare is bankrupting us, but then reject a reform bill that reduces how much it’s bankrupting us. If you’re willing to overlook that detail and instead reject the measure on the ideological basis of “more government control,” that’s your right to do so — but you need to be intellectually honest about it.

I know it doesn’t conform to the standard narrative that Democrats are incapable of passing any legislation that saves money, but this time it’s actually true.

162 reine.de.tout  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:12:29pm

re: #149 Floral Giraffe

But, that’s my point.
It’s NOT a “real bill” unless that is what is paid!
If everyone could pay the insurance companies negotiated rates, this would be kind of a different conversation.

Flo - my daughter was not insured for her pregnancy.
When I contacted the hospital they gave us their rate for uninsured patients, which was much lower than their regular rate. Still a lot, but not nearly as much as I thought it would be.

However, there are many uninsured who would not have been able to afford even that reduced rate. Those are the folks who are out in the cold, so to speak, with regards to health care.

163 laZardo  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:12:43pm

re: #156 BruceKelly

You can’t get Cuban cigars in Cuba, or Chinese takeout in China. That’s all you need to know about communism. - P.J. O’Rourke

wat

/still funny tho. Reminds me of the question “What do they call Chinese food in China?”

164 steve  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:12:53pm

re: #104 JoyousMN

So for those who oppose this bill, what would you suggest we do about health insurance?

Not a thing. I went without health insurance from the time I was 20 until I was 33. This included a trip to the emergency room for an ulcer. An upper GI for the ulcer and all the meds that went with it. Various broken or cracked bones (martial arts class) chronic bronchitis and the meds with inhalation therepy. Oh and I also paid for 7 years of college. The only reason that this ended at 33 was getting married. Wife had insurance.

165 djughurknot  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:13:14pm

re: #135 Surabaya Stew

that, of course, is the flipside of such practices.

166 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:13:17pm

re: #160 Dark_Falcon

Exactly, but thats not good enough - who’s to say which?

167 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:13:23pm

re: #131 Walter L. Newton

I want… interesting… I want to be taller.

Ever seen Gattaca? :D

wait, that’s shorter…

168 Eric  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:13:57pm

re: #156 BruceKelly

Love P.J. O’Rourke

169 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:14:17pm

re: #144 reine.de.tout

Yes, it was a mix up about the address, that caused me to even see the billed fees without insurance.
I understand the negotiated fees for procedures.
It just doesn’t seem right to me, that a negotiated fee, can be 25% of the non-negotiated fee, for the same procedure.
That’s a big part of why I am supportive of some kind of medical reform.
If the fees had been a 25% reduction, it wouldn’t have shocked me, but a 75% reduction?

170 freetoken  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:14:18pm

Copenhagen update (and it seems eerily parallel with the healthcare debate in the US): after pulling the all-nighter, to create a draft document to send on to the higher level, the delegates are now bracketing out (i.e., making a matter of disagreement) pretty much the entire document!

In other words, virtually no agreement. For example, the US and China are offering dueling bracketing procedures for a certain paragraph.

It is very similar to the healthcare debate in the US in which agreements that seemingly are made fall apart at the last minute. I’m thinking of Sen. Lieberman and his vacillations.

171 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:14:27pm

re: #130 cliffster

If you know someone who has cancer and is still alive, thank a pharmaceutical. If you know someone with HIV/AIDS and is still alive, thank a pharmaceutical. I have brothers and sisters in both these circumstances, and I’m very thankful for the treatments that have given life to the people I love. And profits to the ones that found the them.

I have OCD, bipolar, ADD and Tourette’s. I take six medications a day. I’m as dependent on big pharma as anyone can be. Even taking a lot of generics and get assistance from the drug companies I’m still paying $500 a month just to stay sane enough to work to pay for my medications. I’m getting charged as an individual twice as much as what an insurance plan would pay if I were insured.

My dad has prostate cancer and is currently getting $100k of proton therapy over a three month period for free with the combination of his state pension insurance and medicare.

I say medicare for all.

172 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:14:55pm

re: #166 iheartbolton

Exactly, but thats not good enough - who’s to say which?

I don’t know how to decide that. Do you have an idea?

173 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:15:33pm

re: #171 Conservative Moonbat

But, um, the only reason that doctors can take medicare patients is that they pass the loss off onto the other patients.

If we’re all on Medicare, how do the doctors make ends meet?

174 BruceKelly  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:15:41pm

re: #145 JoyousMN

I wish I could upding you for that.

I’ll do it for you… there.

175 Eric  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:15:51pm

re: #159 WindUpBird

Are they uninsured by choice? I insure my wife and two kids out of my pocket. Do you think the government should take care of this?

176 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:15:53pm

re: #172 Dark_Falcon

disband the FDA would work

177 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:16:22pm

re: #146 Bagua

People who live in glass houses… and all that. It’s always possible to nitpick and find fault.

Come on, Bagua. Look at some of the stories in this thread, like JoyousMN’s. This isn’t ‘nitpicking’.
And I have no idea what you mean by ‘people who live in glass houses’…unless you intend to say that because I happen to have good insurance in the US, I’m— what? Not allowed to be morally indignant about the many egregious failures of the US system to cover MANY good people? Or are you suggesting that expats, of which I am not yet one, have to surrender their citizenship and right to express political opinions about their mother country? Because that isn’t going to happen either.

I’m tired and my capacity to misread posts is very high at the moment, btw. Apologies if I’ve misread yours.

178 reine.de.tout  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:16:51pm

re: #169 Floral Giraffe

Yes, it was a mix up about the address, that caused me to even see the billed fees without insurance.
I understand the negotiated fees for procedures.
It just doesn’t seem right to me, that a negotiated fee, can be 25% of the non-negotiated fee, for the same procedure.
That’s a big part of why I am supportive of some kind of medical reform.
If the fees had been a 25% reduction, it wouldn’t have shocked me, but a 75% reduction?

Yep, the reduction in many cases is HUGE. The provider is willing to do it, I assume, because your insurance company is steering patients its way without the provider having to advertise.

But again- many providers offer the uninsured reduced rates for services. A lot of the uninsured can’t afford even those reduced rates.

179 Surabaya Stew  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:17:17pm

re: #145 JoyousMN

I wish I could upding you for that.

And you can! Just hit the green plus symbol at the top right of comments you approve of.

180 Racer X  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:17:23pm

Real Clear Politics:

Favor - 39.7%
Oppose - 54.2%

Americans really do not want this health care bill.

181 NJDhockeyfan  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:17:29pm

re: #175 Eric

Are they uninsured by choice? I insure my wife and two kids out of my pocket. Do you think the government should take care of this?

Why not? They are printing Monopoly money now. There isn’t anything the government wont fund.

182 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:18:00pm

re: #181 NJDhockeyfan

inflation is well contained

183 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:18:26pm

re: #179 Surabaya Stew

Not until she makes another 9 comments.

184 JoyousMN  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:18:37pm

re: #180 Racer X

Racer, you can also find polls that flip the other way and those that show and even split. One poll doesn’t make it so.

185 Basho  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:18:42pm
If you think Silver is full of crap, tell me why.


Soviet Union. That’s why.

186 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:18:46pm

(I’m headed to bed soon, have an early dental appointment, finally getting my partials, which I am paying out of pocket for, SAVED up for them… novel idea, saving up for something ones needs).

The bottom line, there are a lot of people who have no trouble with government becoming bigger. There are a lot of people that want, want, want no matter what the cost is to the country, to others, to their fellow man, to certain freedoms.

And there are a lot of people that actually need help affording health care, and they deserve that help. I’ve had wonderful coverage myself in the past, sometimes paid totally for by my employer, somethings partially paid by me.

And in my 50’s, I have been totally without any access to any heath care insurance, and I have had to pay out of my pocket for certain things. Currently I am covered again, and that’s by the good graces of domestic partner laws in Colorado. My point is, I am the typical anecdotal example of having care, not having care, being able to afford it and not being able to afford it. I see all of this from many sides.

We need massive health care reform in this country, but this bill is not designed to fix anything in the long run. It is designed to consolidate power in certain ways, ways that will be near impossible to shake back off in the future.

Would you rather see health care reformed through laws that don’t take control, or are you going to be happy with reform that will be put in place as regressive and oppressive controls?

That’s the bottom line.

187 steve  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:19:11pm

re: #182 iheartbolton

inflation is well contained


Did you add viagra and cialis in to this;-)

188 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:19:27pm

re: #148 iheartbolton

ask cancer patients who can’t get phase 2 drugs

I agree there should be exceptions allowing terminal patients to get access to experimental drugs.

I also support medical marijuana while we’re talking critical cancer patients.

189 cliffster  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:19:31pm

re: #171 Conservative Moonbat

I have OCD, bipolar, ADD and Tourette’s. I take six medications a day. I’m as dependent on big pharma as anyone can be. Even taking a lot of generics and get assistance from the drug companies I’m still paying $500 a month just to stay sane enough to work to pay for my medications. I’m getting charged as an individual twice as much as what an insurance plan would pay if I were insured.

My dad has prostate cancer and is currently getting $100k of proton therapy over a three month period for free with the combination of his state pension insurance and medicare.

I say medicare for all.

And how is that $100K getting paid? Magic?

190 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:20:08pm

re: #176 iheartbolton

disband the FDA would work

That would not work. Oversight of drugs is needed. The FDA needs reform, but the FDA is itself needed.

191 JoyousMN  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:20:35pm

re: #183 EmmmieG

Not until she makes another 9 comments.

One more health care thread and I’m over the hump. LOL

192 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:20:48pm

re: #185 Basho

Soviet Union. That’s why.

Please explain.

193 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:21:22pm

re: #87 acwgusa

Anyone who thinks Government, any government, can run health care needs to look at what happened to the Medi-Cal system in California when the budget went south.

In home services and services for children went first. Breast cancer and mammograms are going next. Dental coverage for adults was completely cut.

So California’s problems (which are partially because of their ruinous supermajority requirement for a budget, passed by ballot initiative in the 1970s ) eclipse and negate all the actual countries in the world with real functional government health care systems? And eclipses our own successes with Medicare? Nobody advocates destroying medicare in the mainstream GOP. Why is that? Because seniors like it. Taking away their medicare would be political suicide.

If we applied your ridiculous and tortured logic to any government program, or any government, you would be advocating anarchy.

So. To restate your point, any government on earth that can’t meet the financial needs of any of its programs, at all, for any reason, is an example that the program doesn’t work anywhere on earth. Insane.

194 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:21:26pm

re: #180 Racer X

Real Clear Politics:

Favor - 39.7%
Oppose - 54.2%

Americans really do not want this health care bill.

Americans have been hearing for months that this bill will lead to the destruction of the American way of life and a death panel for Granny. I’m surprised the numbers aren’t higher.

Americans do want health reform, which is why even McCain had to run on a platform promising it.

195 Surabaya Stew  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:22:06pm

re: #169 Floral Giraffe

Yes, it was a mix up about the address, that caused me to even see the billed fees without insurance.
I understand the negotiated fees for procedures.
It just doesn’t seem right to me, that a negotiated fee, can be 25% of the non-negotiated fee, for the same procedure.
That’s a big part of why I am supportive of some kind of medical reform.
If the fees had been a 25% reduction, it wouldn’t have shocked me, but a 75% reduction?

Oven at Sully’s blog, stories of insurance company reductions of up to 96% are documented. My Mom’s cancer meds are billed at $18,000 per month, yet her insurance company convinces Sloan-Kettering to accept less than 4K! The problem is universial in America.

196 NJDhockeyfan  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:22:06pm

re: #184 JoyousMN

Racer, you can also find polls that flip the other way and those that show and even split. One poll doesn’t make it so.

You’ve seen a recent poll showing a majority of support for the health care bill?

Link please.

197 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:22:33pm

re: #162 reine.de.tout

Yes, there are. I don’t know the answer to that.
I sure wish I did!

198 BruceKelly  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:22:37pm

re: #163 laZardo

Reminds me of the question “What do they call Chinese food in China?”

Home cookin’?

I guy once asked me if I liked country music. I replied, “depends on the country.”

199 Racer X  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:22:43pm

re: #184 JoyousMN

Racer, you can also find polls that flip the other way and those that show and even split. One poll doesn’t make it so.

There were several polls on the link - those results were the average.

Speaking of polls - now I see why there is such a rush to, you know, DO something, anything.

President Obama Job Approval

Scroll down to the graph. Ugly.

200 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:22:57pm

re: #190 Dark_Falcon

The FDA operate on a guilty until proven innocent basis.

if a Pharma Co does provable harm, you can sue. I don’t think the gov’t should be in the business of preventative law.

201 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:23:06pm

re: #176 iheartbolton

disband the FDA would work

Wow.

I guess some people really are small government!

202 sngnsgt  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:23:09pm

re: #27 JasonA

Cue Imperial March

[Video]

I love the Darth Vader helmet on the head of the upright bass. ;-)

203 Kewalo  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:23:16pm

re: #127 eric

There are plenty of people in this country that would turn hand springs to have any kind of health care. I guess you’re one of the lucky one’s.

204 Surabaya Stew  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:23:34pm

re: #183 EmmmieG

Ah, thanks for the tip. JoyousMN had better get cracking then!
:-D

205 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:23:45pm

re: #180 Racer X

Real Clear Politics:

Favor - 39.7%
Oppose - 54.2%

Americans really do not want this health care bill.

Scorched earth politics and insane lies from the GOP work, what can you say.

206 Jaerik  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:23:59pm

re: #196 NJDhockeyfan

You’ve seen a recent poll showing a majority of support for the health care bill?

Link please.

Ask and ye shall receive, as of December 9th.

207 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:24:17pm

re: #173 EmmmieG

But, um, the only reason that doctors can take medicare patients is that they pass the loss off onto the other patients.

If we’re all on Medicare, how do the doctors make ends meet?

Increase medicare payouts if it’s the only way.

It could still all be paid for by rolling back the insane Bush tax cuts.

208 Racer X  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:24:39pm

re: #194 iceweasel

Americans have been hearing for months that this bill will lead to the destruction of the American way of life and a death panel for Granny. I’m surprised the numbers aren’t higher.

Americans do want health reform, which is why even McCain had to run on a platform promising it.

Agreed.

209 BruceKelly  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:24:54pm

re: #201 WindUpBird

Wow.

I guess some people really are small government!


You betcha. *wink*

210 Surabaya Stew  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:25:14pm

re: #191 JoyousMN

One more health care thread and I’m over the hump. LOL

Seems like you’re building up some decent karma in the interium.
;-)

211 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:25:36pm

re: #209 BruceKelly

No, the GOP is Big too. just “their” way

212 Racer X  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:25:47pm

re: #205 WindUpBird

Scorched earth politics and insane lies from the GOP work, what can you say.

We are so evil.

Buwahahahahahahaha!

213 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:26:04pm

re: #194 iceweasel

Americans have been hearing for months that this bill will lead to the destruction of the American way of life and a death panel for Granny. I’m surprised the numbers aren’t higher.

Americans do want health reform, which is why even McCain had to run on a platform promising it.

Obama still bears a large share of the blame for the bad poll numbers. He let both houses make up the bill as they went along and he still explains it poorly. Given those facts, its no wonder he got outmaneuvered on PR.

214 cliffster  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:26:06pm

I asked how something was getting paid for, and got downding’d. Typical liberals.

215 NJDhockeyfan  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:26:10pm

re: #194 iceweasel


Americans do want health reform, which is why even McCain had to run on a platform promising it.

You are right but Americans don’t want this plan. Obama promised the debates would be transparent and be broadcast on C-SPAN. Instead they have been working on this behind closed doors. Nobody knows whats in it. How could anyone support a bill which they don’t know what in it written by a Congress they don’t trust.

216 Bagua  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:26:10pm

re: #177 iceweasel

You sound grouchy, best to head to pub, terrific cure for jetlag and misreading.

Of course your viewpoint is welcome regardless of residency and of course there are also valid faults in any system, just as there are also good bits about the NHS. I’m talking about the bigger picture and saying don’t break the windows.

217 goddamnedfrank  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:26:37pm

re: #146 Bagua

People who live in glass houses… and all that. It’s always possible to nitpick and find fault.

So why did you?:
re: #128 Bagua

You’ll get the NHS of course, which is fine as long as you remain healthy.

You just gotta love an impossible know-it-all who initiates a tactic and then cries foul when it is turned around.

218 palomino  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:26:40pm

This bill may be the classic result of the sausage making process. There’s something in it that nearly everyone finds distasteful; and the process itself was certainly an ugly thing to watch. But for non-ideologues, it may represent an acceptable compromise, one that’s actually consistent with a functional legislative branch.

219 JoyousMN  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:27:25pm

re: #196 NJDhockeyfan

— A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll taken between Oct. 16 and Oct. 18 asked, “What do you think would be better for the country — if Congress passed a bill to change the country’s health care system along the lines of what Barack Obama has proposed, or if the current system were left in place with no changes?” The survey found that 53 percent said it would be better to pass a bill, while 44 percent said to leave the current system intact. The poll had 1,038 adult respondents and a 3 percentage point margin of error.

— A Kaiser Family Foundation poll conducted between Oct. 8 and Oct. 15 asked, “Do you think the country as a whole would be better off or worse off if the president and Congress passed health care reform, or don’t you think it would make much difference?” In this poll, 53 percent said the country would be better off, 28 percent said it would be worse off and 12 percent said it would not make much difference. The poll had 1,200 adult respondents and a 3 percentage point margin of error.

— A Gallup poll taken between Oct. 1 and Oct. 4 asked, “Would you advise your member of Congress to vote for or against a health care bill this year?” To this question, 51 percent said their lawmaker should vote for it and 41 percent said their lawmaker should vote against it. This poll interviewed 1,013 adults, with a 4 percentage point margin of error. (Technical note: The results for this question are a little more complicated than most. On the interviewer’s first pass, 40 percent of respondents said they’d advise a vote in favor, 36 percent advised a vote against, and 25 percent said they had no opinion. Then, the interviewer asked the undecideds a second question to see how they were leaning; those answers were added to the initial totals to come up with 51 percent advising passage and 41 percent advising rejection.)

From part of a longer article at Polifact. This article says there are polls on both sides.

220 laZardo  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:27:35pm

re: #216 Bagua

You sound grouchy, best to head to pub, terrific cure for jetlag and misreading.

Don’t make her become a ‘Publican!

/ q;

221 BruceKelly  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:27:49pm

re: #206 Jaerik

Ask and ye shall receive, as of December 9th.

The Raw Story? Surely you can do better than that.

222 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:28:41pm

and the bill was weakened: [Link: tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com…]re: #175 Eric

Are they uninsured by choice? I insure my wife and two kids out of my pocket. Do you think the government should take care of this?

upport-public-insurance-option.php

Their insurance costs would be more than they make. A couple of my friends are uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions.

yes, I think the government should take care of it, or a private insurance system that actually works and doesn’t play games with recission (look it up) could distribute the costs. I believe we should not have an underclass in America that is denied treatment. That is exactly what I believe.

223 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:28:53pm

And, just for fun & to add to the debate….
How “should” we handle long term health care needs.
Elderly Uncle, 84, had lived in an Alzheimers care facility for 7.5 years, passed away this summer. God Bless him for having the money to pay for the care that he needed. It was expensive. But the joy of knowing that he could afford to pay for his care, and that he got GOOD care, well, it was priceless.

So, let me add to this health care debate.
How “should” we handle the care of an increasingly ageing population, with an increase in long term care needs such as Alzheimers & dementia?
Who should pay for it?

224 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:29:06pm

re: #213 Dark_Falcon

Obama still bears a large share of the blame for the bad poll numbers. He let both houses make up the bill as they went along and he still explains it poorly. Given those facts, its no wonder he got outmaneuvered on PR.

I suspect this was Obama’s policy — to be as hands-off as possible, and to shove the responsibility for making up the bill onto Congress itself—- because he learned from the Clinton healthcare debacle in 93.
I think it was the right strategy, honestly, even though I personally would have liked to see him take more of a role esp in supporting the public option. This was pragmatically speaking probably the only way to get it done.

225 Basho  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:29:06pm

re: #200 iheartbolton

The FDA operate on a guilty until proven innocent basis.

I think the term is “Clinical Research”?

226 Kewalo  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:29:08pm

re: #173 EmmmieG


You should read this article about McAllen, TX. I understand it was a must read for those in the WH.

[Link: www.newyorker.com…]

This article shows how it can be done and the docs still make money.

227 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:29:13pm

re: #209 BruceKelly

You betcha. *wink*

Also.

228 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:29:39pm

re: #212 Racer X

We are so evil.

Buwahahahahahahaha!

You personally aren’t, but the GOPs lies on health care sure are.

Denying people’s treatment due to pre-existing conditions, hey, that’s some funny stuff there!

229 Bagua  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:29:50pm

re: #217 goddamnedfrank

You just gotta love an impossible know-it-all who initiates a tactic and then cries foul when it is turned around.

It was a pun Frank, you never get the subtle bits. Now go back to lurking.

230 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:29:53pm

re: #189 cliffster

And how is that $100K getting paid? Magic?

Your taxes dude, mine as well. If you’ve got a problem with that you can come kill him yourself but please be kind enough to explain it to his grandchildren.

231 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:29:54pm

re: #200 iheartbolton

The FDA operate on a guilty until proven innocent basis.

if a Pharma Co does provable harm, you can sue. I don’t think the gov’t should be in the business of preventative law.

The FDA sets standards, and provides certifications, both of which help honest companies prove they did their jobs right and should not be held liable. No FDA would leave us unable to effectively go after fly-by-night quacks, and it would make it harder for a honest pharma company that is sued to defend itself.

232 Olsonist  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:30:24pm

re: #13

So how much of a surplus is Medicare running these days?

Good question. How much of a surplus is the Iraq War running these days?

Charles thinks he’s a typical health insurance consumer and for right now he is. But as an individual he doesn’t have the leverage that comes with being a member of Corporate America. If he worked for Microsoft, then he would be covered under the Microsoft group plan. The day he joined the company he’d be covered and the day he left he might get access to an expensive Cobra policy. For a few months. As an individual, he’s at the mercy of the health insurance companies. He’s paying quite a bit right now and can be dropped at a moment’s notice.

The Senate/House/Obama bills address health insurance costs but they also address health insurance availability. Health insurance will be required (like auto insurance) but the insurers won’t be able to turn you down for pre-existing conditions or dump you because you got sick. To me, that’s more important because I got declined insurance for pre-existing conditions and I’m damned healthy.

Lastly, reading through the arguments, I’d say that those in favor of HRC have economic arguments. Those opposed seem to have ideological arguments:

It also sounds the death knell for limited government.

I wasn’t born with limited government and I’m not willing to die for it.

233 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:31:07pm

re: #216 Bagua

You sound grouchy, best to head to pub, terrific cure for jetlag and misreading.

Of course your viewpoint is welcome regardless of residency and of course there are also valid faults in any system, just as there are also good bits about the NHS. I’m talking about the bigger picture and saying don’t break the windows.

Warning, I’m drinking right now! :) But it will make me happy, not surly.

234 laZardo  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:31:30pm

Maybe I should join the army. Then I’ll have a G.I. Joe policy rather than a COBRA one when I leave.

235 NJDhockeyfan  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:31:44pm

re: #206 Jaerik

Ask and ye shall receive, as of December 9th.

That’s a poll for support of the public option, not the health care bill.

236 Irenicum  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:31:49pm

re: #225 Basho

Clinical Research? Obviously a commie plot to infiltrate and despoil our precious bodily fluids!

237 Sharmuta  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:32:10pm

re: #234 laZardo

Maybe I should join the army. Then I’ll have a G.I. Joe policy rather than a COBRA one when I leave.

That would be a poor reason to join, imo.

238 Jaerik  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:32:26pm

re: #221 BruceKelly

The Raw Story? Surely you can do better than that.

Was just the first one that showed up in a Google search. Don’t shoot the messenger. It’s a link to CBS poll, unless you’ll discount that one too because it’s not from a source you trust.

But don’t ask for “a recent poll” and then move the goalposts when one is provided.

Also, you could just check the PolitiFact article referenced above.

239 rurality  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:32:49pm

re: #214 cliffster
re: #213 Dark_Falcon

So lies and PR, tea parties, death panels, resounding NOs and no effort at bipartisanship on the part of GOP won over policy making and legislating. Mission Accomplished.

240 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:33:09pm

This thread is reminding me why I vote Democrat, and will continue to vote Democrat for the foreseeable future.

241 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:33:37pm

re: #239 rurality

re: #213 Dark_Falcon

So lies and PR, tea parties, death panels, resounding NOs and no effort at bipartisanship on the part of GOP won over policy making and legislating. Mission Accomplished.

It’s always easier to destroy. A lesson of politics!

242 JoyousMN  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:33:38pm

re: #232 Olsonist

I wasn’t born with limited government and I’m not willing to die for it.

That quote is so awesome, I plan to steal it shamelessly. Thank you in advance. ;-)

243 Bagua  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:33:57pm

re: #233 iceweasel

Warning, I’m drinking right now! :) But it will make me happy, not surly.

I would be a fool to cross the IceWeasel

244 wee fury  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:33:57pm

re: #240 WindUpBird

This thread is reminding me why I vote Democrat, and will continue to vote Democrat for the foreseeable future.

This thread reminds me why I am a registered Independent.

245 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:34:02pm

re: #226 Kewalo

re: #234 laZardo

Maybe I should join the army. Then I’ll have a G.I. Joe policy rather than a COBRA one when I leave.

Just make sure they give you a “good guy” voice rather than a “bad guy” voice as part of the package.

You can always tell by the voices. (Mother of four boys, approx. 500 hours listening to boys’ cartoons.)

246 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:34:06pm

re: #234 laZardo

Maybe I should join the army. Then I’ll have a G.I. Joe policy rather than a COBRA one when I leave.

Upding for the trip down memory lane. One of my favorite toys growing up.

247 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:34:29pm

re: #213 Dark_Falcon

Obama still bears a large share of the blame for the bad poll numbers. He let both houses make up the bill as they went along and he still explains it poorly. Given those facts, its no wonder he got outmaneuvered on PR.

Yup, unlike bush he Believes in the constitutional separation of powers and doesn’t like to get involved in legislative matters. No “Unitary Executive” here.

248 rurality  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:34:30pm

re: #214 cliffster

Sorry, didnt mean to address you.

249 Irenicum  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:34:57pm

re: #233 iceweasel

Surly you must be kidding!

250 NJDhockeyfan  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:35:08pm

re: #244 wee fury

This thread reminds me why I am a registered Independent.

This thread reminds me why I am not registered with any party.

251 Racer X  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:35:15pm

Crazy Flood in Saudi Arabia!

Liveleak Video

Unreal.

252 Jaerik  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:35:30pm

re: #235 NJDhockeyfan

That’s a poll for support of the public option, not the health care bill.

Valid point.

What’s interesting, in that same vein, is another 538 article which showed that about 12% of the general electorate opposition to the current bill comes from Democrats for not going far enough.

253 borgcube  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:35:46pm

re: #2 Dark_Falcon

Even if the math is right, that graph just makes me oppose the bill even more. I’ve got no desire to see massive government subsidies poured into health care. It strike me as recipe for permanent government growth and eventual fiscal collapse. It also sounds the death knell for limited government.

Healthcare is so expensive now because people stopped paying directly for the services provided. We grew accustomed to employers paying for healthcare benefits and as time went on too many of us grew accustomed to our neighbors paying for our care. Of course it’s too expensive now, there was no other possible outcome. And now, it will become extraordinarily so and the overall level of care will decrease. It’s a given.

Of course, even here now, fellow lizards apparently believe we will get better care for less money. How or why anyone can truly believe that massive federal spending will both cut costs and improve services is frankly delusional. In fact, if this is so great and will save so much money as Obama says, why is there a need to spend any money in the first place?

Let’s get right to it shall we? It will be cheaper for about half of us I suppose since about half of us don’t pay anything substantial into the tax base anyway. Of course those people are all for a huge government subsidized plan since they’re not paying the bill. How easy it is to vote for people and policies when you don’t have to pay. Sign me up for that plan.

When I hire people I tell them flat out that I do not offer health benefits. I try to tell them before they flip out that with part of their pay they can buy their own and I give them the name of my broker. EVERY SINGLE TIME they come back amazed at what they can buy for the money. And guess what? Some of them don’t use it to buy insurance. No, iPods, $125 month cell phone plans, big screens, and $18 drinks at swank clubs are more important to them.

That’s the real problem with all of this. People have become used to others bailing them out for their poor life choices. We’re really quite a nation of wussies these days.

254 JoyousMN  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:35:51pm

Gotta go. ‘night all.

255 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:36:01pm

re: #249 Irenicum

Surly you must be kidding!

She’s not kidding.
And don’t call her Shirley…

256 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:36:32pm

re: #243 Bagua

I would be a fool to cross the IceWeasel

I’m favoriting that one. It captures her catching a Dead Thread Rat Troll (Rattus Trollus Butthurttus).

257 cliffster  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:36:35pm

re: #248 rurality

Sorry, didnt mean to address you.

I’m sure you had something interesting queued up for me too, but thanks for the apology. ;)

258 Racer X  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:36:36pm

re: #228 WindUpBird

Denying people’s treatment due to pre-existing conditions, hey, that’s some funny stuff there!

Are you saying the GOP does this?

259 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:36:57pm

I’ve got a question, and I know this may sound facetious, but it’s worth thinking about. Many of people feel that public run health care is anathema and present a variety of reasons for it - some reasonable, some less so.

Why are we not equally opposed to government-run fire departments?

260 laZardo  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:37:06pm

re: #245 EmmmieG

Just make sure they give you a “good guy” voice rather than a “bad guy” voice as part of the package.

And don’t go for the private option!

/the freaky thing is, this sort of thing actually happened to COBRA Commander.

261 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:37:17pm

re: #233 iceweasel

I hope most everything is making you happy right now.
What an exciting time in your life.
Hope the wedding & the marriage are all & more than you both dream of.

262 Racer X  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:37:36pm

re: #240 WindUpBird

This thread is reminding me why I vote Democrat, and will continue to vote Democrat for the foreseeable future.

Because Democrats never deny claims?

263 laZardo  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:38:27pm

re: #259 Cineaste

Because the government-run fire and police departments are actually generally worth the taxpayers’ money.

264 Surabaya Stew  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:38:32pm

re: #244 wee fury

This thread reminds me why I am a registered Independent.

This thread reminds me why I don’t belong to any party and probally never will.

265 Irenicum  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:38:45pm

re: #246 Dark_Falcon

I loved the kung fu grip. I miss those toys.

266 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:38:56pm

re: #231 Dark_Falcon

I disagree.
I think the FDA is as good at keeping humans healthy as the SEC is as good at finding pyramid schemes

267 generalsparky  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:39:00pm

re: #232 Olsonist

I wasn’t born with limited government and I’m not willing to die for it.

I really don’t understand the “health insurance is like car insurance” analogy. Not everyone has to purchase car insurance. The government forces those who drive and own vehicles to purchase liability insurance which is in case the driver hurts someone else and/or damages some one else’s property. The government does not force the driver to have full coverage.

So why should I be forced to have insurance if I don’t want it? I would only be harming myself without it.

268 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:39:05pm

Things I can say I’m for:

Providers should be made to give close to the same prices to insured and uninsured. (5-10%)

We should be able to deduct all our health care costs, not just some of it.

We should start seeing what things will cost before we receive the service. (Can you think of any other place that you do business this way? Receive the service, then find out what it costs?)

More walk-in, lower cost clinics.

269 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:39:25pm

re: #247 Conservative Moonbat

Sometimes the president needs to be more involved in oder to make sure he gets a cohesive bill. Obama is getting the greif, he should have gone for the gravy. I’m glad he didn’t though, because this way he gets tagged with an unpopular bill and as someone who can’t get things done. From my perspective its a twofer.

270 Basho  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:40:05pm

re: #259 Cineaste

I’ve got a question, and I know this may sound facetious, but it’s worth thinking about. Many of people feel that public run health care is anathema and present a variety of reasons for it - some reasonable, some less so.

Why are we not equally opposed to government-run fire departments?

The US gov’t does a pretty good job at remaining in the background. We kind of don’t realize everything they fund. I remember someone here saying they never benefited from any gov’t funded science… this was on the internet remember… Someone claimed Harvard should be the ones funding stem cell research without realizing the large amounts of cash the government gives them.

271 Racer X  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:40:22pm

Liberal protester I want …

272 rurality  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:40:26pm

re: #242 JoyousMN

Honesty, does anyone really believe Gov. will ever get smaller? When was this limited Gov.? Like in Public Enemy when criminals could cross state lines and be out of the jurisdiction of authorities. So limited gov. folk want to abolish the FBI? And States Rights was the big cry to fight desegregation. I don’t want to go back to those splendid, limited gov. times.

273 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:40:53pm

re: #234 laZardo

Maybe I should join the army. Then I’ll have a G.I. Joe policy rather than a COBRA one when I leave.

Prison doesn’t offer a bad health care plan either. I could just go hold up a convince store and then get my teeth fixed on the government dime.

Come on people, does nobody think it’s fucked up that prisoners get better health care than nearly 1/3 of Americans?

274 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:41:06pm

re: #263 laZardo

Because the government-run fire and police departments are actually generally worth the taxpayers’ money.

Believe it or not there are private fire departments.

Just don’t get me started on private prisons, though.

275 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:41:06pm

re: #267 generalsparky

If they force insurance companies to insure all conditions, for everyone, they will have to also do something to keep the companies from going under. Otherwise, lots of people would wait to pay premiums until they had something expensive to take care of.

276 BruceKelly  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:41:12pm

re: #211 iheartbolton

No, the GOP is Big too. just “their” way

“GOP” and “conservative” are not, I repeat, not synonyms.

277 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:41:14pm

re: #263 laZardo

Because the government-run fire and police departments are actually generally worth the taxpayers’ money.

But your health care is worth your money and you are a tax payer, no? Ergo, it is worth taxpayers’ money.

278 freetoken  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:41:41pm

re: #214 cliffster

I asked how something was getting paid for, and got downding’d. Typical liberals.

I down-dinged you for your lack of sensitivity, not because I am a “typical liberal”.

279 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:41:45pm

re: #237 Sharmuta

That would be a poor reason to join, imo.

but not an uncommon one

280 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:41:46pm

re: #243 Bagua

I would be a fool to cross the IceWeasel

I love that! Thanks! I’m uploading it right now as my avatar. :)

(Only for a couple of days tho…I have one picked out for a little bit just for the wedding.)

281 cliffster  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:42:01pm

re: #259 Cineaste

I’ve got a question, and I know this may sound facetious, but it’s worth thinking about. Many of people feel that public run health care is anathema and present a variety of reasons for it - some reasonable, some less so.

Why are we not equally opposed to government-run fire departments?

And, while we’re at it, government-run grocery stores? Everyone needs food, it’s a basic right. Government-run grocery stores for everyone!

282 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:42:15pm

re: #271 Racer X

Liberal protester I want …

I’d upding you all night if I could.

283 laZardo  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:42:20pm

re: #274 JasonA

There are a lot of ‘volunteer’ fire departments in Manila, often times you’ll see their trucks rush to the fires alongside the city-run ones.

Given local politics though I wouldn’t be surprised if the fire departments weren’t also responsible for starting fires.

284 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:43:00pm

re: #260 laZardo

Just make sure they give you a “good guy” voice rather than a “bad guy” voice as part of the package.

And don’t go for the private option!

/the freaky thing is, this sort of thing actually happened to COBRA Commander.

I remember that cartoon. He was changed back in a later cartoon, and Serpentor done away with. I never liked the cartoons. All the fighting used lasers and no one was ever killed. I know why they did that, but I always found the comic books much better.

285 SteveMcG  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:43:04pm

re: #267 generalsparky

I agree with you about the difference, but insurance is all about collectivising risk. If you are going to prevent insurance companies from rejecting pre-existing conditions, then you have a corresponding need to keep people from waiting until they have a serious problem before buying insurance.

286 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:43:21pm

re: #240 WindUpBird

This thread is reminding me why I vote Democrat, and will continue to vote Democrat for the foreseeable future.

Democratic

Don’t let the right wing take democracy out of the Democratic party.

287 borgcube  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:43:43pm

re: #281 cliffster

And, while we’re at it, government-run grocery stores? Everyone needs food, it’s a basic right. Government-run grocery stores for everyone!

No kidding. Have you seen the price of arugula lately?

288 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:44:13pm

re: #281 cliffster

And, while we’re at it, government-run grocery stores? Everyone needs food, it’s a basic right. Government-run grocery stores for everyone!

That’s a tu quoque and doesn’t address the question. Slippery slope arguments don’t answer the initial question. It could run the same way in reverse. Since the government doesn’t provide food, it shouldn’t provide fire departments either.

289 Basho  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:44:36pm

re: #272 rurality

Honesty, does anyone really believe Gov. will ever get smaller? When was this limited Gov.? Like in Public Enemy when criminals could cross state lines and be out of the jurisdiction of authorities. So limited gov. folk want to abolish the FBI? And States Rights was the big cry to fight desegregation. I don’t want to go back to those splendid, limited gov. times.

Limited government is simply impossible because there are 300 million people living here. We can go back to 1880’s size government when the population shrinks to 1880’s level.

290 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:45:08pm

re: #286 Conservative Moonbat

Democratic

Don’t let the right wing take democracy out of the Democratic party.

No need. They’ve got George Soros to do that.

291 Racer X  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:45:26pm

re: #282 JasonA

I’d upding you all night if I could.

Heh.

You’ll love this one then.

Liberal does NOT get what she wants.

Liveleak Video
292 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:46:01pm

re: #261 Floral Giraffe

I hope most everything is making you happy right now.
What an exciting time in your life.
Hope the wedding & the marriage are all & more than you both dream of.

Thanks, Flo! We’re ridiculously happy. :)

Many hugs to you from us both. {FG}

293 Irenicum  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:46:13pm

Well, it’s damn late and I need to get up and write. So it’s Maudite and then bed!

294 Basho  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:46:47pm

re: #277 Cineaste

But your health care is worth your money and you are a tax payer, no? Ergo, it is worth taxpayers’ money.

Not to mention it can be considered a public good. We all benefit from a healthy society as much as an educated one. No one wants to start a business in a leper colony.

295 generalsparky  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:47:30pm

re: #275 EmmmieG

I understand why the government would force everyone to buy in/contribute if the government was funding it without any regard for pre-existing conditions.

I just find the analogy comparing health insurance to car insurance a poor one since it isn’t true that everyone has to purchase car insurance. Only those that drive and own a vehicle do. And the reason isn’t to protect the driver but to protect everyone else.

296 NJDhockeyfan  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:47:35pm

re: #219 JoyousMN

Those poll number are from October. Couldn’t you find a more recent poll?

Try here. They have a list of all the polls.

297 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:47:46pm

re: #291 Racer X

Heh.

You’ll love this one then.

Liberal does NOT get what she wants.


Sometimes Taser use is justified… //

298 rurality  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:47:55pm

re: #276 BruceKelly

Dem.s still have to wear the albatross of liberal thirty years after it became a bad word (in some circles). Conservatives have a long way to go before they can claim distance from the GOP. And it’s not like the nuts are going to vote for Dems, ever.
When conservatives get their own Nader, then some light btwn GOP and conservatives might become detectable. Sucks to be branded, doesnt it?

299 BruceKelly  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:48:00pm

re: #191 JoyousMN

One more health care thread and I’m over the hump. LOL

Let ME help… enough talk about me. What do YOU think of me?

300 SteveMcG  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:48:51pm

re: #294 Basho

Speak for yourself. I find that my best employees have issues. The healthiest ones seem to miss the most time. The guys on work release never miss a day and they’re rarely late.

301 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:49:21pm

re: #291 Racer X

Here’s one for you.

Image: moran.jpg

302 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:49:31pm

re: #282 JasonA

I’d upding you all night if I could.

Sounded dirty.

/time to lay off the booze, maybe….

303 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:49:34pm

re: #294 Basho

Not to mention it can be considered a public good. We all benefit from a healthy society as much as an educated one. No one wants to start a business in a leper colony.

Further - if you are unhealthy then you reduce the capacity of our system to deal with my health issues (ie: overcrowding) and our productivity (lost work time). A generally more healthy population potentially benefits all.

304 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:50:27pm

re: #295 generalsparky

I understand why the government would force everyone to buy in/contribute if the government was funding it without any regard for pre-existing conditions.

I just find the analogy comparing health insurance to car insurance a poor one since it isn’t true that everyone has to purchase car insurance. Only those that drive and own a vehicle do. And the reason isn’t to protect the driver but to protect everyone else.

There aren’t any people out there with 100,000 car repairs bills guaranteed every year.

The alternative will be premiums that reflect that the insurance company will have a lot of people who expect to pay $1,000 a month for $20,000 a month expenditures, but nothing when their expenditures are $100 every other month. Premiums will have to rise to cover that.

305 Irenicum  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:50:44pm

re: #302 iceweasel

Switch to Maudite. You’ll feel good and drink with a French accent!

306 Olsonist  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:51:05pm

re: #267 generalsparky

So why should I be forced to have insurance if I don’t want it? I would only be harming myself without it.

Unfortunately, that’s not the case. If you get into a car crash and you don’t have health insurance, hospitals are required by Federal law to stabilize you whether you can pay for it or not.

There are many other public goods which you may not want to pay for but that you use. GPS. Why should you pay for GPS?

I hate to break this to you but America is pretty darned socialist. Get over it. There is a certain free market mythology but I’d prefer if America was good at being socialist than bad at being free market.

307 NJDhockeyfan  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:51:20pm

re: #252 Jaerik

Valid point.

What’s interesting, in that same vein, is another 538 article which showed that about 12% of the general electorate opposition to the current bill comes from Democrats for not going far enough.

That would be the Kos/DD/HuffPo side of the Democrat Party.

308 Velvet Elvis  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:51:21pm

re: #251 Racer X

Wow. I didnre: #253 borgcube

That’s the reason for the mandates in the present plan.

309 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:51:43pm

re: #302 iceweasel

Sounded dirty.

/time to lay off the booze, maybe…

Bah. Just means you need moar.

310 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:52:07pm

re: #292 iceweasel

Thanks, Flo! We’re ridiculously happy. :)

Many hugs to you from us both. {FG}

Many happy returns, to you both. It’s WORK, but you can do it!
{{ICE}} and {{Jimmah}}
Ice And Jimmah sitting in a tree?
Kissing?
May you have joys an happiness forever.

311 Jaerik  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:52:43pm

re: #291 Racer X

Liberal does NOT get what she wants.

Hysterical, but where’d the “liberal” come from? It doesn’t even appear to be from this country.

I find the liberal mindset fairly distasteful myself, but you can’t just apply the label willy-nilly to anything. It loses its effect. Like people who swear too much, and then when they really need it, find they’ve run out of words to express themselves.

312 Irenicum  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:52:51pm

And for the not yet civilized, this is Maudite.

313 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:52:57pm

re: #302 iceweasel

Sounded dirty.

/time to lay off the booze, maybe…

I got married last week Ice and it was the greatest day of my life. You’re in for a treat!

314 cliffster  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:53:06pm

So the fact that our country already as a trillion dollar deficit doesn’t seem to matter to some people. And the fact that Medicare and Social Security will soon be increasing this deficit immensely - no sweat.

315 djughurknot  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:53:48pm

re: #291 Racer X

What th’…?

316 Irenicum  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:53:56pm

re: #313 Cineaste

Wow, a whole lot of marrying going on around here! Congratulations to you and to Ice!

317 Basho  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:54:01pm

re: #313 Cineaste

I got married last week Ice and it was the greatest day of my life. You’re in for a treat!

Congratulations.

318 Mostly sane, most of the time.  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:54:15pm

OT—

Wondering if we will have a wedding thread for IW & Jimmah.

Maybe a bridal shower thread? Not sure how a toaster does after being squeezed through the server.

319 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:54:54pm

re: #313 Cineaste

My condolen congratulations!

320 Racer X  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:54:58pm

Iranian Fighter Plane Crash

Liveleak Video

oops.

321 Olsonist  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:55:27pm

re: #314 cliffster

So the fact that our country already as a trillion dollar deficit doesn’t seem to matter to some people. And the fact that Medicare and Social Security will soon be increasing this deficit immensely - no sweat.

As long as you don’t care about the cost to the deficit of running two wars I’m not going to care about the cost to the deficit of funding Medicare and Social Security. Deal?

322 Racer X  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:56:22pm

re: #311 Jaerik

Hysterical, but where’d the “liberal” come from? It doesn’t even appear to be from this country.

I find the liberal mindset fairly distasteful myself, but you can’t just apply the label willy-nilly to anything. It loses its effect. Like people who swear too much, and then when they really need it, find they’ve run out of words to express themselves.

Yes you are correct. I was being mean. Someone upthread implied that the GOP are the ones denying health care benefits or some nonsense.

Apologies.

323 Irenicum  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:56:33pm

re: #320 Racer X

Where do you get this stuff? You’re a overflowing font of fabulous funkiness.

324 BruceKelly  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:56:48pm

re: #298 rurality

Dem.s still have to wear the albatross of liberal thirty years after it became a bad word (in some circles). Conservatives have a long way to go before they can claim distance from the GOP. And it’s not like the nuts are going to vote for Dems, ever.
When conservatives get their own Nader, then some light btwn GOP and conservatives might become detectable. Sucks to be branded, doesnt it?

Branded? not really. Most understand the terms. Here’s a crash course for you.

GOP/Repubs - Big government conservatives, includes neocons.
Right Wing - Religious/Social conservatives, includes paleocons.
True Conservatives - Limited government, free markets, strong defense.

I am a true conservative, nice to meet you.

325 Seltzer123  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:56:53pm

re: #180 Racer X

Real Clear Politics:

Favor - 39.7%
Oppose - 54.2%

Americans really do not want this health care bill.

Yes, BUT …
much of the opposition to health care bill in that poll is from the Left.

See Nate Silver’s post: [Link: www.fivethirtyeight.com…]

326 cliffster  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:57:35pm

re: #321 Olsonist

As long as you don’t care about the cost to the deficit of running two wars I’m not going to care about the cost to the deficit of funding Medicare and Social Security. Deal?

And that pretty well sums up the point I make when I say it seems like it’s a “my football team versus your football team” mentality.

327 Basho  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 9:57:59pm

I’d believe the wingers are sincere about fiscal responsibility if it weren’t for them whining about expiring tax cuts and corporate tax rates.

328 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:00:08pm

re: #314 cliffster

you are your brother’s (grandchild’s) keeper

329 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:00:16pm

re: #313 Cineaste

I got married last week Ice and it was the greatest day of my life. You’re in for a treat!

Holy moly! Congrats!!! So happy for you!

330 rurality  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:00:18pm

re: #314 cliffster

Isnt the largest chunk of spending, that we could curtail immediately, be the cost of fighting two wars? I’d rather build up our infrastructure, spread democracy here at home (health care) and stop subsidizing Haliburton, but that’s just me.

331 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:00:24pm

re: #327 Basho

I’d believe the wingers are sincere about fiscal responsibility if it weren’t for them whining about expiring tax cuts and corporate tax rates.

Why do you say that? Keeping taxes low makes good sense. Low taxes make for more economic growth.

332 generalsparky  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:00:43pm

re: #314 cliffster

So the fact that our country already as a trillion dollar deficit doesn’t seem to matter to some people. And the fact that Medicare and Social Security will soon be increasing this deficit immensely - no sweat.

Considering the lack of fiscal responsibility most Americans have personally, I am not surprised they don’t expect the government to be fiscally responsible. We are debt free but the mortgage on mid-grade enlisted pay. We only know one other family that is also debt free but their mortgage. It’s scary :-/

333 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:01:00pm

re: #329 iceweasel

The new avatar is so you.

334 borgcube  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:01:22pm

re: #327 Basho

I’d believe the wingers are sincere about fiscal responsibility if it weren’t for them whining about expiring tax cuts and corporate tax rates.

Is this comment for real?

335 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:01:53pm

re: #329 iceweasel

You’re gonna have SO many toasters to exchange!
LOL!
{{Ice}}

336 Racer X  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:02:08pm

Copenhagen climate summit: global warming ‘sceptic’ scientist has heart attack live on TV

The video is a bit disturbing.

337 cliffster  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:02:23pm

re: #332 generalsparky

Considering the lack of fiscal responsibility most Americans have personally, I am not surprised they don’t expect the government to be fiscally responsible. We are debt free but the mortgage on mid-grade enlisted pay. We only know one other family that is also debt free but their mortgage. It’s scary :-/

Make that two, then. But it’s all for naught - the new idea isn’t to reward people for being responsible and planning ahead, it’s to bail out those who failed to do so.

338 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:02:47pm

re: #333 JasonA

The new avatar is so you.

Is that not a stoat?

339 Basho  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:04:11pm

re: #334 borgcube

Is this comment for real?

Na. I really meant cutting taxes further would boost the nation’s tax revenue. Laffer curve wizardry FTW!

340 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:04:15pm

re: #311 Jaerik

I find the liberal mindset fairly distasteful myself

?

What exactly is a ‘liberal mindset’?

I’m more than a bit wary of anyone who uses a phrase like that, or like ‘conservative mindset’. Sometimes it might be useful as shorthand, but often it’s being used as a pejorative shorthand for a whole host of issues that actual liberals and actual conservatives wouldn’t recognise as their own ‘mindset’.

341 Olsonist  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:04:29pm

#331 Dark_Falcon

Why do you say that? Keeping taxes low makes good sense. Low taxes make for more economic growth.

Taxes and Services have to be balanced. Roads have to be paid for. What I expect from a tax system isn’t low taxes; it’s fair taxes.

342 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:04:55pm

re: #333 JasonA

The new avatar is so you.

Hee hee…I thanked Bagua in it as well. Time to open another beer!

343 BruceKelly  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:05:32pm

re: #238 Jaerik

Was just the first one that showed up in a Google search. Don’t shoot the messenger. It’s a link to CBS poll, unless you’ll discount that one too because it’s not from a source you trust.

But don’t ask for “a recent poll” and then move the goalposts when one is provided.

Also, you could just check the PolitiFact article referenced above.

Good answer/upding.

344 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:06:27pm

re: #338 Floral Giraffe

Is that not a stoat?

I dunno. It’s white, weaselly, and in snow. Works for me.

345 rurality  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:06:47pm

re: #324 BruceKelly

As someone that has had ‘liberal’ incorrectly hurled at me with venom or dismissive assumption, I’ve found you do not get to go into the nuances of your political sympathies with the labelers. I tend to vote Dem., so I’m CODE PINK. Maybe Dems. or progressives will be more sympathetic to Conservatives. GOP certainly was pretty absolutist about Dems/liberals/Socialists.

346 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:06:48pm

re: #314 cliffster

So the fact that our country already as a trillion dollar deficit doesn’t seem to matter to some people. And the fact that Medicare and Social Security will soon be increasing this deficit immensely - no sweat.

Social security is no sweat, the projected trend shows a blip as the baby boomers retire and recieve benefits but then they…well…die at which point outlays drop to below the current levels. Think of it as a small hill we have to get across over the next 12 to fifteen years, then it is all downhill from there.

Medicare/caid is something completely different, costs are going upwards worse than the famous “hockey stick graph” from CRU. They keep on going up, and up, and up until they account for more than 100% of the US GDP every year. Obviously this has to be fixed, the entire country cannot be employed in making band-aids and catheters.

So what is the solution, allow the free market to continue jumping prices by more than 10% every single year as they have done for more than the last decade or attempt to prevent that from continueing?

Well?

347 cliffster  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:08:02pm

re: #340 iceweasel

?

What exactly is a ‘liberal mindset’?

I’m more than a bit wary of anyone who uses a phrase like that, or like ‘conservative mindset’. Sometimes it might be useful as shorthand, but often it’s being used as a pejorative shorthand for a whole host of issues that actual liberals and actual conservatives wouldn’t recognise as their own ‘mindset’.

So you’re saying that you never make sweeping, general comments about conservatives?

348 oldengr  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:08:28pm

I am somewhat confused! Looking at the chart, I will have less out of pocket costs with the Senate bill due to the subsidies. Where would the money for the subsidies come from?

349 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:08:52pm

re: #346 ausador

what statistics are you using, what are the life expectancies?

350 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:09:02pm

re: #329 iceweasel

Funniest wedding gifts EVAH? Friends who married, lots of money, workers, but because they enjoyed it. What to do for a wedding present? Friends aren’t rich, what to do? 40-50 of us, went in on electric woks (That’ll date it for you!), and IIRC we bought 30 or more of them. Took them, wrapped to the wedding, with gift receipts. Made the bride exchange them all. Must have taken at least 4 trips to the Mall in her SUV.

Ice, may you have friends who love you, and your chosen husband, forever. And play funny tricks ( not mean ones) on you.

351 limewash  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:09:21pm

re: #180 Racer X

Can I take this poll with a grain of salt?

I wish they would ask these people who oppose it if they REALLY know what’s in this bill besides Rush, Beck, Fox, and Senate or House Republicans or wimpy blue dogs etc. saying it’ll kill you if it passes or the usual mumbo jumbo fear and hysteria I read about from the MSM

352 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:09:25pm

re: #330 rurality

Isnt the largest chunk of spending, that we could curtail immediately, be the cost of fighting two wars? I’d rather build up our infrastructure, spread democracy here at home (health care) and stop subsidizing Haliburton, but that’s just me.

Not an option. If we lose the wars ( and quitting them is losing them), then we just buy ourselves more costs from terrorist attacks. Further, rathional concerns are not the only concerns in play in a war. Others like pride, respect, and fear play their roles in such matters.

353 borgcube  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:10:13pm

re: #308 Conservative Moonbat

Wow. I didnre: #253 borgcube

That’s the reason for the mandates in the present plan.

No need for mandates or any of this if we all took even a modicum of responsibility back for ourselves.

My neighbors might as well come over to my home, bust down the door, take my wallet, and hold a gun to my head while I give out my bank codes. That’s what they’re basically doing with the power of an out of control federal government behind them.

The problem however is that after a few times of doing that, there won’t be any point in locking my door, my wallet will be empty spare some maxed out credit cards and my bank accounts will have long run dry. The latecomers will be sorely disappointed and left scratching their heads when they try to figure out just how I’m still getting by without resorting to their tactics. Funny how that works.

354 Bagua  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:10:25pm

re: #342 iceweasel

Hee hee…I thanked Bagua in it as well. Time to open another beer!

No, the image was liberated from the haters, I only photoshopped the offensive bit realising that it was something you’d enjoy, jokes on them.

355 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:10:35pm

re: #347 cliffster

So you’re saying that you never make sweeping, general comments about conservatives?

Nope, but I try to avoid suggesting that each and every conservative ascribes to the same thing(s) as the ones I’m attacking. I tend to attack wingnuts, not conservatives (to me they are not the same thing).

356 Racer X  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:11:18pm

re: #351 limewash

Can I take this poll with a grain of salt?

I wish they would ask these people who oppose it if they REALLY know what’s in this bill besides Rush, Beck, Fox, and Senate or House Republicans or wimpy blue dogs etc. saying it’ll kill you if it passes or the usual mumbo jumbo fear and hysteria I read about from the MSM

Sure.

re: #325 Seltzer123

Yes, BUT …
much of the opposition to health care bill in that poll is from the Left.

See Nate Silver’s post: [Link: www.fivethirtyeight.com…]

357 rurality  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:12:07pm

re: #342 iceweasel

Ever had a Tanglefoot? Think it’s brewed in the South—Wiltshire perhaps. It’s like the tequila of beers—almost hallucinogenic and good too. Very aptly named.

358 borgcube  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:12:11pm

re: #341 Olsonist

#331 Dark_Falcon

Taxes and Services have to be balanced. Roads have to be paid for. What I expect from a tax system isn’t low taxes; it’s fair taxes.

Great, then I expect goods and services for my taxes. I’m not getting that now, not even close anymore.

359 limewash  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:12:16pm

re: #232 Olsonist

Nicely put.

360 cliffster  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:12:40pm

re: #346 ausador

Every dime of what’s put into Social Security is spent. Payments coming out of Social Security come in the form of government IOU’s. How is this “no sweat”?

361 Kewalo  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:13:01pm

re: #340 iceweasel

God bless you. That is exactly the truth. I refused to stop saying I was a liberal even when my cohorts switched to “progressive.” I consider myself a JFK Liberal and I’m proud of it. Most people on the right really have no idea what we stand for and have been making things up for years.

362 Olsonist  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:13:34pm

re: #348 oldengr

I am somewhat confused! Looking at the chart, I will have less out of pocket costs with the Senate bill due to the subsidies. Where would the money for the subsidies come from?

Taxes that would be skewed towards the rich. Obama campaigned on the promise of not raising taxes on the those making less than $250,000.

The House bill would impose a 5.4 percent income tax on individuals making more than $500,000 and joint filers making more than $1 million.

The Senate bill impose a 40 percent tax on the portion of insurance premiums exceeding $8,000 a year for individuals and $21,000 a year for family plans. That tax would be imposed on insurance companies, though it would likely be passed on to consumers, including many middle-income families.

363 Mark Pennington  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:13:48pm

re: #292 iceweasel

Thanks, Flo! We’re ridiculously happy. :)

Many hugs to you from us both. {FG}

OT: Check your twitter messages when you have time!

364 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:14:35pm

re: #350 Floral Giraffe

HAH! I wish you the joys of MANY woks, without the headaches of the returns.
And may you cook, like an AWSOME old Chinese Lady.
(And Jimmah like Chinese food…)
LOL!

365 Jaerik  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:14:46pm

re: #340 iceweasel

?

What exactly is a ‘liberal mindset’?

I’m more than a bit wary of anyone who uses a phrase like that, or like ‘conservative mindset’. Sometimes it might be useful as shorthand, but often it’s being used as a pejorative shorthand for a whole host of issues that actual liberals and actual conservatives wouldn’t recognise as their own ‘mindset’.

Given I was using it as part of a comment discounting shorthand, you’re right, I probably shouldn’t have done that. Especially given my agreement with Charles over his recent “I’m a classical liberal” line!

It’s a shame we’ve been so trained by sound bite politics that we can fall into that trap even while, well… trying to argue why not to fall into that trap.

366 borgcube  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:14:51pm

re: #346 ausador

Social security is no sweat, the projected trend shows a blip as the baby boomers retire and recieve benefits but then they…well…die at which point outlays drop to below the current levels. Think of it as a small hill we have to get across over the next 12 to fifteen years, then it is all downhill from there.

Medicare/caid is something completely different, costs are going upwards worse than the famous “hockey stick graph” from CRU. They keep on going up, and up, and up until they account for more than 100% of the US GDP every year. Obviously this has to be fixed, the entire country cannot be employed in making band-aids and catheters.

So what is the solution, allow the free market to continue jumping prices by more than 10% every single year as they have done for more than the last decade or attempt to prevent that from continueing?

Well?

I can’t believe that in one breath you recognize the failure that is Medicare and in the next blame the free market. Oi vay.

367 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:15:06pm

re: #361 Kewalo

God bless you. That is exactly the truth. I refused to stop saying I was a liberal even when my cohorts switched to “progressive.” I consider myself a JFK Liberal and I’m proud of it. Most people on the right really have no idea what we stand for and have been making things up for years.

You mean we don’t want to create a worker’s paradise and hand over all of our land to Big Brother?

*pouts and shuffles away*

368 Racer X  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:15:54pm

“December Blizzard” Snow storm time lapse

Liveleak Video
369 Bagua  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:16:01pm

re: #361 Kewalo

God bless you. That is exactly the truth. I refused to stop saying I was a liberal even when my cohorts switched to “progressive.”

Well, now that we’re all liberals, do we get to dispense with the clothes?

370 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:16:17pm

re: #357 rurality

Ever had a Tanglefoot? Think it’s brewed in the South—Wiltshire perhaps. It’s like the tequila of beers—almost hallucinogenic and good too. Very aptly named.

never even heard of it! Thanks, will try.

re: #354 Bagua

No, the image was liberated from the haters, I only photoshopped the offensive bit realising that it was something you’d enjoy, jokes on them.

That’s hilarious! Best of all I’d never seen it until your version. Heh. Poor little haters, mumbling over the iceweasel they’ve built of rags…I know they miss me so.

371 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:17:32pm

re: #95 iceweasel

Yep. I don’t know for certain yet what my health insurance situation will be there; lots depends on how soon I have a spousal visa, etc. Bottom line is I’ll have the NHS at a minimum and will report back on the differences.

Ask me in a couple of weeks— I just got back to the US tonight for wedding arrangements and I’m jetlegged as hell.

I loved my NHS people in Finchley—of course, I ended up getting exposed to more of the English healthcare system than I had planned, due to a classmate with, shall we say, interesting health problems both above and below the collarbones.

372 limewash  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:17:38pm

re: #356 Racer X

Nate’s excellent analysis on your last link at times make me want to move from center left to independent some times…sigh. Sheesh the harping on the left at KOS or other American Blog turns me off so much.

373 BruceKelly  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:17:38pm

re: #344 JasonA

I dunno. It’s white, weaselly, and in snow. Works for me.

Taken out of context, that’s a damned funny statement.

374 Racer X  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:17:59pm

You miss being a little boy?

Liveleak Video

I’ll say.

375 Olsonist  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:18:09pm

re: #358 borgcube

Great, then I expect goods and services for my taxes. I’m not getting that now, not even close anymore.

Details please because I’ve done quite well by the government. With the exception of grading papers in college, I’ve had a career exclusively in industry and done quite well, thank you. But I was educated at public high schools and at Cal. I’ve used public infrastructure which is sadly slipping quite a bit. Frankly, I think I’ve gotten a deal.

I wouldn’t mind a tax increase in CA but as a new home owner here I’m at the tail end of the Ponzi Scheme known as Prop 13. I just want fair taxes and good services. Not asking much.

376 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:18:18pm

re: #373 BruceKelly

Taken out of context, that’s a damned funny statement.

I strive for multi-contextuality!

377 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:20:59pm

re: #357 rurality

Ever had a Tanglefoot? Think it’s brewed in the South—Wiltshire perhaps. It’s like the tequila of beers—almost hallucinogenic and good too. Very aptly named.

I’ve had a Tanglefoot. I stayed up too late and was so sleepy I tripped over my own right foot. ;)

378 Basho  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:21:04pm

re: #375 Olsonist

I don’t think there’s a spot on the planet that isn’t benefiting from the US government.

379 BruceKelly  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:21:06pm

re: #345 rurality

As someone that has had ‘liberal’ incorrectly hurled at me with venom or dismissive assumption, I’ve found you do not get to go into the nuances of your political sympathies with the labelers. I tend to vote Dem., so I’m CODE PINK. Maybe Dems. or progressives will be more sympathetic to Conservatives. GOP certainly was pretty absolutist about Dems/liberals/Socialists.

I understand. That’s what middle fingers and foul language are for.

You’ve got to have a firm foundation of core beliefs, let the wingers (both sides) swing.

380 Kewalo  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:21:11pm

re: #346 ausador

I hope you don’t mind but I’d like to add to your very good post.

In 1983 Reagan put together a commission to study the problem of the baby boomers retiring. It was recognized even then that it would be a problem. That is when they upped the payroll tax to put extra money into the SS trustfund. We ran a surplus for years because of that small raise in the tax and raising the retirement age. I haven’t checked recently but as of a couple of years ago we were still using up the surplus money and hadn’t dipped into the fund itself. No matter what you heard when the right was trying to privatize SS, it is not close to bankruptcy.

381 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:23:32pm

re: #375 Olsonist

Things the government provides at little or no cost:

Police
Fire Departments
Army
Space Program
Schools (from pre-K through college)
Scientific Research Funding
Border Control
Customs Control
Census Taking
Occupational Safety & Health Monitoring
Court Systems
Jails & Prisons
Public Cleaning
Parks (state, local & national)
Wilderness Areas
Interstate Highways (admittedly some are toll roads)

382 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:23:34pm

re: #360 cliffster

Every dime of what’s put into Social Security is spent. Payments coming out of Social Security come in the form of government IOU’s. How is this “no sweat”?

Ok fine, make that “tiny sweat” because that is what it is compared to the fiasco we face with medicare/caid and healthcare overall. Social security is not projected to cost over 12 trillion a year over revenues within my lifetime, medicare however is.

Again, what are your thoughts about a solution, just saying that it “sucks” doesn’t help much.

383 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:23:54pm

re: #369 Bagua

Well, now that we’re all liberals, do we get to dispense with the clothes?

No, they just have to be made of hemp. :(

384 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:24:07pm

re: #380 Kewalo

except it was all spent - sort of like a pyramid scheme. There is no “lock box” your grand kids will be paying for “our” health insurance with zero expected payout for them.

385 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:24:24pm

re: #180 Racer X

Real Clear Politics:

Favor - 39.7%
Oppose - 54.2%

Americans really do not want this health care bill.

Americans don’t know what’s IN this health care bill.

386 Basho  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:24:37pm

re: #381 Cineaste

Census taking is a commie plot.
/Wish people didn’t actually believe this

387 BruceKelly  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:24:44pm

re: #348 oldengr

Wre: #348 oldengr

I am somewhat confused! Looking at the chart, I will have less out of pocket costs with the Senate bill due to the subsidies. Where would the money for the subsidies come from?

Where all the government’s money comes from (check your paystub).

388 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:25:14pm

re: #185 Basho

Soviet Union. That’s why.

Huh?

389 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:25:47pm

re: #381 Cineaste

Also:

Food for starving people around the world
Rescue services for natural disasters globally
Reconstruction funds in Iraq & Afghanistan
Health Care in Africa
Defense in Israel
Defense in South Korea
Defense in Japan
Defense in Western Europe

390 Basho  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:25:52pm

re: #384 iheartbolton

except it was all spent - sort of like a pyramid scheme. There is no “lock box” your grand kids will be paying for “our” health insurance with zero expected payout for them.

I’m curious. When exactly was it spent?

391 rurality  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:26:07pm

re: #361 Kewalo

re: #379 BruceKelly

Foul language and middle fingers might work better for conservatives than liberals. That kind of response further gilded our baby killing, drug snuffling, commie loving image.

392 Kewalo  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:26:33pm

re: #360 cliffster

Every dime of what’s put into Social Security is spent. Payments coming out of Social Security come in the form of government IOU’s. How is this “no sweat”?

You are completely mistaken. The SS site is very easy to use…you should go get the facts.

When the government takes money from SS they are required by law to replace the money with government bonds that pay interest and the trustfund administrators are required by law to show these figures everytime they do an audit. It’s there…go look.

393 freetoken  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:26:39pm

re: #381 Cineaste

Things the government provides at little or no cost:

I would not use that phrase. All those items cost, some of them greatly. They are Not Separately Priced, in that one’s taxes all go into a big pot, and out come various expenditures.

394 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:26:46pm

re: #385 SanFranciscoZionist

Americans don’t know what’s IN this health care bill.

Exactly - better question, WHAT health care bill? There isn’t a definitive one as far as I know…

395 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:27:10pm

re: #390 Basho

when it was collected

396 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:27:30pm

re: #201 WindUpBird

Wow.

I guess some people really are small government!

Or, just like the idea of people walkin’ around with third arms growin’ out of their torsos at odd angles.

397 Bagua  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:27:51pm

I have the solution to the Health Care Debate!

Doctor Medicine

MP3 Audio

- Jack Kelly & his South Memphis Jug Band

398 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:28:08pm

re: #393 freetoken

I would not use that phrase. All those items cost, some of them greatly. They are Not Separately Priced, in that one’s taxes all go into a big pot, and out come various expenditures.

You are completely correct. I should have been more specific. Perhaps they are “services the government provides”.

399 cliffster  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:28:09pm

re: #382 ausador

People want “the richest country in the world” to give them more than “the richest country in the world” can afford to give them. It’s as simple as that.

400 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:28:24pm

re: #395 iheartbolton

when it was collected

Exactly. Even when the government was running a surplus, no money went into a “lockbox”, instead it was used to retire debt.

401 Olsonist  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:28:28pm

re: #381 Cineaste

Things the government provides at little or no cost:

Police
Fire Departments
Army
Space Program
Schools (from pre-K through college)
Scientific Research Funding
Border Control
Customs Control
Census Taking
Occupational Safety & Health Monitoring
Court Systems
Jails & Prisons
Public Cleaning
Parks (state, local & national)
Wilderness Areas
Interstate Highways (admittedly some are toll roads)

Freedom ain’t free. I heard that somewhere.

402 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:28:37pm

re: #388 SanFranciscoZionist

Huh?

He’s joking. It’s like saying “Why? Because ‘Shut up’, that’s why!”

I’ve seen various versions of the “Soviet Union, that’s why” or “Socialism, that’s why” or “Commies, that’s why” snark on lefty blogs…it’s like saying Also. or Too — a shorthand that’s employed.
I assume that’s what he meant.

403 BruceKelly  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:28:49pm

re: #376 JasonA

I strive for multi-contextuality!

To quote, “Works for me.”

404 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:29:14pm

re: #392 Kewalo

ha ha ha - thats a good one. IOU’s for all the money they spend.
you know when the FED issues 1 billion in cash to the banks, that goes onto the ASSET side of their balance sheet.

405 emcesq  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:29:30pm

re: #104 JoyousMN

Portable, across state lines health insurance, for start.

406 cliffster  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:29:33pm

re: #392 Kewalo

You are completely mistaken. The SS site is very easy to use…you should go get the facts.

When the government takes money from SS they are required by law to replace the money with government bonds that pay interest and the trustfund administrators are required by law to show these figures everytime they do an audit. It’s there…go look.

You are missing the point. Any funding of SS is in the form of borrowed money.

407 rurality  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:30:47pm

re: #385 SanFranciscoZionist

Americans don’t know what’s IN this health care bill.

they don’t know what is in the Constitution either, but they love it.//

408 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:30:56pm

re: #200 iheartbolton

The FDA operate on a guilty until proven innocent basis.

if a Pharma Co does provable harm, you can sue. I don’t think the gov’t should be in the business of preventative law.

You’re insane.

I just had to say that.

I also had to say that this reminds me a bit of one of my uncles, who when discovered going through my grandfather’s medical bag for dope, said, and God knows I quote: “Never be afraid to take a drug.”

That was 1969, or course.

409 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:31:11pm

re: #399 cliffster

People want “the richest country in the world” to give them more than “the richest country in the world” can afford to give them. It’s as simple as that.

No. The “richest country in the world’ has a disproportionate number of people without healthcare, while countries that aren’t nearly as rich are providing health care to their citizens. Americans are currently paying more and getting less.
It’s as simple as that.

410 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:31:36pm

re: #407 rurality

they don’t know what is in the Constitution either, but they love it.//

Just so long as nobody takes the 10 Commandments out of it we’re still good./////

411 Basho  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:32:06pm

re: #410 Cineaste

LMAO! HAHAHAHA

412 Kewalo  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:32:33pm

re: #391 rurality

I read your post about three times and don’t have a clue what you mean. I swear to God this blog is going to be the death of me, it’s way past my bedtime and my brains are starting to leak.

413 Basho  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:33:12pm

re: #408 SanFranciscoZionist

You’re insane.

I just had to say that.


Late to the party, I see…

414 emcesq  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:34:11pm

re: #381 Cineaste

Correction: at a great cost - but well worth it (check your tax bills)

415 blindy  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:34:29pm

According to Silver’s graph, it looks like the plan barely makes a dent in the total COST of health care. It’s just the PRICE we pay is subsidized. How is this better? Someone is still footing the bill, whether it be taxpayers or the Chinese government.

*sound of economy grinding to a halt*

416 rurality  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:35:02pm

re: #412 Kewalo

You are fine and brainful. I was replying to 379, not sure how you got stuck in the mix. I’ll have to look back and see if you said something that triggered a spasm.

417 Olsonist  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:35:17pm

re: #414 emcesq

Correction: at a great cost - but well worth it (check your tax bills)

Correction: at little or no cost. Check your irony.

418 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:35:20pm

re: #412 Kewalo

I read your post about three times and don’t have a clue what you mean. I swear to God this blog is going to be the death of me, it’s way past my bedtime and my brains are starting to leak.

Yeah, I hear you. My mind’s starting to see the world like the Timecube guy does. Well, in his style, not content. Wanted to make sure that was noted. In another half hour I might actually be typing like him…

419 Bagua  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:35:36pm

Bagua brings solutions to the table for low cost medicine.

Sensimelia Medicine

MP3 Audio

- Junior Reed

420 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:36:41pm

re: #407 rurality

they don’t know what is in the Constitution either, but they love it.//

as usual, the onion was there!

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.

“Our very way of life is under siege,” said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. “It’s time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are.”

According to Mortensen—an otherwise mild-mannered husband, father, and small-business owner—the most serious threat to his fanciful version of the 222-year-old Constitution is the attempt by far-left “traitors” to strip it of its religious foundation.

“Right there in the preamble, the authors make their priorities clear: ‘one nation under God,’” said Mortensen, attributing to the Constitution a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, which itself did not include any reference to a deity until 1954. “Well, there’s a reason they put that right at the top.”

“Men like Madison and Jefferson were moved by the ideals of Christianity, and wanted the United States to reflect those values as a Christian nation,” continued Mortensen, referring to the “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison, considered by many historians to be an atheist, and Thomas Jefferson, an Enlightenment-era thinker who rejected the divinity of Christ and was in France at the time the document was written. “The words on the page speak for themselves.”

According to sources who have read the nation’s charter, the U.S. Constitution and its 27 amendments do not contain the word “God” or “Christ.”

Mortensen said his admiration for the loose assemblage of vague half-notions he calls the Constitution has only grown over time. He believes that each detail he has pulled from thin air—from prohibitions on sodomy and flag-burning, to mandatory crackdowns on immigrants, to the right of citizens not to have their hard-earned income confiscated in the form of taxes—has contributed to making it the best framework for governance “since the Ten Commandments.”
snip


I wish this had been a thread! Maybe it was and I missed it.

421 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:37:14pm

re: #273 Conservative Moonbat

Prison doesn’t offer a bad health care plan either. I could just go hold up a convince store and then get my teeth fixed on the government dime.

Come on people, does nobody think it’s fucked up that prisoners get better health care than nearly 1/3 of Americans?

A relative of mine was involved in a lawsuit involving a dentist who, among other things, had been FIRED from San Quentin. Do you know what it takes to get fired from being a dentist at San Quentin? Apparently these dudes on Death Row would rather let their teeth rot out than go near her.

422 Kewalo  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:37:23pm

re: #404 iheartbolton

You are assuming that the government will never be able to pay back the money and I am assuming that our government will.

I have posted what the law says and you can go to the SS website and read all about it and how much interest they have been collecting. And yes, it’s not in a private account, but mixed in with the debt and so forth. But the fact is, although I don’t know how old you are I feel sure that you will be able to collect if you need to when you get old or God forbid disabled.

423 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:37:34pm

re: #420 iceweasel

I clicked the plus sign, like, fifty times but it only worked once :(

424 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:37:45pm

re: #415 blindy

According to Silver’s graph, it looks like the plan barely makes a dent in the total COST of health care. It’s just the PRICE we pay is subsidized. How is this better? Someone is still footing the bill, whether it be taxpayers or the Chinese government.

*sound of economy grinding to a halt*

I think that’s a very good point. They are doing virtually nothing to structurally change the cost of health care.

Tort Reform?
Pay-For-Service?
Preventative Care?
Incentives for creating Mayo Clinic-style systems?

425 rurality  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:37:47pm

re: #412 Kewalo

Ah yes. I was about to respond with my tale of being a liberal here, but I bored myself and gave up, but didnt delete my initial ‘reply’ thingee. sorry.

426 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:37:50pm

re: #415 blindy

Exactly - also make sure you keep overnight rates low to pull assets into immediate consumption and long term investment. Don’t worry about mal-investment

427 BruceKelly  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:38:46pm

re: #381 Cineaste

Things the government provides at little or no cost:

Police
Fire Departments
Army
Space Program
Schools (from pre-K through college)
Scientific Research Funding
Border Control
Customs Control
Census Taking
Occupational Safety & Health Monitoring
Court Systems
Jails & Prisons
Public Cleaning
Parks (state, local & national)
Wilderness Areas
Interstate Highways (admittedly some are toll roads)

No Cost?! Are you kidding me!? You don’t have a job do you? You don’t pay state, sales or federal income and payroll taxes? Check the fine print on the gas pump next time you fill up your car. Hell, corporate taxes are passed on to you in the form of higher costs for the goods and services those corporations provide. You pay.

I’m flabbergasted… excuse me, my beverage needs a refresh.

428 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:39:10pm

Great discussion, but I have to pack it in. A co-worker asked me to switch shift with him tomorrow so i have to be at work by 8:30AM again. I’ll be back tomorrow evening.

429 sagehen  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:39:44pm

re: #294 Basho

Not to mention it can be considered a public good. We all benefit from a healthy society as much as an educated one. No one wants to start a business in a leper colony.


Funny how nobody ever complains about socialized firefighting, or socialized police forces. And nobody considers it money down the drain if they didn’t need to call on the services this year; we call that a good year and hope to have another one next year. It’s a happy happy life that never needs a cop or a firefighter ever, and it’s money well spent just to know they would be there if we did need them.

430 Mauser  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:40:03pm

I haven’t had health insurance since 2002. My medical expenses since that time have been, oh, around $300.

Right now, I can barely make my mortgage and bills, only because I’m on partial unemployment. I can’t afford health insurance that I will not use, but then facing the prospect of Fines or (theoretically) Jail for not buying it? I’m sorry, but REAL expenses kinda take priority. I take a dim view of being compelled to spend my limited funds on things from which I derive no benefit. For all the good I get out of it, the money would be better spent on Lottery tickets.

And if the Insurance companies are so “Evil” why are we writing laws to compel people to give them even more money?

None of this addresses the actual COST of heath care. People are forgetting the difference between Health INSURANCE and Health CARE. If people are saying “Health Care is so expensive, how are we going to pay for it?” then this bill is trying to solve the wrong problem. Why concentrate on paying for something that is too expensive, instead of doing something about it BEING too expensive?

On the other hand, here’s a guy who is probably VERY glad he had insurance on his $1.5 Bugatti Veryon (Language warning)

Youtube Video

Oh, and if we do Nationalize health care, can we nationalize the legal system next? I bet the Bar association would REALLY go for THAT. *grin*

431 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:40:42pm

re: #427 BruceKelly

No Cost?! Are you kidding me!? You don’t have a job do you? You don’t pay state, sales or federal income and payroll taxes? Check the fine print on the gas pump next time you fill up your car. Hell, corporate taxes are passed on to you in the form of higher costs for the goods and services those corporations provide. You pay.

I’m flabbergasted… excuse me, my beverage needs a refresh.

Read the follow ups - there was a clarification - they are services they provide and I struck the little/no comment.

432 emcesq  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:40:42pm

re: #417 Olsonist

Then you must be a tax cheat!

433 wee fury  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:40:58pm

Tort reform would be a good thing.

434 Kewalo  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:41:04pm

re: #406 cliffster

You are missing the point. Any funding of SS is in the form of borrowed money.

Maybe you think so but I worked for over 40 years and payed into the fund all those years. And I assume that is true for most people.

If there is any money that has been “borrowed” it is from the SS trustfund by the government. They pay interest on the money they borrow. And as far as I’m concerned, it’s partly my money, and partly everyone else’s too. Actually, I think you missed the point.

435 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:41:46pm

re: #428 Dark_Falcon

Great discussion, but I have to pack it in. A co-worker asked me to switch shift with him tomorrow so i have to be at work by 8:30AM again. I’ll be back tomorrow evening.

Night DF, always a pleasure.

It’s nice how very many different opinions we all have here, and yet it’s been a discussion that avoided acrimony. Always very cool and rare to see on the Intrawebs.

436 rurality  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:42:05pm

re: #420 iceweasel

Have you ever wondered what wingnuts find funny?

437 wee fury  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:42:16pm

The ability to purchase Insurance across State lines would be a good thing.

438 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:42:47pm

re: #435 iceweasel

Night DF, always a pleasure.

It’s nice how very many different opinions we all have here, and yet it’s been a discussion that avoided acrimony. Always very cool and rare to see on the Intrawebs.

I’ve never been married so I don’t have to be worried about acrimony.

439 rurality  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:43:18pm

See you in the movies.

440 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:43:29pm

re: #422 Kewalo

of course they will pay the debt back - why do you think they are so scared of deflation. They will pay it back with debased dollars.. Their own CPI website model thingies show you how a slice of pizza in 1965 at 25 cents is now $2.50

you must be a pretty good speculator to keep ahead of that curve.
The working stiffs are the worst hit.

441 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:44:10pm

re: #430 Mauser

Oh, and if we do Nationalize health care, can we nationalize the legal system next?

Sure, on the 13th of Never, since the health care system will be nationalised on the 12th of Never.

None of the existing proposals will ‘nationalise’ healthcare.

442 borgcube  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:44:11pm

re: #375 Olsonist

Details please because I’ve done quite well by the government. With the exception of grading papers in college, I’ve had a career exclusively in industry and done quite well, thank you. But I was educated at public high schools and at Cal. I’ve used public infrastructure which is sadly slipping quite a bit. Frankly, I think I’ve gotten a deal.

I wouldn’t mind a tax increase in CA but as a new home owner here I’m at the tail end of the Ponzi Scheme known as Prop 13. I just want fair taxes and good services. Not asking much.

Gee, where to start. I’m here in San Diego. We have built a grand total of 8% more freeway lanes since 1980 and the population has almost doubled in that time. You want to pay more, send the Franchise Tax Board an extra check. Be my guest. I just had to pay property taxes last week. Suffice to say that I pay what the average resident in this county earns in a year. That’s just property tax, not federal/state/payroll/Workman’s comp[/etc/etc/etc that I also fork over in huge amounts. Oh, and I’m still waiting for the big fucking THANK YOU card from the government I should be getting for playing unpaid tax collector for the bureaucracies.

Not good enough? OK. I really love the extra 8K in Mello Roos I pay in addition to my assessed values of property for the Poway School system. How quaint, especially since my wife and I never had children. And yet I’m treated to never ending stories of no chalk in the classroom and other fucking bullshit by parents/teachers/kids coming to my door asking for even more. Hmmm, they just built a brand new high school near me for 114 MILLION dollars and now have to advertise with signs everywhere begging parents to enroll their kids there because they can’t even fill the classrooms at 50% capacity.

I grew up in this same county and back in 1974, the brand new high school I attended cost 4.8 million dollars with almost 2000 kids attending the day it opened. Now, I don’t know how you want to slice and dice 4.8 million 1974 dollars into 2009 dollars…but it doesn’t come fucking close to 114 million. And my high school didn’t have a computer at every desk and God knows what other foo foo shit this new palace has inside. Oh, and we always had chalk too. Like I said, where to start.

443 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:44:11pm

re: #430 Mauser

Oh, and if we do Nationalize health care, can we nationalize the legal system next? I bet the Bar association would REALLY go for THAT. *grin*

Isn’t our legal system already a semi-nationalized system? You have courts provided by the government, prosecutors, judges & public defenders for criminal proceedings however, if you have the resources, you can hire private legal counsel and private arbitrators as well. Frankly, it’s potentially a very good example of health care could work.

444 Kewalo  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:44:55pm

re: #416 rurality

Phew! As you probably know I’m a newbie. And I was really wondering if I was missing some inside joke. It’s taking me awhile to get in tune with the humor around here. Please don’t get me wrong, it cracks me up, but the culture here is well….damn I don’t know….different?

445 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:45:06pm

re: #381 Cineaste

Please, show me some of the math used to calculate the “little or no cost” for these services.

446 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:45:13pm

re: #436 rurality

Have you ever wondered what wingnuts find funny?

Yes.

Then I saw the Fox News Hour HalfHour (or whatever it was called).

Still wondering.

447 wee fury  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:45:26pm

I’m going to take my multi-vitamin and go to bed now — so that I stay healthy.

448 Bagua  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:45:42pm

re: #429 sagehen

Funny how nobody ever complains about socialized firefighting, or socialized police forces. And nobody considers it money down the drain if they didn’t need to call on the services this year; we call that a good year and hope to have another one next year. It’s a happy happy life that never needs a cop or a firefighter ever, and it’s money well spent just to know they would be there if we did need them.

The federal government does have a role, the military is one example, but most of the police and fire fighters operate at a local level, and less so at a state level.

449 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:45:43pm

re: #401 Olsonist

Freedom ain’t free. I heard that somewhere.

Costs a buck o’ five.

450 BruceKelly  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:45:43pm

re: #390 Basho

I’m curious. When exactly was it spent?

There is no separate fund for social security. All money taken in by the government goes into one coffer. Government deficits mean that, not only is the money spent, but the government has borrowed future income (taxes and social security) to pay for current expenditures.

451 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:47:12pm

re: #436 rurality

Have you ever wondered what wingnuts find funny?

Red Line?

/*cough, cough, gasp*/

452 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:48:05pm

Isn’t Democracy a lovely thing?
Take all of these opinions, throw them into a room, and let the best bill, standing, emerge. Seriously, THIS is why we vote on our elected officials.
We give them this kind of power, over our lives.
THINK ABOUT IT, WHEN YOU VOTE!

453 Kewalo  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:48:28pm

re: #418 JasonA

OMG! Just what I’d need Time3

454 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:49:03pm

re: #450 BruceKelly

Its shocking to me that people believe SS works.

thats what gov’t education gets us I guess.
No math skills, reading comprehension or critical thinking.

455 bosforus  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:49:11pm

Was lurking most of the night. Good discussion. Take care, y’all.

456 Dancing along the light of day  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:50:51pm

Good night, dear lizards.
Please, do think upon these issues.
Oh, and that special hot rock, in the south sun, it’s mine.
Fuggetaboutit!
LOL!

Stay wel, stay scaly!

457 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:51:01pm

re: #451 Cineaste

Red Line?

/*cough, cough, gasp*/

Judging by the frequency with which their defenders cry “It was only a joke”, …..I guess Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh?

Also, Instapundit and PJTV apparently think Gitmo is funny.

[Link: instaputz.blogspot.com…]

Ha. Ha.

458 iheartbolton  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:51:16pm

re: #455 bosforus

me too
g’nite

459 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:51:34pm

re: #454 iheartbolton

Its shocking to me that people believe SS works.

thats what gov’t education gets us I guess.
No math skills, reading comprehension or critical thinking.

Think how much better it would be if people who couldn’t afford schools put their children to work in coal mines at the age of six, and when people got old and poor, they just froze to death in doorways.

Wait. We used to have that, din’t we? Goddamn liberals screwed it all up.

//

460 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:51:45pm

re: #454 iheartbolton

Its shocking to me that people believe SS works.

thats what gov’t education gets us I guess.
No math skills, reading comprehension or critical thinking.

Frankly Social Security is WAY more socialist than public health care. We put money into a pot and send it to people who succeed at becoming old.

Also remember, when it was instated, the average lifespan was roughly equivalent to the age at which SS kicked in. So it was only meant to provide for 1/2 the aging population. Not so anymore and we won’t even consider raising the retirement age by 12 months.

461 BruceKelly  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:52:17pm

re: #391 rurality

re: #379 BruceKelly

Foul language and middle fingers might work better for conservatives than liberals. That kind of response further gilded our baby killing, drug snuffling, commie loving image.

That’s where the”firm foundation of core beliefs” comes in. You’ve got to be willing to take the heat for what you believe in.

I think you overstate your problems. Most Americans are pro-choice. More people, including conservatives, are for legalizing pot than you may think.

You own the commie loving part though. :)

462 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:52:17pm

re: #459 SanFranciscoZionist

Think how much better it would be if people who couldn’t afford schools put their children to work in coal mines at the age of six, and when people got old and poor, they just froze to death in doorways.

Wait. We used to have that, din’t we? Goddamn liberals screwed it all up.

//

Where’s my coal mine? I demand to stink of the lamp!

463 BruceKelly  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:54:43pm

re: #396 SanFranciscoZionist

Or, just like the idea of people walkin’ around with third arms growin’ out of their torsos at odd angles.

Crack me up… Ya’ know, that would be something to see…

464 Kewalo  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:55:06pm

re: #446 iceweasel

Yes.

Then I saw the Fox News Hour HalfHour (or whatever it was called).

Still wondering.

You mean “Red Eye” doesn’t crack you up?

465 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:56:29pm

re: #461 BruceKelly

Reasonable conservatives (and of course libertarians) may be for legalizing pot (PJ O’Rourke!) but the tribalism kicks in when the religious right gets involved, and the platform of the GOP will continue to be to oppose it, because it’s what a large portion of their base wants.

466 Kewalo  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 10:57:56pm

re: #450 BruceKelly


While this is true, the SS administration keeps track of the monies they take in and what has been borrowed from the government.

467 Olsonist  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:00:49pm

re: #442 borgcube

Gee, where to start. I’m here in San Diego. We have built a grand total of 8% more freeway lanes since 1980 and the population has almost doubled in that time. You want to pay more, send the Franchise Tax Board an extra check. Be my guest.

Thanks I just bought a house so my assessment is locked in to those low low 2009 rates, thank you.

I just had to pay property taxes last week. Suffice to say that I pay what the average resident in this county earns in a year. That’s just property tax, not federal/state/payroll/Workman’s comp[/etc/etc/etc that I also fork over in huge amounts. Oh, and I’m still waiting for the big fucking THANK YOU card from the government I should be getting for playing unpaid tax collector for the bureaucracies.

Let’s see. You’re probably a completely self made John Galt, no? And neither you nor your company use any government services (except those damn freeways), no?

Not good enough? OK. I really love the extra 8K in Mello Roos I pay in addition to my assessed values of property for the Poway School system. How quaint, especially since my wife and I never had children.

Enough with the Get Off My Lawn schtick. Who paid for your education?

I grew up in this same county and back in 1974, the brand new high school I attended cost 4.8 million dollars with almost 2000 kids attending the day it opened. Now, I don’t know how you want to slice and dice 4.8 million 1974 dollars into 2009 dollars…but it doesn’t come fucking close to 114 million. And my high school didn’t have a computer at every desk and God knows what other foo foo shit this new palace has inside. Oh, and we always had chalk too. Like I said, where to start.

I’m with you there but the world has changed. Unfortunately, Luddites don’t get jobs.

468 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:01:01pm

re: #464 Kewalo

You mean “Red Eye” doesn’t crack you up?

Heh. Oh, the humanity!

Wingnut Humor, explained: (this is pandagon in the context of ‘jokes’ about Obama’s term ending early)
Wingnuts approximate “clever” while threatening the President

I think they engage in these codes not because they’re effective protection or because they’re funny, but because they get a rise out of approximating what they think being clever might feel like. These codes may not be clever, but they feel clever to people who aren’t really used to exercising their brain cells. To understand these threats, your brain needs to take two admittedly tiny steps, but those are two more steps than these assholes are used to putting their brains through, so it feels like what they imagine it must feel like to be one of those people who are actually clever and use their brains all the time. These non-jokes also function as jargon, language that only the insiders of the wingnut tribe use, which helps create a group identity, the people Sarah Palin likes to call “Real Americans”. Which is dangerous, because we know how very little they’re willing to believe that outsiders are real people.

469 Kewalo  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:01:19pm

re: #454 iheartbolton

Its shocking to me that people believe SS works.

thats what gov’t education gets us I guess.
No math skills, reading comprehension or critical thinking.

Do you know someone that isn’t receiving their check? Maybe I’m crazy but millions of retired people all get their money the 3rd of the month and they have a 3% admin costs. Isn’t that working? So why don’t you use your superior mental skills and explain why it isn’t working?

470 generalsparky  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:01:24pm

re: #465 WindUpBird

Reasonable conservatives (and of course libertarians) may be for legalizing pot (PJ O’Rourke!) but the tribalism kicks in when the religious right gets involved, and the platform of the GOP will continue to be to oppose it, because it’s what a large portion of their base wants.


I am definitely part of the religious right and I believe that pot should be legalized. So there are exceptions :-)

471 Gus  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:01:29pm

re: #454 iheartbolton

Its shocking to me that people believe SS works.

thats what gov’t education gets us I guess.
No math skills, reading comprehension or critical thinking.

Youtube Video
472 lostlakehiker  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:03:53pm

re: #38 beekiller

I’m not happy with the current bill but like Ice said, its better than nothing. It will be decades before another administration will take on health reform again.

Actually, it’s WORSE than nothing.

473 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:04:39pm

re: #454 iheartbolton

Its shocking to me that people believe SS works.

thats what gov’t education gets us I guess.
No math skills, reading comprehension or critical thinking.

With your broken english, you’re lecturing us on education? I went to public school, and I wager I can speak, read and write circles around you. Probably math too, I made it to calculus in jr. high, had Pascal and C++ programming classes in high school, had vocation art classes in GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL that were really amazing. All that government education prepared me for a pretty sweet career in game development. But you know, it’s GUBMENT EDJACATION.

Whenever you want to stop using ridiculous mouth-breathing bumper sticker rhetoric, you let me know. People want to know why I show contempt on LGF? Here you go! Exhibit A!

474 Clemente  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:05:20pm

re: #464 Kewalo

You mean “Red Eye” doesn’t crack you up?

Ever since his regrettable appearance on Fox, I’ve thought Beck’s dismal tantrums should commandeer the “Red Eye” title, based purely on narrative character.

475 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:07:16pm

re: #442 borgcube

That foo foo computer shit gave me a career, dude. A career that is thriving in this economy, I may add.

If you’re paying more in property tax that a resident of San Diego earns in a year, I have a REAL hard time feeling sorry for you.

476 Kewalo  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:07:24pm

re: #468 iceweasel

That’s wonderful! I hope you don’t mind if I share it.

BTW have a wonderful wedding and marriage. :~)

477 BruceKelly  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:07:34pm

re: #431 Cineaste

Roger that. Thanks for setting me up for a good rant. I appreciate it.

/NO sarc

478 cliffster  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:08:14pm

[Link: www.usdebtclock.org…]

479 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:08:33pm

re: #471 Gus 802

…would that be IceWeasel’s voice?

480 Gus  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:08:57pm

re: #479 JasonA

…would that be IceWeasel’s voice?

Don’t know.

Ice?

481 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:10:10pm

OK. I have got to get to sleep. Tomorrow, the teachers get free breakfast! And then I get to grade a stack of essays comparing “Scarlet Ibis” to “Raymond’s Run”.

Note: In order to get a good grade on an essay from Mrs. SFZ, it is smart to NOT title the essay “My Essay”, or “Essay Assignment” or “Comparison Essay”.

482 BruceKelly  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:10:19pm

re: #435 iceweasel

It’s nice how very many different opinions we all have here, and yet it’s been a discussion that avoided acrimony. Always very cool and rare to see on the Intrawebs.

ditto

483 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:10:34pm

re: #409 iceweasel

No. The “richest country in the world’ has a disproportionate number of people without healthcare, while countries that aren’t nearly as rich are providing health care to their citizens. Americans are currently paying more and getting less.
It’s as simple as that.

I’m getting quite tired of this GOP bumper sticker rhetoric. It’s starting to give me heartburn. That dude LITERALLY told me that I “didn’t understand abstraction” after I called him on it. I laughed out loud at the screen.

484 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:10:36pm

re: #480 Gus 802

Follow it to youtube and you see it comes from “JimmahIceProductions”

Mah critical thinking skillz at werk.

485 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:10:59pm

re: #477 BruceKelly

Roger that. Thanks for setting me up for a good rant. I appreciate it.

/NO sarc

No worries - it came out wrong - PIMF. I meant that they were not charged to you on a per-usage basis, as health care is. of course they cost a huge amount but many of them are systems we enjoy and find successful. If we replace “health care” in the phrase:

“Government run health care would be a fiasco and would lead to rationing”

With any of those other services it sounds bizarre. I was extending my previous enquiry about why we are fine with government run fire departments but government run health care is anathema.

486 Kewalo  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:11:33pm

I have to go…I’ve had a wonderful time tonight. Thank you all very much!

Charles, if you see this, thanks for such a good, smart blog. But I’m afraid it’ll be the death of me if I stay up this late every night.

487 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:11:40pm

re: #481 SanFranciscoZionist

Is that “Government run” breakfast?///

Enjoy - sleep well…

488 Gus  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:11:51pm

re: #484 JasonA

Follow it to youtube and you see it comes from “JimmahIceProductions”

Mah critical thinking skillz at werk.

Right. I know that Jimmah made the video.

489 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:12:51pm

re: #480 Gus 802

Don’t know.

Ice?

Yep! That’s me doing the voiceover on all the butthurt vids.

Youtube Video

Jimmah and I are trying to do a vid about the shrieking harpy aka Pam Geller in the next couple of days, FYI. If anyone has any exceptionally embarassing pics of her, let me know and we’ll give you credits in the new vid!

490 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:12:55pm

re: #487 Cineaste

Is that “Government run” breakfast?///

Enjoy - sleep well…

Private, faith-based breakfast!
Good night.

491 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:14:03pm

re: #489 iceweasel

“The wingularity has been breached.”

Effin brilliant.

492 BruceKelly  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:14:16pm

re: #444 Kewalo

Phew! As you probably know I’m a newbie. And I was really wondering if I was missing some inside joke. It’s taking me awhile to get in tune with the humor around here. Please don’t get me wrong, it cracks me up, but the culture here is well…damn I don’t know…different?

You’re catching on pretty fast assgropper. :)

493 Cineaste  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:15:05pm

Alrighty people- I’m off to finish a couple things and get in bed. ‘Night all…

494 Four More Tears  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:16:19pm

re: #489 iceweasel

How about this one? Heh.

495 BruceKelly  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:16:59pm

re: #446 iceweasel

Yes.

Then I saw the Fox News Hour HalfHour (or whatever it was called).

Still wondering.

Man that was a sad program. Red Eye is pretty good, and you can watch it on Hulu. That way you won’t be contributing to Fox’s already massive Nielsen ratings.

496 iceweasel  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:26:00pm

re: #491 JasonA

“The wingularity has been breached.”

Effin brilliant.

Heh. Cheers! I wrote the scripts for our videos but the term “wingularity” was coined by a commenter at Balloon Juice:

This punchy term nicely captures the way that rightwing argumentation has become gradually detached from independently recognized reality and into a state of total unselfawareness. The pace of change is also accelerating. Just weeks before the election I never could guess that wingnuts would organize nationally around an act that they call teabagging. Imagine being the traveler from the future of three months hence trying to convince Americans of our semantically awkward future. How would you even start?

Thanks to the magic of talk radio and the internet, these guys can talk to no-one but each other for extremely long stretches of time, so they have no idea how crazy they sound. The time could come in the very near future when it becomes totally impossible for any ordinary person to have any idea what they are talking about. They will be beyond ordinary logic, beyond spoof. The wingularity will have arrived.

John Cole did feature our ‘massive butthurt’ vid when he blogged about the Nobel, which was cool.
[Link: www.balloon-juice.com…]

re: #494 JasonA

How about this one? Heh.

Hmmm, maybe we can work that in somehow, but I don’t want to give the impression LGF likes her. A lot of people in the left blogosphere even now don’t really know what LGF is about and don’t know that Charles called her out two years ago for her fascist associations. (and general loony-ness).

I have quite a few other pics of her so far though, hee.

497 Summer Seale  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:31:05pm

I just want some sort of civilized westernized government health plan for those who need it at the very least.

Having been abroad many times, I (and almost everyone else I’ve met in other westernized countries) really don’t understand how the U.S. doesn’t join the rest of the civilized world in this particular point.

It isn’t about “growing government” or any other bullshit talking point being thrown out there. It’s just about taking care of people in general in your frigging society. It’s about being humane, for heaven’s sake.

I don’t see the problem with paying for some basic services in life: police, protection from fire, decent roads, defense, and health. What’s the big deal?

Just on that level alone, this “debate” infuriates me.

It’s like suddenly the entire Republican party wants to go back to the days of self-sufficient caravans crossing over from East to West as if that were the ultimate goal of our society: to be self-sufficient in the extreme.

It’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. That’s being “conservative” to the point where you want to conserve traditions from the cave man era.

Little clue to “conservatives”: people back then depended on each other in their towns and communities just as much as we depend on “big government” today. That was their “big government”. Being mayor of a town meant you were there to take care of lots of people because you were the closest “government” around.

And another little clue: people also fucking died a hell of a lot faster back then as well. They didn’t have protection, they didn’t have health care, they didn’t have safety measures. They died at the ripe old age of forty years old, or fifty, because life, quite frankly, was really…really hard.

Why nobody is mentioning this about the “grand old days” of “less government” is beyond me. It’s the bloody truth and we all know it is, unless we’re deluded into thinking that Little House on the Prairie was some sort of idyllic reality which we all want to somehow return to.

Not me. I live in today’s world. Sometimes I make compromises for the general safety and well being not only of my own self, but of the people around me that I should care about.

We’re a society, damnit.

That’s why I’m for government health care options.

498 Olsonist  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:32:48pm

re: #497 Summer

I’d upding you but I’m new in these parts.

499 Bagua  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:42:22pm

Red House

MP3 Audio


-Jimi - Live at the Royal Albert Hall
500 political lunatic  Tue, Dec 15, 2009 11:52:31pm

Gotta love how that librul MSM shows us real stories every day about how our current system screws over many Americans, huh? Who in the MSM is talking about the poor murderersinsurance company CEOs? Who’s gonna pay for their trips around the world and fancy cars when we have our scary socialist-communist-fascist-Marxist government takeover of healthcare? ///

501 Bob Levin  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 12:03:57am

I’ve already had quite a few conversations about this with people who range from small business owners, to doctors, to folks who are young and quite ill, covering the range of the political spectrum.

Everyone agrees something is wrong with the system. The question gets down to whether or not a 2000 page document can solve the problem. One person felt that Medicare should be extended to everyone. Okay, 10 pages at the most. Another felt that the ability to buy health insurance across state lines would lower the cost. Again, 10 pages. Someone else said that given the specific laws of the different states, that idea wouldn’t work. His idea was that health insurance should be treated like a public utility, each state having a commission to oversee fairness and affordability. That’s 10 pages too.

2000 pages—the outcomes will not go as is hoped. This means another large bureaucracy, layers of people who have to interpret rules that no doubt will contradict each other, an army of lawyers specializing in this legislation for hire to argue that benefits do in fact cover so and so, and in the end, possibly a shortage of doctors—because it just won’t be worth the hassle of going to medical school to graduate and deal with this new bureau. And if you get a shortage of doctors you can’t write a bill that makes everyone healthy.

I would be curious to know the length of the original Medicare legislation. I know that this has worked well. People know this system, they are familiar with the rules, and each doctor’s office already has someone there who knows how to negotiate through the system to make sure care is delivered.

502 iceweasel  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 12:22:09am

The old wingnut meme: Where’s the legislation? It radically undersimplifies the problems! It’s not complex enough!

New wingnut meme: The legislation is too complex! 2000 pages is too much!

503 Bob Levin  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 12:32:59am

re: #502 iceweasel

Let me put it another way, and then you can pigeonhole this however you wish.

I was involved in a serious accident this summer. I went to the doctor, who said surgery needed to be performed within the next few days. She scheduled the surgery quickly, performed it just as quickly, and everything is fine.

For me, and quite a few others, this speed is crucial, as much, if not more so, than cost. I am very leery of anything that could get in the way of that speed.

Look in the mirror if you don’t like memes. Because there is a meme going around that simply dismisses people and their needs by claiming their beliefs are nothing more than memes.

504 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 12:47:04am

re: #29 Charles

No, Reagan was not right about Medicare — he was actually completely wrong. Medicare has been a huge success, and it’s pretty easy to find evidence of this.

Didn’t the President just sign an executive order targeting the identification and elimination of Medicare fraud and waste? I believe the estimates were on the order of $40 billion per year, although many thought this would be revised upward to $60 billion in short order. That’s around 10% of outlays - not an insurmountable problem, perhaps, but not what I would call a success.

And the government itself isn’t at all sanguine about Medicare’s prospects, according to their annual report. It sounds as though the system is already in serious trouble, and that things will rapidly get worse.

My own experience with Medicare, when caring for my grandparents, was, to put it bluntly, nightmarish. The sort of thing that would inspire Kafka. Endless forms, endless layers of uncaring and abrasive bureaucracy, constraints and limitations and restrictions that are so incomprehensible that even the experts employed by the various medical facilities we used were mostly unable to untangle coverage. Lost forms. Delays cause by resubmittal. Denial, in one case, because we resubmitted a claim and the original claim was subsequently found, forcing that entire process back to square one. In short, not at all pleasant, and far, far worse than any experience I’ve ever had with private health insurance claims. My impression was that they were trying to kill their recipients with stress in order to reduce costs.

More on this topic in a bit, but the commute beckons.

505 axegrinder  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 12:49:50am

For me it’s more about the cost. I’m struggling enough since the recession I don’t really need more taxes. The idea that this is going to save anyone money on their insurance simply doesn’t make any sense. Rates will go up even more for those of us that actually PAY for their insurance. The only people getting a bonus are the same people that never pay taxes anyway. It’s more distribution of wealth. That’s the way I see it anyway. The fact all this money has to go to the Federal Government first before it gets sent out to ‘wherever’ also bothers me. I guess if I was a Federal Employee I’d feel differently. Since I’m not I feel I’m getting the end of the stick with no grease. Again.

506 Bob Levin  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 1:05:29am

The last two comments sum everything up quite well. We need a streamlined system where plenty of kids end up choosing to become doctors, and we need easy access to care. And it needs to be affordable.

Is this bill one that would give us that system? I don’t know. And I haven’t heard from anyone who does know. I mentioned three clear options that could work, some better than others. I don’t know what this bill is. Someone tell me what the healthcare system will look like if this bill passes.

It’s not about humanitarian ideals. This is about real people getting sick, getting proper diagnosis, getting proper treatment when they need it, and being able to afford it.

507 Mauser  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 1:24:58am

Hell, for those of us who don’t even USE our insurance (I didn’t really when I had it) they could solve the “OMG! People get bankrupted by a serious illness” if they just made it possible to buy Catastrophic Only policies. I’m sure part of the reason Charles’ insurance in CA is so expensive is that it has coverage for things he’d never even consider doing (Gender Reassignment surgery? God I hope not!).

Insurance should be Insurance, not Extended Warranty coverage.

508 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 3:22:45am

re: #507 Mauser

Private insurance in Oregon for independent contractors, just as expensive as California, doesn’t cover gender reassignment surgery.

Nobody considers breaking a leg.

Nobody considers getting cancer.

Nobody considers being on anti-depressants.

Nobody considers a head injury.

Nobody considers pregnancy complications.

509 researchok  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 3:36:36am

Suppose you need a hammer. You go into a big box store or hardware store and buy a hammer. You make sure not to overpay.

If you have a job that requires you use a hammer, more often than not you tell your boss you need a hammer and he makes sure you have a hammer. Chances are he will buy that hammer at a big box store or hardware store at a fair price.

If a government worker needs a hammer, he too tells his boss he needs a hammer. His boss of course tell his boss and so on and so on. There is a whole layer of oversight and management who have no idea what that hammer will used for. Government is notoriously inefficient. Government has a long track record of over paying and mismanaging assets and programs.

Why would anyone presume government run health care be more efficient?

Almost every single government run health care program anywhere is an example of waste, inefficiency and diminished care. The few government run programs that provide outstanding health care are in nations that have oppressive tax rates- so much so that those nations are experiencing a brain drain as young motivated people leave for the US and elsewhere for better opportunities. The tax rate in France for example, is such that many successful entrepreneurs eschew growth or further investment because with that growth comes onerous tax and employment rule- and France isn’t one of those countries that provide terrific health care.

In Britain, the NHS has grown to be the world’s second largest employer in the world after India Rail. The vast majority of NHS employers do not provide health services. They are ‘management’. It is a fact that the NHS has been a disaster. There is a reason that a huge number of Brits ‘opt out’ and prefer to pay for private insurance.

Canada has until recently been on the ‘North Korea plan’, a single payer system that made private health care illegal. It took a Supreme Court decision to allow citizens to seek private care in their own country. The stories of Canadians crossing into this country to seek life saving health care are legion.

The most curious thing about the proposed health care bill is how no one now is talking about competition and allowing companies to compete across state lines.

The only proven way to reduce health care costs is to encourage competition by posting actual health care costs and by allowing for competition

Certain medical devices, elective surgery and other procedures have all come down in cost because the health care consumer can shop in a competitive environment. Cosmetic surgeries, certain restorative eyesight surgeries, for example, have all come down in cost because patients can shop around locally or even cross state lines.

How come no one is talking about these things? Further, since we are stepping into the unknown, why not phase in health care? We could start with prenatal to age 12 and 65 and up. Why rush the whole package? How about we date health care reform before we commit to ‘till death do us part’?

510 stayfrosty  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 4:03:57am

The problem is, Charles, you won’t save any money. The most recent estimates from the Obama Administration’s own HHS show costs will rise faster under this bill:

The Associated Press: US health care tab to keep growing under overhaul:

A new report from government economic analysts at the Health and Human Services Department found that the nation’s $2.5 trillion annual health care tab won’t shrink under the Democratic blueprint that senators are debating. Instead, it would grow somewhat more rapidly than if Congress does nothing.

And the idea of a “Medicare buy-in” is a disaster in the making, as a great number of hospitals and doctors already lose money for each Medicare patient they see, which results in cost shifting to those with private plans. Add 30 million people to the Medicare rolls, and you’re very likely to see your private premiums rise faster as a consequence.

Not only that, you’re likely to see a number of hospitals go bankrupt and more and more unfunded liabilities added to the $38 trillion in unfunded liabilities Medicare already has. Mayo Clinic, which has been lauded by Democrats in the past, is firmly against the idea:

Mayo Clinic: Medicare Expansion Won’t Get Us There:

Mayo Clinic alone lost $840 million last year under Medicare. As a result of these types of losses, a growing number of providers have begun to limit the number of Medicare patients in their practices. Despite these provider losses, Medicare has not curbed overall spending, especially after adjusting for benefits covered and the cost shift from Medicare to private insurance. This is clearly an unsustainable model, and one that would be disastrous for our nation’s hospitals, doctors and eventually our patients if expanded to even more beneficiaries.

The same HHS report mentioned above shows this to be likely, as well as the fact that the current bill will still leave 24 million uninsured.

Reuters: U.S. agency sees more health spending with reform:

The report said about 57 million people would be without health insurance in 2019 under current laws. The number would be reduced by 24 million if the Senate bill is enacted, it said.

The report… went on to say the added demand for health services at first may be difficult to meet and could lead to price increases and a reluctance by providers to treat patients with low-reimbursement health coverage.

On top of all that, the only reason Democrats have been able to claim their bill is budget neutral—in addition to the fact that spending is set to begin only during the last 6 years of the CBO’s 10 year budget window, pushing 40% of the cost off the books—is because they are basing their cost projections on an estimated roughly $500 billion in cuts to Medicare, something the same HHS report says is probably “unrealistic”.

In other words, your premiums will go up any way you slice it, the government will go further in debt (and faster), and 24 million people will still be without coverage under the current bill. So, what was the whole point of the whole thing in the first place?

I’m reminded of my 86-year old WWII vet grandfather, who won’t vote GOP because he thinks “they’re gonna take away my Social Security.” Now, which party would benefit from everyone being likewise dependent on the government?

511 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 4:08:09am

Charles,

If you haven’t heard it already, take a half-hour to listen to This American Life’s episode Other People’s Money, which goes over the history of American health care, why we have the employer-based system we have today, how insurance acts to increase costs - and how insurance companies have found ways to counteract this problem - and other interesting insights on why things are the way they are now.

My objections to this thread’s article are based more in a Conservative grounding, so maybe it’s not appropriate to address an article aimed at convincing liberals to support the current Senate bill. But…

When it comes to how the subsidies and savings are going to be realized, Silver does a bit of hand-waving and dumps responsibility for that money on corporations and “the rich.” He never actually defines what “rich” means, always a worry when taxes are going to be based on the definition, and when numbers as low as $100k per year are sometimes batted around. Is it really the rich who will be taxed? Or will it be the middle class? The rich certainly have a lot of money - that’s why they’re rich - but there aren’t that many of the truly rich. And a good deal of their actual wealth is invested in ways that benefit others through job creation, charity and so forth. Little of it qualifies as income, in any case, raising the spectre of taxes being levied on money that’s simply sitting around currently unused - like in millions of 401k accounts. Without dipping the tax ladle down into the middle class, I have trouble seeing how the rich are legion enough to make this work.

Getting money out of corporations, meanwhile, essentially means that the corporation’s customers will wind up paying more. It’s a truism that corporations don’t actually pay taxes, they simply pass them along.

Either way, the issue of how to fund this program and it’s actual impact on the average taxpayer remains murky, at best.

No one who’s been paying attention to medical costs would disagree with the high rate of inflation the field exhibits. Frankly, I thought it was more like 10% per annum rather than the 7.8% Silver cites. In any case, it’s much, much higher than inflation as a whole. The question is: why?

The largest problem I see - and one that is not addressed by any legislation I’ve run across to date - is that medical costs are effectively hidden from the market players who would otherwise bring market forces to bear to keep them under control - the patients, whose out of pocket expenses are small and often don’t reflect even the relative cost of services; the doctors, who likewise are rarely confronted with patients demanding to know why Service X is so expensive and where they can get it done cheaper; and insurance companies, which do apply some pressure to control costs but in the end can simply pass costs along to their large pools of clients, where even a large increase for procedures is diluted among many, many people who will never have that particular service performed. It’s hard to imagine a better environment for cost escalation; there are almost no pressures opposing it.

A case in point, explored in the radio segment above, is prescription drug costs. Not so long ago, prescription costs were eating insurance companies alive, spiralling out of control when most policies paid all but a very small, fixed fee for any prescription, no matter what the actual cost was. It didn’t matter to the consumer whether a drug cost $10 or $800; their out of pocket expenses were the same no matter what, maybe $5 per prescription.

So insurance companies rejiggered their copay systems, and made the copays mildly dependent on the cost of the drugs in question when there were alternative, generic substitutes available. Now, a generic version of a drug that cost $50 might cost the consumer a $5 copay, while a proprietary version that cost $600 would cost the consumer more - maybe $25.

(continued)

512 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 4:24:09am

(Part 2)

The effect was tremendous. In just a few years, over half of all prescriptions shifted to generic versions, as consumers were exposed to this proxy pricing. It didn’t reflect the actual cost, but it reflected it enough to influence the consumer’s decision on which drugs to choose, and most chose the cheaper one. Of the remainder, perhaps they didn’t care, or perhaps the more expensive alternatives actually worked better - generics are not identical to their proprietary counterparts, and some patients respond differently. The alarming inflation rate for prescription drugs slowed dramatically.

The drug companies figured out what was happening, and in an effort to restore the invisibility of their actual prices to consumers, they responded by offering coupons for their proprietary versions of drugs, in the amount of the copay. So their drugs, with the coupon, were once again no different in price, or even a little cheaper than their generic equivalents.

Here, TAL and I part ways somewhat. They present this renewed opacity as a driver behind costs that are once again on the increase. My take is that it’s a discount - from the consumer’s perspective. The drug companies have effectively had to lower the price of their product to consumers. Now, the insurance companies are not getting any benefit out of this; they’re still on the hook for the full amount of the drug. But it illustrates that these markets are susceptible to traditional market forces if a way can be found to allow them to work.

How to extend such a successful model to the medical system as a whole may not be so clear, although in many cases it would be simple. And how to prevent both insurance companies and health care and product providers from gaming the system also needs some attention, as illustrated.

On a separate note: we already have a system that insures roughly 85% of the population, which implies that a 15% increase in premiums would provide sufficient funds to cover the remainder. Less of an increase would be required in real life, because according to just about everyone, a large portion of the uninsured consists of young, healthy people who have little impact in the way of costs on the system, reducing the actual cost their addition would entail.

513 soccerdad  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 4:26:56am

re: #4 Killgore Trout

Just because your boss government is sending in the checks doesn’t mean the money isn’t coming out of your pocket.

Nice post Kilgore — I ‘enhanced’ it for you. Do not allow this government monster to get the ‘fuel’ it needs to grow beyond our wildest imaginations.

514 soccerdad  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 4:31:06am

re: #512 SixDegrees

DAMN! SixDegrees, that was an AWESOME post — thanks

515 ulmsey123  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 4:35:32am

We need to address why the costs are so high rather than play a shell game as to where the money comes from to pay the bills. I live in NJ (pity me) and we are SLAMMED with taxes. Business and people are fleeing the state. To subsidize health insurance requires more taxation. What good is lower premiums if I lose my job and my house and cannot provide for my family?
Government has its greedy tentacles wrapped around the health care industry already. They are part of the problem. It’s like getting hit repeatedly on top of the head and the person hitting you offers help in the form of a helmet that will cushion the blows. For a fee, of course.

516 stayfrosty  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 4:35:38am

re: #511 SixDegrees

I’m a new user with less than 50 posts so I can’t up-ding you; but just so you know, I would if I could.

517 stayfrosty  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 4:37:08am

re: #515 ulmsey123

We need to address why the costs are so high rather than play a shell game as to where the money comes from to pay the bills. I live in NJ (pity me) and we are SLAMMED with taxes. Business and people are fleeing the state. To subsidize health insurance requires more taxation. What good is lower premiums if I lose my job and my house and cannot provide for my family?
Government has its greedy tentacles wrapped around the health care industry already. They are part of the problem. It’s like getting hit repeatedly on top of the head and the person hitting you offers help in the form of a helmet that will cushion the blows. For a fee, of course.

Well you guys already helped yourselves immensely by throwing that idiot Corzine out.

518 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 4:51:22am

i’d like a Public Option included in the bill - but if with this the coverage gap can be mostly closed and premiums will be brought down then the rest can be solved later.

519 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 5:10:33am

re: #39 NJDhockeyfan

Pain for some small firms - yes, but gain for the vast majority.

There are subsidies for small firms to partake, exemptions for the very smallest small firms - with payroll - not turnover - but payroll - of less than a certain amount and a minimum number of employees before any fines kick in.

The Mom&Pop stores are not covered - unless Mom&Pop have a significant 6 figure payroll.

[Link: www.nytimes.com…]

520 dean_k  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 5:14:55am

re: #1 Bagua

For this reason, many in Britain who can afford it will go to the US or even India for medical treatment.

I’m British and middle aged and have no idea where you get the idea people go to the USA or India for medical treatment. I know literally no-one who has ever done any such thing, or even talked about it.

521 andres  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 5:21:12am

re: #520 dean_k

From American groups against any Health Care Reform?

522 hlazar  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 5:21:39am

main problem 2012-2016 increased taxes on health care will raise cost of health faster than status quo.

523 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 5:23:54am

re: #520 dean_k

As a Brit myself last couple of hospital referrals i’ve had to see specialists have been handled from General Practitioner in under two months for chronic nagging problems - my father had a cancer scare and was seen within a few days by a specialist.

There are documented incidences of Dental tourism to eastern europe where costs are lower - but i’m aware of anything going on with remotely the same scale for major surgeries.

524 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 5:28:18am

re: #512 SixDegrees

What is the natural market incentive for insurance companies to give insurance coverage to populations that their actuarial tables tell them will cost them more over the life of the policy than that group will pay in?

525 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 5:31:36am

Good morning, all. Anyone mind if my opinion is “what SixDegrees said”…Six - nice bleeping post, my dude. Loved it.

And to add one cent - i have a family of four. If my total cost is expected to be $19k, why wouldn’t i purchase catastrophic insurance for about $4k and save the rest on my own? Thankfully, my medical expenses are predictable and no more than $4k, so the only coverage i need is for disasters.

Perhaps that option is on the table and i haven’t seen it, but apropos of sixdegrees’ post, nothing will make us smarter medical shoppers than funding a portion of our own costs in the manner i’ve described above.

526 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 5:37:24am

re: #523 wozzablog

As a Brit myself last couple of hospital referrals i’ve had to see specialists have been handled from General Practitioner in under two months for chronic nagging problems - my father had a cancer scare and was seen within a few days by a specialist.

There are documented incidences of Dental tourism to eastern europe where costs are lower - but i’m NOT aware of anything going on with remotely the same scale for major surgeries.


PIMF

527 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 5:52:27am

re: #109 cliffster

There will be no competition for Insurance Companies to take on patients with pre-existing conditions that will be a drain on their resources for decades.

There would have to be strict legislation to say that Insurance Companies could not turn anyone down - and then people would get all het up about more Gub’mint intererance……

528 andres  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 5:58:31am

re: #189 cliffster

And how is that $100K getting paid? Magic?

Look closer.

My dad has prostate cancer and is currently getting $100k of proton therapy over a three month period for free with the combination of his state pension insurance and medicare.

529 Kronocide  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 6:00:18am

[Link: douthat.blogs.nytimes.com…]

Statements about consequences are not ruled out of order — but yes, the tone and language in which they’re delivered matters a great deal. In this regard, the claim that “health care reform will save lives” is very, very different from the statement that “opponents of health care legislation are willing to let hundreds of thousands of Americans die.” The two may be factually similar, but only the latter waves the bloody shirt. And the bloody shirt is the enemy of both reasonable debate and good lawmaking. It’s a conversation-killer, and a policy destroyer.

530 andres  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 6:05:54am

re: #224 iceweasel

I suspect this was Obama’s policy — to be as hands-off as possible, and to shove the responsibility for making up the bill onto Congress itself—- because he learned from the Clinton healthcare debacle in 93.
I think it was the right strategy, honestly, even though I personally would have liked to see him take more of a role esp in supporting the public option. This was pragmatically speaking probably the only way to get it done.

It’s bad for politics, but good for democracy. It’s the Congress responsibility to come up with the actual plan, while the President’s is to approve or disapprove their plan.

531 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 6:10:58am

re: #524 Obdicut

What is the natural market incentive for insurance companies to give insurance coverage to populations that their actuarial tables tell them will cost them more over the life of the policy than that group will pay in?

When do we grant a person enough responsibility over their own life so that, in most cases, they own the task of living well and finding insurance as they see fit in preparation for a time when they are no longer living well, despite their best efforts?

532 Olsonist  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 6:11:49am

re: #511 SixDegrees

The rich certainly have a lot of money - that’s why they’re rich - but there aren’t that many of the truly rich.

Yeah, but the truly rich have a lot of money. A lot of money. 11.9% of income goes to the 1.92% of households getting $250,000 or more.

533 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 6:12:44am

re: #532 Olsonist

The rich certainly have a lot of money - that’s why they’re rich - but there aren’t that many of the truly rich.

Yeah, but the truly rich have a lot of money. A lot of money. 11.9% of income goes to the 1.92% of households getting $250,000 or more.

What share of the nation’s taxes do those same folks pay?

Mind you, i don’t belong to that strata…

534 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 6:29:51am

re: #531 Aceofwhat?

Tuesday?

Seriously, I don’t know what you’re asking. Could you rephrase it? I don’t want to misinterpret.

re: #533 Aceofwhat?

What share of the nation’s taxes do those same folks pay?

Mind you, i don’t belong to that strata…

Another set of questions to ask, to give perspective:

What share of the nations wealth— not income, but wealth— do these people own?

Given that capital gains are not treated as income and are excluded from income tax, how would including capital gains at its current taxation level affect the figure regarding income?

535 ulmsey123  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 6:32:12am
Well you guys already helped yourselves immensely by throwing that idiot Corzine out.

Yes we did! I just hope its not too late. So much damage has been done. Anyone who thinks huge government is the answer needs to look at my state.

536 lawhawk  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 6:33:27am

Charles,

Nate’s numbers aren’t crap, and in fact show that the cost of health care isn’t going to drop for his hypothetical family. All that changes is who pay for what portion - and the subsidy is the key. The current federal health care proposals all include dozens of taxes and fees that hit the same people who are expected to get the benefit of the health care plan. You will pay more in taxes now and down the road to accrue the expected subsidy.

And when the revenues don’t materialize, you will find that the benefits are cut to balance things (which will be a temporary thing in any event, because we’ve constantly seen the fed misjudge the costs of health care, and federal entitlements to the point of insolvency for Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.

Currently, the Senate plan includes $357 billion in new taxes and fees - and a 40% excise tax on hight cost health insurance plans. Problem is that those high cost plans are often given to the unions through collective bargaining, and they’d be screwed. So Democrats have tried to split the difference and approved a “sense of the Senate” that procedural maneuvers resulting in a middle class tax increase should be rejected. Of course, that’s nonbinding and the taxes will jump - particularly if Obama needs to let the Bush tax cuts expire after 2010 (which is when the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire). Those expirations would result in a massive increase in taxes on the very middle class, and which revenues would go a long way to providing the lubrication needed to make the numbers work for at least the first 10 years following enactment (even if the health care changes actually get phased in from year 3-10 and years 1-3 provide a revenue cushion that gets eroded over time and will result in deficit).

537 DianeNYS  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 6:35:13am

re: #15 Charles
“It’s not going to destroy America. That’s just ridiculous.”

Thanks, Charles…This is my first post since registering here last week (or was it the week before?), after following a link from DailyKos re: your “leaving” the Right Wing. I’m finding, for THIS Democrat, your exchange of political ideas on this website to be interesting and cordial and fair-minded. Certainly less hyperbolic and hysterical than anywhere else, conservative OR liberal. I lean way left of you, but appreciate a good political discussion where I can find it. Thanks! :-)

538 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 6:37:03am

re: #537 DianeNYS

Welcome. I could never stand KOS, personally—because of the hyperbole— but I too have found this blog to be an island of sanity, populated by real people. It’s a nice place. And the scenery is great.

539 JoyousMN  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 6:40:57am

Wow, I left here last night at 11:30 and the convo is still going strong. Very cool.

However, no one has come up with a good answer to my basic question, “If you don’t like this health care plan, what’s your alternative?” I’ve read, “Save up for medical expenses,” and “Don’t get sick.” Then there are those who think tort reform and increased competition will magically do the trick, but none of these solves the problem of people without insurance, or families like ours with a chronic condition.

I look at NHS and Canada and I think, why can’t our country do something like that, AND offer private insurance for those who can afford to buy it? Why is this solution so problematic? Every other 1st world country manages to provide basic levels of care for all their citizens, why can’t we do this?

540 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 6:42:28am

re: #534 Obdicut

Tuesday?

Seriously, I don’t know what you’re asking. Could you rephrase it? I don’t want to misinterpret.

Good stuff. Let me answer one at a time.

WRT #431, here’s what i mean:

I think there are some cases where even the more libertarian/fiscally conservative among us would be happy to pay into an extended medical safety net. For instance, a lower-income couple could be doing everything right but still need help paying an insurance hike for a newborn with health problems. I feel good giving them tax money.

On the other hand, there are pockets of people who you describe, i.e. too poor for their own actuarial tables, who need to get the f*ck out of their actuarial tables. For instance…are you poor, obese, and smoking? Run, fatboy, run!

So i was saying that a good number of the people you describe either (a) should have gotten insurance while they were still healthy, and now want us to chip in because they had no foresight or (b) were never healthy and want us to chip in so that they can stay on a diet of chips and Marlboros.

It is not our job, imho, to figure out how to cover those people, or if we do cover them, to demand payment from them in the form of an income percentage that leaves them too poor for cable tv, cigarettes, or anything else that would stand in the way of 2 hours of daily exercise.

whereas (c), people who have maintained health insurance of some sort and still need to lean on our help are welcome to my help.

mind you, none of what i’m saying can be described as policy. i’m just outlining my perspective as i see it differing from yours. whether i can turn my perspective into a coherent policy is another question entirely…

541 Kronocide  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 6:45:25am

Saying HC will ‘destroy America’ is silly, but it will change it. I’m afraid it might relegate the HC system into a big steamy pile of mediocrity, as opposed to what we currently have. Government doesn’t have a good track record of doing things well and cost effectively.

I still can’t get my head around why people think health care costs will diminish if it’s run by the government. Though the government will pay it up front, reducing our direct costs out of pocket, the back end tax liabilities will have to increase to pay for it.

Reading this article didn’t make it seem any better. There are some dissimilarities for sure, but there is a sense of foreboding as well:
[Link: www.sfweekly.com…]

542 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 6:45:33am

re: #540 Aceofwhat?

I’m leaving for my commute to work, but I’ll reply to your post once I get there.

Have I mentioned yet that I really value your posts? I think I strongly disagree with you on a lot of subjects, but I feel you’re arguing very honestly and based off of a real concern for what’s best for people. I respect that.

543 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 6:51:10am

re: #534 Obdicut

re: #533 Aceofwhat?

Another set of questions to ask, to give perspective:

What share of the nations wealth— not income, but wealth— do these people own?

Given that capital gains are not treated as income and are excluded from income tax, how would including capital gains at its current taxation level affect the figure regarding income?

I am in favor of the currently low levels of capital gains taxes. Capital gains are returns on investment. The best thing that a wealthy individual can do for the rest of us (besides remaining charitable and not funding revolutionaries of any creed, bien sur) is re-invest their wealth. That allows rubes like you and I to borrow their wealth in an attempt to create some of our own, which will result in greater income for us and more taxes that we pay to the government.

If i could press a magic button, i would set the capital gains tax at “the percentage that creates the most total return, considering the secondary effects of (a) the incentive [or lack of] to invest given the size of the capital gains tax and (b) the increased income taxes generated by the capital investments.

Those answers are hard to get in the real world, but my goal is the maximum return for the government…a figure that, paradoxically, might be better achieved with a smaller tax.

544 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 6:52:15am

re: #542 Obdicut

I’m leaving for my commute to work, but I’ll reply to your post once I get there.

Have I mentioned yet that I really value your posts? I think I strongly disagree with you on a lot of subjects, but I feel you’re arguing very honestly and based off of a real concern for what’s best for people. I respect that.

Yeah, likewise. It’s clear that we have different perspectives on a lot of subjects…i’d never mistake you for someone who has my take on most things. But it’s been fantastic conversation. This is why i’m here…

545 JoyousMN  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 6:54:31am

re: #540 Aceofwhat?

Ace, I understanding that “rewarding” people who made bad choices is a really tough subject. It’s like the discussions about helping people with their mortgages. No one wants to help people who made stupid decisions to buy houses they could never afford and then used them as a revolving credit line and are now so deeply underwater that they’ll never be able to pay back what they owe. But we all know people who, through no fault of their own are in bad circumstances and we’d like to help them. It’s one of those basic difficult dilemmas in an organized society.

Yes, many physical ailments come from poor choices, but many also come from catastrophic situations that the person had no control over. Unless you put in a bureaucracy to oversee this, and look at it on a case by case basis, some people will be rewarded for “bad behavior.” But are the costs of policing it worth it? I don’t know.

546 JoyousMN  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 7:00:07am

Gotta go to work. I’ll check back with everyone later and see if the thread is still live.

547 drcordell  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 7:00:44am

I think I agree with Nate Silver in sentiment, but not necessarily overall. Yes, the Senate bill is better than a sharp stick in the eye, and it’s potentially better than doing nothing. But the fact that the bill brings healthcare costs “down” to $9,000/year for a family of FOUR earning $54,000 is absolutely batshit insane. That’s 16% of pre-tax income on health insurance. Which, thanks to the Senate’s neutering, is still allowed to have a lifetime coverage cap. So that family could potentially still be bankrupted by a particularly expensive illness.

Call me jaded but there’s just nothing here I can get excited about. The government mandating you to buy private insurance that is still extremely overpriced, and that doesn’t guarantee you still won’t go bankrupt from a catastrophic illness? Ugh.

548 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 7:02:13am

re: #545 JoyousMN

You’re right, and i don’t know that answer either. But I am much happer to make tax sacrifices when starting from that perspective and working towards what is realistic than when we start from the perspective that we simply ought to cover those who can’t cover themselves.

Even imperfect incentives to take care of oneself are a vast improvement over none, just as imperfect incentives to shop for the best deal are a vast improvement over none, as SixDegrees posted earlier.

That’s why i’m so much more passionate about the perspective than the policy.

Make sense?

549 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 7:04:59am

re: #547 drcordell

Yep, feels bass-ackwards opposite. I’d much rather cover the costs of my family’s day-to-day expenses, save yearly chunks tax-free for slightly larger, less frequent expenses (i.e. minor surgeries, etc) and create a market for long-term, catastrophic insurance.

Whereas this seems to mandate i pay for coverage I’d rather bank myself, and caps the one eventuality I’d rather pay to cover.

550 drcordell  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 7:14:01am

re: #549 Aceofwhat?

Yep, feels bass-ackwards opposite. I’d much rather cover the costs of my family’s day-to-day expenses, save yearly chunks tax-free for slightly larger, less frequent expenses (i.e. minor surgeries, etc) and create a market for long-term, catastrophic insurance.

Whereas this seems to mandate i pay for coverage I’d rather bank myself, and caps the one eventuality I’d rather pay to cover.

Exactly. I fail to comprehend how health “insurance” can legally sold in this country that doesn’t protect you from a catastrophic illness. What the fuck is the point of having it at all if it doesn’t protect you from unforeseen disaster?

551 borgcube  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 7:14:48am

re: #475 WindUpBird

That foo foo computer shit gave me a career, dude. A career that is thriving in this economy, I may add.

If you’re paying more in property tax that a resident of San Diego earns in a year, I have a REAL hard time feeling sorry for you.

Ditto for computers here as well. That wasn’t my point.

Not looking for your sympathies. Just wondering why I ‘m not getting my money’s worth these days as government seems to expand without pause and services and the quality of those services declines, not to mention that literally every city, county, state, and of course the feds are bankrupt on any normal business accounting ledger in the real world.

552 stayfrosty  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 7:21:50am

re: #520 dean_k

I’m British and middle aged and have no idea where you get the idea people go to the USA or India for medical treatment. I know literally no-one who has ever done any such thing, or even talked about it.

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk…]

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk…]

These are just two examples I remembered off the top of my head because I’ve seen the stories on the BBC News site several times.

553 stayfrosty  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 7:27:47am

re: #520 dean_k

By the way, I’m sure you’ll be happy to know, Alex’s surgery was a great success:

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk…]

(The reason they traveled to the US was because the only treatment available via NHS would have caused brain damage in a child of his age.)

554 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 7:32:42am

re: #520 dean_k

I’m British and middle aged and have no idea where you get the idea people go to the USA or India for medical treatment. I know literally no-one who has ever done any such thing, or even talked about it.

Who was the french rocker who went to LA again so that we could fix the FUBAR job that the french surgeons did?

And i lived in Cleveland for a long time. Lots of Sheiks travel to Cleveland. Why would a sheik travel to Cleveland? Because if you need a heart operation, and you can go anywhere, you often go to the Cleveland Clinic. (as opposed to, say, ummm, the UK.)

They sure as hell aren’t flying to Cleveland for the weather or the culture.

555 SixDegrees  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 7:43:05am

re: #554 Aceofwhat?

Who was the french rocker who went to LA again so that we could fix the FUBAR job that the french surgeons did?

And i lived in Cleveland for a long time. Lots of Sheiks travel to Cleveland. Why would a sheik travel to Cleveland? Because if you need a heart operation, and you can go anywhere, you often go to the Cleveland Clinic. (as opposed to, say, ummm, the UK.)

They sure as hell aren’t flying to Cleveland for the weather or the culture.

Well, Cleveland’s cultural scene has improved dramatically in the last few years. Relative to it’s bottom, of course. They’ve got Mike Symon and Michael Ruhlman to boast about on the restaurant scene, anyway.

556 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 7:48:10am

re: #555 SixDegrees

Well, Cleveland’s cultural scene has improved dramatically in the last few years. Relative to it’s bottom, of course. They’ve got Mike Symon and Michael Ruhlman to boast about on the restaurant scene, anyway.

And being a proud graduate of Case Western Reserve U., I’m rooting for the city. But i think i’m still safe in saying that few, if any sheiks are traveling to my old haunt for leisure purposes!

557 truth stick  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 7:48:22am

Individual mandate for people to buy insurance, or be heavily fined for not is un-american as it gets.

558 stayfrosty  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 7:49:38am

re: #557 truth stick

Individual mandate for people to buy insurance, or be heavily fined for not is un-american as it gets.

Not only un-American, it’s as unconstitutional as it gets as well.

559 ignoranceisfatal  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 7:56:26am

re: #558 stayfrosty

Not only un-American, it’s as unconstitutional as it gets as well.

Really? What part of the constitution, specifically, does it violate? The same one that forbids the government from requiring people to have car insurance, right?

560 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 8:04:42am

re: #559 ignoranceisfatal

Really? What part of the constitution, specifically, does it violate? The same one that forbids the government from requiring people to have car insurance, right?

Perhaps more interesting than you think. I doubt it’s unconstitutional, but one can always refuse to buy car insurance through the act of refusing to purchase a car. So it’s not apples-apples.

Still, if it were purely unconstitutional, even one of our undistinguished congressmen or women (or, more likely, their staff) would have realized it by now.

561 ignoranceisfatal  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 8:08:36am

re: #560 Aceofwhat?

Perhaps more interesting than you think. I doubt it’s unconstitutional, but one can always refuse to buy car insurance through the act of refusing to purchase a car. So it’s not apples-apples.

Refusing to buy a car? Now that is un-American! ;)

But your point is well taken. Can you (or anyone else) suggest other comparisons which are more apt? Or is the health insurance purchase requirement unique?

562 dean_k  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 8:11:10am

re: #552 stayfrosty

From the first article:

The treatment they have found in the US claims to offer a cure in some cases, the antibody therapy is at least two years away from being licensed in the UK.

‘Very humbling’

But treatment costs in the region of £250,000 and the Wrights have turned their home into a call centre in an effort to raise the funds.

It’s two years away from being licensed in Britain- tragic in that case obviously, but I can’t say I’m horrified and shocked they take years to license experimental treatments.

The second case is definitely more problematic in that the treatment is not available, but I can tell you these two stories are not part of a trend, even if they are just off the top of your head. More like extreme outliers.

563 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 8:17:33am

re: #562 dean_k

Time to answer my post! How many foreigners come to the UK with cash in hand for the sole purpose of purchasing superior-quality health care?

564 Truth Stick  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 8:20:09am

I don’t have the answer, Ace, but I would guess not very many….am I close?

565 ignoranceisfatal  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 8:24:42am

re: #563 Aceofwhat?

Time to answer my post! How many foreigners come to the UK with cash in hand for the sole purpose of purchasing superior-quality health care?

Essentially none, I would wager. But I’d argue that that’s beside the point. Nobody’s seriously arguing whether (insured) people in the US have access to the most advanced medical techniques/equipment — clearly they do. The real issues are:

1) Whether there are too many people who do not have access to even basic services due to lack of insurance
2) Whether the “advanced” techniques and equipment being used are actually cost-effective

566 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 8:35:55am

re: #543 Aceofwhat?

The best thing that a wealthy individual can do for the rest of us (besides remaining charitable and not funding revolutionaries of any creed, bien sur) is re-invest their wealth. That allows rubes like you and I to borrow their wealth in an attempt to create some of our own, which will result in greater income for us and more taxes that we pay to the government.

Since capital gains are taxes taken on profits, they do nothing directly to encourage investment; they encourage the selling of matured investments. There is no benefit given by lower capital gains tax to investment, but rather to the sale of investments.

In addition, a lot of investment wealth is not constructive, but either purely neutral (paper profits) or actively destructive. Consider a payday loan organization; payday loans are one step from loansharking, they’re terrible organizations that exploit the hand-to-mouth existence of the working poor. Every economic examination of them shows that they cause economic harm, not good— especially when compared to ‘real’ loan practices, which also help them build credit. Better small income loans

You can probably think of plenty of other industries and companies that do not actually produce anything constructive; companies that make totally shitty products, for example, advertisers who elevate an inferior product over a superior one, stockbrokers, psychic help hotlines, etc. So there is no reassurance that any given company, or any given investment income, represents a contribution to the economy; it can also represent a parasitical relationship to it.

If i could press a magic button, i would set the capital gains tax at “the percentage that creates the most total return, considering the secondary effects of (a) the incentive [or lack of] to invest given the size of the capital gains tax and (b) the increased income taxes generated by the capital investments.

And I’d jump on that too, especially the last part. I would love to see a capital gains tax break given to investors in companies who’s relationship to the economy is productive rather than neutral or destructive. That, of course, would require a serious cultural shift, an acknowledgment that not every capitalistically-successful company is actually good for the capitalist economy, and some system of defining a company’s economic contribution— none of which are easy challenges.

Another note on capital gains: capital losses can be used to subtract against capital gains. Remember that capital gains tax is not paid on each sale of stock, each sale of a house, but as a total assessment of all capital gains against capital losses. Laborers— and that includes doctors and the like— do not have any sort of similar benefit. Capital doesn’t do anything without labor— except in the industries that are completely parasitical— and capital is just as dependent on labor as labor is on capital; in fact, capital is more dependent on labor, in some ways, since the income of any constructive company comes, in the end, from the purchases and spending of people on the products and services of companies.

Those answers are hard to get in the real world, but my goal is the maximum return for the government…a figure that, paradoxically, might be better achieved with a smaller tax.

I agree that a lower tax can sometimes produce greater revenue than a higher one. However, I am much more interested in looking at it from the perspective of the overall economy, rather than just the investment economy. Creating economic conditions that causes an ever-widening gap between wealthy, middle class, and poor, is simply not sustainable, and any system that does so is not a system, but a one-way track.

567 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 8:36:31am

And with that, I have a super-busy day. Sorry, Ace, if I didn’t properly address everything that you brought up, but I’m going to have to work like a beaver to get everything done today.

568 TreBob  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 8:36:34am

Part 1

Wow, so much wrong, so little time and room to respond.

Firstly, did anyone notice that all of the “costs”, i.e. what was paid for health insurance, was about the same (roughly $19k annually)? So, let’s get past the fantasy that we are talking about lowering costs, that isn’t happening. What we are talking about is compelling someone else to pay for our health insurance costs, or if you prefer, getting “me” to pay for “your” health insurance costs. This is a crucial point that needs to be realized first.

If we had a free market in insurance (which we do not) insurance companies would be responsible to customers, the premium payers, as free market companies are. For example, I cannot believe the timeline and costs he provides because I know that there isn’t anyone making $54k a year that could pay $19k a year on insurance. If the insurance companies knew that they would lose customers, they would provide lower priced items, just as retail stores, airlines, restaurants and all other businesses do. To think that insurance companies, or any company, would just continue to price customers out of the market until there are none left is a ridiculous assumption. The only reason to assume the 7.5% (or 8.8%) increase in premiums would continue is if you can shift the payment over to an entity that wouldn’t care if the costs go up, someone like say the government. Having someone else pay for your insurance premiums guarantees outrageous increases. The bottom line to all this is people are generally careful how they spend their money and generally not careful how they spend other people’s money.

Since it should be obvious to everyone that no one is talking about lowering the cost of health care rather we are talking about lowering the cost of health insurance, then a discussion of how to properly purchase health insurance is in order. Particularly for you Charles, since I know if you follow this plan, you can have great coverage for a low cost (even though you live in CA).

Back in the 70’s we used to buy a hospitalization policy and then for the sniffles, vaccinations, etc, we paid the doctor for them out of our pockets. When HMO type insurance came to pass (thanks Teddy Kennedy) we now think insurance companies should pay for our regular office visits. In order to lower your insurance costs, don’t require so much work out of your insurance company.

Co-pays are a particularly evil offering. They sound wonderful but so much money is wasted on them and most premium payers don’t even realize that their co-pay constitutes as much as 30%-40% of their premium. So, if you’re paying $900 a month for your insurance, $300-$400 a month is going toward the co-pay only. Unless you regularly spend more than $3k on doctor visits annually, you are wasting your money. Save that $3500-$4500 a year. Don’t take my word on it though. Call your broker immediately and you’ll find out how much that co-pay costs.

Get a higher deductible. Most people I come in contact with have $1500-$2500 deductibles. The dirty little secret of business is that much of the overhead involved in paying an insurance claim is static. What I mean is, much of the overhead involved in paying a $50 claim is the same as paying a $50,000 claim. Higher deductible policies cost the insurance companies less and that is reflected in the price. Adjustments in your deductibles to $5,000 and higher can result in another 10%-30% savings (depending on the numbers).

(continued)

569 TreBob  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 8:37:03am

Part 2

Use a health savings account. I use an HSA and it’s terrific. I take the monies I saved from co-pay and deductible savings and put into this savings account as pre-tax dollars. When I need to pay for health care, dental, prescription and OTC drugs, I pull out my HSA debit card and do so with pre-tax monies. Since most Americans don’t have enough deductions to itemize their tax returns, this is a great way to save even more. In my particular case it is an additional 20% savings in that I don’t have to make $1.20 to spend $1.00 on those items. As an added benefit, my (fully funded) HSA amount is equal to my deductible, how cool is that?

So, if we’ve done everything correctly we have now saved between 60%-75% off our insurance costs and we haven’t made huge changes in our catastrophic coverage. Let’s talk about a final benefit and that’s CASH! Doctors are, for the most part, small businesses and just like retail, prices are negotiable. For example, my last crown was priced to me at $1,200 start to finish (X-ray, follow-up, etc). When the doc was told that I would not be using insurance but paying cash, the price instantly dropped to $850. When I later explained I was going to see another dentist because he was going to charge $650, the price (at my old dentist) dropped again to $650. A 46% reduction in price just by paying cash and having some competition in the market. Show me a single government entity that would do that. Some of you will say, ‘yeah but you had to pay the $650’. True enough, but I’m saving over $7,000 a year in premium payments, so coughing up the occasional $650 every few years doesn’t bother me much at all. As it was, I got the crown at a dental school for $400 (something everyone should consider because of the exceptional workmanship, but that’s another discussion).

Just so you know that I walk the walk, my family has no co-pay, a $5,000 deductible policy with 100% coverage after the deductible is met. We buy it ourselves so it is not tied to an employer. We do this for two reasons #1 portability, we can take it with us if we leave our jobs and #2 cost control, we control the costs and don’t have to fit into a group policy. Our policy is tailored to our specific needs and our premium costs are around $3,500 a year. I challenge every one of you to talk to your broker and evaluate how you are buying your insurance.

To pull this back into a political discussion, allowing us to purchase health insurance across state lines will go a long way to reducing the costs of health insurance. For example, people in Texas, Arizona, Florida and several other States have to buy insurance that covers autistic children. If you don’t have any children, then that’s not a good way for you to spend your money. Similarly in New Jersey, insurance must cover breast implants. Likewise, that would not make sense for me to pay for as neither my wife nor myself are looking at getting implants. Yet, if you buy insurance in those States, you are paying for that coverage even though you will not ever use it. Allow us to purchase insurance from any State and we will be able to tailor our policies to our needs. It will also rightly put back competition between the States that may stop some of the silly legislation regarding insurance. Expand the HSA laws don’t gut them. Current federal house legislation is going to take away our ability to purchase OTC drugs with pre-tax dollars, thereby raising the costs. We should talk tort reform, but unfortunately with all the attorneys in D.C. making those decisions that dog isn’t going to hunt.

I know this was a long post, but since I don’t post much it will be ok. Thanks to all of you who made it all the way to here.

FINI

570 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 8:37:52am

re: #569 TreBob

What is the market incentive for insurance companies to insure groups of people that their actuarial tables tell them will cost them more money over time than they will ever pay in?

571 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 8:38:43am

re: #567 Obdicut

And with that, I have a super-busy day. Sorry, Ace, if I didn’t properly address everything that you brought up, but I’m going to have to work like a beaver to get everything done today.

great stuff. why don’t i reply so that you can read later…i’m sure something in this vein will come up again, and we can pick up where we left off.

572 Obdicut  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 8:41:38am

re: #571 Aceofwhat?

Sure thing. There was a lot more I wanted to say about other, interesting ways to look at income, wealth, and taxes as well.

And with that, I’m really off to bury myself in work. Seeya.

573 lawhawk  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 8:44:38am

re: #561 ignoranceisfatal

The health insurance provisios to mandate purchase of insurance or else face penalties (equal or exceeding the cost of coverage) is unique, but not necessarily unconstitutional since Congress can simply point to Art 1 Sec. 8, Clause 18 as justification - noting that health care is an interstate issue and which requires action to provide for the economy.

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Combined with Art 1, Sec. 8 Clause 1 and 3 - (laying taxes and regulating interstate commerce), Congress can justify the constitutionality of the health care upheaval.

That said, it still is woefully misguided in my opinion to do so in the fashion that they’ve done. It still will result in massive deficits outside the 10 year projection and it hopes that the revenue cushion from initiating the tax hikes in years 1-3 will cover the rising costs during implementation during successive years. It’s my experience that the revenue projections fall short - especially during recessions, so claiming revenue neutrality or that it wont add to the deficit during the 10 year period is just so much hot air.

574 TreBob  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 8:49:21am

re: #570 Obdicut

None what-so-ever. No business would (or should be told to) market a product that would drive them out of business.

But that’s just a straw man. Why change %100 of something because there’s a problem with

575 bombarafat  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 8:50:55am

It’s wrong that health care costs so much and I’m sure it hurts the self employed. However the US government running health care is very scary. They can’t manage anything efficiently. How often do you hear about NASA overunning their budget?

576 gamark  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 8:52:52am

re: #559 ignoranceisfatal

Really? What part of the constitution, specifically, does it violate? The same one that forbids the government from requiring people to have car insurance, right?

There is no federal law requiring you to buy car insurance. There are state laws requiring such if you drive your car on state highways. Not all states require insurance. Tennessee comes to mind, but that is from the past and it may be different now. Basically, you enter into a contract with the state for use of public highways. They can require insurance, registration, driver’s license, etc. Its all a voluntary contract.

Now, how does that compare to a law requiring you to make a purchase involuntarily under threat of force by the government?

577 TreBob  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 8:53:01am

re: #570 Obdicut

Heh, (note to self: don’t use ‘a less than’ sign in a reply.)

Why change all of something because a small portion needs tweaking. If someone is truly in need, then there are programs already in place to help them. If those programs need expanding then let’s talk about them, but we don’t need to revamp the entire system.

578 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 8:58:13am

re: #566 Obdicut

First part-
You’re right, but proper investing is (or should be) a continuous movement from investment to gain to sale to reinvestment to gain to sale…etc. So you in effect can dampen investment through high capital gains tax because you freeze investments currently in place that someone might otherwise sell for a profit and re-invest. Again, 99.9% of the wealthy didn’t get there by stuffing capital in a mattress, so my going assumption is that the wealthy are looking to become more wealthy via investment, as opposed to hoarding.

Next part-
I think it’s hard to define and legislate what a ‘constructive’ investment means. If I have a desire and your company fulfills it, have you not provided service? What is a psychic hotline but competition for my money? We all spend some money on our leisure, but i wouldn’t put the organizations that provide leisure in the same category as a payday loan place. I think a truly parasitic organization ought to be addressed as such, separately from a capital gains perspective. So legislate away the worst parts (or all of) a payday loan business, but do it aside from the larger discussion of capital gains.

Some businesses are better run and contribute more than others, sure. I don’t believe that the economic engine is efficient enough so that money always flows towards the most deserving enterprise. However, I do believe that in the vast majority of examples, we’ll obtain better results by letting the smart people who accumulated capital (or the smart people investing capital on behalf of the moron who stumbled into it) find worthwhile investments…as opposed to jiggering the capital gains system to obtain better results than the free flow of capital would without our interference.

Next part - laborers, as you say, can’t subtract losses from their taxes…sure, because investments are a risk and salary/wages are not. If you worked this week, you will be paid. If I invest, i may lose money. I have already paid taxes on my wages, and if i want to invest some of what remains, i would be much more loath to do so if i were to be taxed AND suffer a net loss of my invested savings. All who invest thus receive the same benefit…choosing not to participate, as the laborer in your example, is not the same as unequal. Everyone has to start investing somewhere.

Next part - i think we focus overly on the gap between incomes. If everyone earns 10% more this year than last year, the income gap will increase, no? That’s the nature of compounding.

What i want is for our overall standard of living to increase over the years. Equality in percentage gain will lead to disparate incomes…so what, that’s math…but if we’re all doing a lot better than we were 20 years ago…that’s progress.

Lastly, for the laborer who is only keeping up with inflation…that’s the reward of a low-risk lifestyle. IMHO, a more perfect economy rewards those who contribute much. My dad was a farmer when i was born. Now he’s a business owner. Some of his old friends are still laborers. He doesn’t have much sympathy for them…they went to watch tv and have beers after work while he went to night school. I have little patience for those who wish to outpace inflation without increasing their output in general.

good stuff-

579 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 8:59:49am

bbl all-

580 ignoranceisfatal  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 9:02:19am

re: #573 lawhawk

Thanks.

581 FrogMarch  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 9:06:24am

Tax payers will soon help your health care premiums come down.
We should be kept upraised of the financial relief received over the next few years.
I predict the deficit will soar and jobs will continue to vanish, but hey – tax-payer subsidized, overly-regulated health care seems be the desired dosage to “bring down costs”.

There isn’t a single free-market solution on the table. (allowed on the table, in this one-sided vote/debate)
Also, it appears the democrats are hiding half the cost of their health care bills.

582 Wozza Matter?  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 9:23:03am

re: #581 FrogMarch

(allowed on the table, in this one-sided vote/debate)

Not allowed input - or didn’t choose to partake in any meaningful way?

[Link: wonkroom.thinkprogress.org…]

583 Bob Levin  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 9:29:39am

re: #539 JoyousMN

The best alternative that I’ve heard is to make health insurance an entity like a public utility in each state—a monopoly with an oversight commission. So, just like everyone can afford gas and electricity, the same would apply to health insurance.

584 celticdragon  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 10:01:48am

re: #49 Dark_Falcon

Sorry to disagree with you, but it is, in fact, the role of government to help people actually live.

It comes under the preamble of the Constitution with that “promote the general welfare” bit that some folks on the right try to ignore.

Medical care should be viewed no differently than police and fire protection. It is a civic matter of public well being.

Unless, of course, you think we should let the “unseen hand of the free market” control our police and fire departments along with the military…

585 celticdragon  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 10:08:15am

re: #569 TreBob

To pull this back into a political discussion, allowing us to purchase health insurance across state lines will go a long way to reducing the costs of health insurance. For example, people in Texas, Arizona, Florida and several other States have to buy insurance that covers autistic children. If you don’t have any children, then that’s not a good way for you to spend your money. Similarly in New Jersey, insurance must cover breast implants. Likewise, that would not make sense for me to pay for as neither my wife nor myself are looking at getting implants. Yet, if you buy insurance in those States, you are paying for that coverage even though you will not ever use it.

Just watch as insurance companies flee to the states with few regulations or rules and offer even worse insurance for higher prices.

It’s a racket.

Your cost savings plan above sounds great for a 25 year old who never plans to have any problems ever. Not so realistic for those of us who have serious health issues.

586 ExCamelJockey  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 10:39:38am

“If I can save 40-50% on my health insurance costs, that’s a big incentive — because as a self-employed lizardoid, I pay a freaking fortune for my insurance and hardly ever use it. If you think Silver is full of crap, tell me why.”

All 3 plans have basically the same cost. You can save 40-50% of your health insurance costs only if some harder working tax payer sugar-daddies the difference to you.

587 webevintage  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 10:45:56am

re: #569 TreBob

I challenge every one of you to talk to your broker and evaluate how you are buying your insurance.


Unless you have just had cancer treatment like my husband or ongoing endocrine system problems like me and are 50ish. Luckily we have insurance, though I tend to not get things taken care of because of our deductible (like I’ll need thyroid/parathroid surgery at some point next year and I’m not sure we will be able to swing the deductible while still paying off this years costs that are left from my husband’s treatments) which I think is what a number of people do. If it is not killing you, you just ignore and move on.

Though I could see if we were younger and healthier going with a HSA and a high deductible catastrophic plan. I have also found that Dentists are willing to work with you on costs if you are paying cash.

Now that I’ve got my monitor issues fixed (I think) I have been able to read though the thread. I guess to me I just want to make sure that whatever reform is done that it is portable (that’s why “medicare for all” seemed a good way to go) and affordable….not free. I want pre-existing conditions to be a thing of the past. I want people to be able to go to the Doctor when they have a problem without worrying about the cost of a visit so issues are taken care of earlier instead of later when they are much more expensive and life threatening.
I want people who have health insurance and have paid their premiums for years to not get dropped when they actually need to use said insurance.
I want people like my friend to not have to turn to strangers on the internet to fund raise money to help pay for breast cancer treatments.
I’d like to see the need for organizations like Remote Area Medical to go away so they can do their work in places like the Amazon Basin and not in rural Tenn. or LA.

I think that in a country like America the things I want are not like asking for free ponies or rainbow colored unicorns, but instead a part of what a civilized country in the first half of the 21st Century should be already doing as part of the civil compact we all have with each other.

588 gamark  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 10:53:25am

re: #584 celticdragon


It comes under the preamble of the Constitution with that “promote the general welfare” bit that some folks on the right try to ignore.

I, for one, don’t ignore it. But I do differentiate between “promote” and “provide”.

589 gamark  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 10:59:06am

re: #584 celticdragon

Medical care should be viewed no differently than police and fire protection. It is a civic matter of public well being.

Well, the US Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no duty whatsoever to provide an individual with protection.

Also, police and fire services are provided by local government, not the federal government. If I have issues with how those services are provided, I have a much better chance of effecting change through my local government than I would through the federal government.

590 Feline Fearless Leader  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 11:04:15am

re: #534 Obdicut


Given that capital gains are not treated as income and are excluded from income tax, how would including capital gains at its current taxation level affect the figure regarding income?

Could you clarify where you’re coming from with this statement please? Capital gains are treated as income, and are taxed. It’s just done under a different set of rules than salary income at the federal level. And it varies how it is taxed at the state and local levels.

591 gamark  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 11:08:21am

re: #585 celticdragon

Just watch as insurance companies flee to the states with few regulations or rules and offer even worse insurance for higher prices.

Why would they flee? If they are already profitably operating in one state, why would they move out as opposed to operating in both states? If they can’t operate profitably in one state, then they will eventually shut down in that state regardless of the regulatory environment in other states.

592 TreBob  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 12:41:59pm

re: #585 celticdragon


Just watch as insurance companies flee to the states with few regulations or rules and offer even worse insurance for higher prices.

It’s a racket.

Your cost savings plan above sounds great for a 25 year old who never plans to have any problems ever. Not so realistic for those of us who have serious health issues.

Uh, they scoot to those States and do business now. That’s my point. I am not allowed to buy insurance in those States, only the one I’m resident in. Blue Cross has 90% of the Alabama market not because they are the best or the cheapest, they are intrenched via legislation. Same as Kaiser-Permanente in Hawaii. There are 1300 companies in the U.S. offering health insurance. How many are available in your State? Without knowing your State my guess would be less than 100.

And you are wrong with your 25 year old person analogy. I am at least double that amount of years :) If we take a standard policy of $1,000 deductible with an 80%-20% split compared with my policy and both policy holders have a $50k operation, I will pay less than they do even though my deductible is five times higher. With a higher deductible I can afford better overall coverage and the insurance company is happy to provide it because they know that I will not be using the insurance as much as someone with a $1,000 deductible and a $35 co-pay.

Again, please don’t take my word for it. Call your insurance broker and they can show you.

593 TreBob  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 1:00:34pm

re: #587 webevintage

Unless you have just had cancer treatment like my husband or ongoing endocrine system problems like me and are 50ish. Luckily we have insurance, though I tend to not get things taken care of because of our deductible (like I’ll need thyroid/parathroid surgery at some point next year and I’m not sure we will be able to swing the deductible while still paying off this years costs that are left from my husband’s treatments) which I think is what a number of people do.

I can sympathize with your health issues, however they prove my point exactly. Even though you probably pay many times what I do per year, your husband’s cancer treatments weren’t fully covered. All your doctor’s office visits were (less co-pay of course). If you could have saved the $5,000-$8,000 a year instead of sending it to an insurance company then these extra costs wouldn’t be so crushing and you may have been able to find a policy that did better for cancer treatments for an affordable price or even pay for a specific cancer policy on top of the regular health insurance. You would have had the money o make that decision yourself.

If you are in a group situation (i.e. company pays for your insurance) you’re even worse off as you get the coverage limits and you get to pay for all those folks who had lapband surgery and other high-risk ailments. In my own case (and I am 50ish) I save more than $7,000 a year. I can easily pay the deductible every year with my savings and have some left over.

It’s a real simple formula. If an insurance company has to pay $100 for a claim, they need to take in more than $100 in revenues or go out of business. Easy stuff.

The cash discounts work on other procedures as well, not just dental. There are three labs that are very common in almost all blood work requests, a complete blood count (CBC) a comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP) and usually a limpid or some other test. Here in the Oklahoma City area those three bloood test retail for about $200 for all three. By paying cash I have negotiated those three tests to $15. Not $15 each, $15 for all three. An M.R.I. here in OKC goes for $1,450-$1,550 depending on contrast. With cash I get those $450 (without contrast) and $550 (with contrast).

I wish you and your husband well with his treatments.

594 presort  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 3:36:51pm

“Firstly, the average family size in the AHIP dataset is 3.03 people; for a family of four, that number would scale upward to $7,925, by my calculations. “

The insurance my current employer uses and all past employers use has four tiers. None are tied to counting kids beyond the first one. So, his scaling up isn’t inline with the insurance options I’ve seen. However, the family option here is higher than his “scale” anyway, but our employee only is much lower. Here is a paste from our last quote, there are typical copay, prescriptions typically $35, $1000 deductible which is used up at 20% of the cost then the insurance covers 100%, with a lifetime $5M limit:

Employee Only $321
Employee/Spouse $646
Employee/Child(ren) $537
Employee/Family $861

595 Political Atheist  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 3:53:43pm

Given that Obama can not manage his economic team, I’m not expecting mush useful on health care. Rolling Stone has a damning story I put in Links and I’ll link again here just for perspective about the quality of our nations leadership.
 Oh and have no fear of the cartoon in the article, the Wall street guys are illustrated as pigs, Obama is a lightly cartooned up image of himself. No racism, just a slam on his new best friends the Wall street pals.

Hat Tip ROLLING STONE, Keep up the great work.

596 Laroon  Wed, Dec 16, 2009 10:11:55pm

The cost (especially the one calculated before the bill even passes) isn’t relevant - once the government controls it, it can only possibly go in one direction: UP. And that’s besides the point - as a Canadian now living in Israel (two countries with public healthcare systems - one terrible, one quite good), the key difference in my mind is the idea of government involvement in the actual system itself. Governments are not good at doing work - period. That includes administering your medical services.
Israel’s system works because the government does what it knows (collecting the money) and the insurance companies do what they know (administering medical services).

There’s no rocket science here people - if the providers of care have competition, you will get good care. If the providers of care are the government, you will get bad, inaccessible care that will cost the same eventually - even if it doesn’t at the very beginning.

You want proof - ask a Canadian who is living in the US and has health insurance the following two questions:
1. Are your US taxes plus cost of health insurance as expensive as your Canadian taxes were (I will bet the answer is no).
2. What do you think of Canada’s health care system now that you’ve experienced one that actually functions?

597 stayfrosty  Thu, Dec 17, 2009 4:11:08am

re: #559 ignoranceisfatal

Really? What part of the constitution, specifically, does it violate? The same one that forbids the government from requiring people to have car insurance, right?

First of all, Congress is only entitled to those powers enumerated in the Constitution. The Necessary and Proper Clause refers only to the execution of those powers already enumerated. All other powers are left to the States. This is one of the reasons why auto insurance mandates are state mandates (with two such states having no such mandates.) There is no federal auto insurance mandate.

But to compare auto insurance to health insurance is pretty asinine. One must purchase auto insurance, as mandated by his state, only if he decides to take a motor vehicle on a public road or highway. And even then, the minimum of coverage is for damage to other drivers’ vehicles and persons when liability rests with the driver, not for the driver himself (i.e. “liability insurance”). Taking a motor vehicle on a public road is not a guaranteed right in the Constitution; it’s widely regarded as a privilege by way of a public contract. This is why we have regulations that require licenses, inspections, etc. And such a privilege can be revoked if the contract is violated. (Mainly because you’re implicitly putting others’ lives at risk when you exercise that privilege.)

Life, however, is a right guaranteed in the Constitution. And requiring someone purchase something from someone else (or the government) to exercise that right (i.e. simply to live as a citizen of the United States) is clearly a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Your latter post asked if there are any more apt comparisons. In my opinion, no. Because never before has the government forced someone to purchase something from someone else (or from the gov’t itself) solely as a condition of living. Income tax, you may remember, required a constitutional amendment. (Social Security got around this problem by defining it as a tax and not as a mandated pension savings account or the like.) The current bill, however, clearly has such a mandate, one that I believe will definitely be proven to be unconstitutional.

Lawhawk made the observation that Congress will probably use the Necessary and Proper clause in conjunction with their power under the Commerce Clause to “promote interstate commerce” to justify such a mandate. While the courts have allowed a very liberal (in the literal sense) reading of that power to stand in the past, I don’t see it holding up for something this overtly infringing.

And that goes all the way back to FDR’s packing the Supreme Court with liberal (in the political sense) activist judges. Just to give you an example of how liberal a reading we’ve been using, take Wickard v. Filburn, where a farmer, Mr. Filburn, was growing wheat solely to feed his chickens and his family. He sold nothing, and thus was not engaged in any commerce whatsoever, let alone interstate commerce, which is the only kind allowed by the Constitution for Congress to regulate. Yet because his wheat production exceeded quotas set by FDR and Congress for price control, he was fined. The FDR-packed Court ruled that because he had grown too much wheat, he had no need to purchase wheat from the market, and thereby because he engaged in no commerce, that meant he inherently affected commerce, and because wheat is sold nationally, affected interstate commerce. So basically, anything and everything you do is in some way affecting commerce and therefor Congress can regulate it under the Commerce Clause. Make sense?

Anyway, if Congress passes this mandate, you’re going to see a lawsuit along much of the same lines as Wickard v Filburn, and thankfully there’s about nine fewer FRD-appointed Justices on the Court these days.

598 stayfrosty  Thu, Dec 17, 2009 4:17:01am

Oh, by the way, CNSNews.com has been doing a very revealing series where they’ve tracked down key players in the reform bills and asked them where in the Constitution they are given the right to mandate that all citizens purchase health insurance. So far, not a single Democrat has been able to give them a straight answer. Pelosi wouldn’t even answer. Sen. Mary Landrieu (of Louisiana) referred them to her Constitutional law staffers.

599 CommonMan  Thu, Dec 17, 2009 5:13:11pm

The health care system is broken. The proposed solution that’s being debated now in the Senate is not fixing it at all. I wonder who dared to call this a “reform”. People seem to concentrate on universal access to health care services, but keep in mind, that having access does not guarantee you quality care. For example, in Soviet Union everyone had access to health care services and it was the crappiest health care service imaginable. We have a shortage of medical personnel now. It will get worse and we are risking lowering our own standards of medical care if this system is not reformed.

We really need to look into what drains our health care system (hint: it is not physicians’ salaries). We need someone up there to have enough backbone to stand up to lobbies and professional unions in order to actually reform the system. Buying health care access to 30 million people will encourage the current sad state of affairs.

By the way, I understand the issues people raised in this thread about being self employed and having health issues, I do pay exuberant premium for my family’s health insurance.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Trump’s “Stolen Election” Lie Based on Evidence From Pervy Bathroom Cam-Spy OK, this really takes the cake. If you have relatives that still cling to the “election was stolen, dadgum, I jes’ KNOW IT … This should be a slight remedy to the stubborn madness Thanks to online anonymity, the ...
Khal Wimpo (free internal organs upon request!)
Yesterday
Views: 72 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Best of April 2024 Nothing new here but these are a look back at the a few good images from the past month. Despite the weather, I was quite pleased with several of them. These were taken with older lenses (made from the ...
William Lewis
3 days ago
Views: 175 • Comments: 2 • Rating: 5
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 weeks ago
Views: 417 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1