Video: Jon Stewart and John Oliver Confront Hawaiian Socialism

Charles Johnson

HumorFebruary 2010 • Views: 3,199

John Oliver’s Daily Show segment on health care in Hawaii is a classic.

media.mtvnservices.com

Jump to bottom

166 comments

jamesfirecat Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:46:50pm

Aloha to the GOPs argument, and Aloha to the GOPs argument!

Kragar Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:48:05pm

SENATOR AKBAR IS RIGHT!

JRCMYP Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:51:14pm

They've been deluding themselves for 40 years!! We must save them!!

Blueheron Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:53:24pm

If the DOG likes it it must be good.

theliel Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:54:59pm

Wow. The entire GOP has been fearmongering bastards lying through their teeth?
I'm SChocked, SCHOked i telll you...

Kragar Fri, Feb 12, 2010 12:58:12pm

Obviously, the GOP needs to get behind my anti-tiger magic rock legislation before attending the trap meeting.

Ojoe Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:01:56pm

Over at "Newsmax:" (yeah I know, Newsmax, but:)

Obama Backtracking: Open to Taxes for Middle Class
Backtracking on a firm and fast campaign promise, President Barack Obama now says he is “agnostic” about raising taxes on households making under $250,000 a year. Obama declared that a presidential budget commission needs all options, including tax increases and cuts in Social Security and Medicare.
FULL STORY

BOHICA

Feline Fearless Leader Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:02:56pm

re: #6 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

But what happens if two men attack you armed with pints of raspberries (red and black)?

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:03:34pm

re: #2 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

SENATOR AKBAR IS RIGHT!

What about Senator Jeff?

political lunatic Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:03:42pm

Why is socialism still a valid thing to be scared of in the minds of independent voters and Republicans besides the whole "It's a path to communism!" theory anyway? It's not like communism is still a valid political system in most democracies around the world, so what gives?

researchok Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:04:19pm

Brooklyn, NY has a population twice that of Hawaii. Publicly funded health care works in Hawaii because the population is small.

What works for a population of 1.2 million people cannot be extrapolated to work for 300 plus million.

Canada is a prime example. Their population is roughly 10% that of the US. Nevertheless, their public healthcare is operating in crisis mode. ER waits are long and even procedures, tests and surgery often subjects Canadians to long waits that would be considered unacceptable here.

That said, I'm all for health care reform. I believe it ought to be brought in slowly. For example, universal coverage for those 0-12 (including prenatal) and from age 65 onwards. As it is, that's where the bulk of health dollars are spent. Let's see what works and what doesn't.

And we can start by taking away the monopoly health care insurance companies have and allow people to buy across state lines. Competition is a good thing.

Feline Fearless Leader Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:05:02pm

re: #10 political lunatic

Because logic, reality and political demagoguery are separate demesnes.

webevintage Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:05:26pm

The John Oliver "reports" from Hawaii this week have been classic.

Yes, I'm so afraid to have what the folks in Hawaii have...or Vermont...or Connecticut.
/

lawhawk Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:06:18pm

re: #7 Ojoe

It wasn't just newsmax reporting that Obama was ready to rickroll on the no tax pledge. Bloomberg first reported it, and the NYT picked it up. USA Today too.

jamesfirecat Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:07:05pm

re: #11 researchok

Brooklyn, NY has a population twice that of Hawaii. Publicly funded health care works in Hawaii because the population is small.

What works for a population of 1.2 million people cannot be extrapolated to work for 300 plus million.

Canada is a prime example. Their population is roughly 10% that of the US. Nevertheless, their public healthcare is operating in crisis mode. ER waits are long and even procedures, tests and surgery often subjects Canadians to long waits that would be considered unacceptable here.

That said, I'm all for health care reform. I believe it ought to be brought in slowly. For example, universal coverage for those 0-12 (including prenatal) and from age 65 onwards. As it is, that's where the bulk of health dollars are spent. Let's see what works and what doesn't.

And we can start by taking away the monopoly health care insurance companies have and allow people to buy across state lines. Competition is a good thing.

I thought government services tended to work better as you got more people involved.

A national army is bigger and better than a State Militia for example....

Ojoe Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:07:15pm

re: #14 lawhawk

Mr. O seems to have no consistent core now does he?

Summer Seale Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:08:54pm

I have to say that this was absolutely brilliant. =) Awesome post, Charles. =)

Ericus58 Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:09:10pm

re: #16 Ojoe

He's channeling Kerry....

Obdicut Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:09:36pm

re: #11 researchok

Can you explain why you don't think health insurance companies would simply flock to the state with the fewest consumer protections in exactly the same way that credit card companies did, if you allowed them to compete across state lines?

lawhawk Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:09:55pm

re: #11 researchok

Several states have tried their own versions of a public health care system, and have not met with success. Their budgets have severely underestimated the costs, and have been forced to curtail the programs. MassCare is a failure.

The state's plan flunks on all counts.
First, it has not achieved universal healthcare, although the reform has been a boon to the private insurance industry. The state has more than 200,000 without coverage, and the count can only go up with rising unemployment.

Second, the reform does not address the problem of insurance being connected to jobs. For individuals, this means their insurance is not continuous if they change or lose jobs. For employers, especially small businesses, health insurance is an expense they can ill afford.

Third, the program is not affordable for many individuals and families. For middle-income people not qualifying for state-subsidized health insurance, costs are too high for even skimpy coverage. For an individual earning $31,213, the cheapest plan can cost $9,872 in premiums and out-of-pocket payments. Low-income residents, previously eligible for free care, have insurance policies requiring unaffordable copayments for office visits and medications.

Fourth, the costs of the reform for the state have been formidable. Spending for the Commonwealth Care subsidized program has doubled, from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion for 2009, which is not sustainable.

Fifth, reform does not assure access to care. High-deductible plans that have additional out-of-pocket expenses can result in many people not using their insurance when they are sick. In my practice of child and adolescent psychiatry, a parent told me last week that she had a decrease in her job hours, could not afford the $30 copayment for treatment sessions for her adolescent, and decided to meet much less frequently.

I'm all for reforms in health care insurance and delivery, but let the states themselves come up with individualized options - see which ones actually work before putting everyone into the same mess.

Kragar Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:10:16pm

re: #8 oaktree

But what happens if two men attack you armed with pints of raspberries (red and black)?

What about a pointy stick?

Ojoe Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:10:38pm

re: #18 Ericus58

I do think he'd have had a no confidence vote by now if we had a parliamentary system.

BBL

Obdicut Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:11:08pm

re: #20 lawhawk

So you are in favor of repealing the law preventing individual states from setting up public options?

political lunatic Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:11:37pm

re: #6 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Can't that wait until their anti-witchcraft legislation gets signed by President Palin in 2012? Most towns severly lack wooden stakes to burn people on. With superminorities in both houses and the presidency, the scary magic boxes will disappear along with our witch problem! ///

ED 209 Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:11:43pm

re: #8 oaktree

But what happens if two men attack you armed with pints of raspberries (red and black)?

Release the tiger!

lawhawk Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:11:46pm

re: #16 Ojoe

Politicians' statements come with expiration dates. It's what they do.

Read his lips - he said no new taxes on 95% of working class (defined as what exactly?). Now, he's backing off that (but he already imposed taxes that hit all economic groups when he imposed the SCHIP tobacco tax hike. Smokers can be found in every economic group.

webevintage Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:12:31pm

re: #14 lawhawk

It wasn't just newsmax reporting that Obama was ready to rickroll on the no tax pledge. Bloomberg first reported it, and the NYT picked it up. USA Today too.

So the President just told the Republicans to put up or shut up, that he's willing to do what needs to be done.

Mosh Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:12:45pm

Private distribution of resources and care works best. Look at Taiwan.

In Taiwan hospitals are privately owned and 80% are non-profit. The government just pools the resources together and pays most of the bills. There are small co-payments of $10 but that's it. I'm for Taiwanese style health care.

researchok Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:13:00pm

re: #15 jamesfirecat

Not true. Economies of scale work only when you can forecast costs and usage.

lawhawk Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:13:19pm

re: #23 Obdicut

I'm not a fan of the public option, but if the legislature of a given state decides to bankrupt themselves trying - let them be a cautionary tale for everyone else.

Obdicut Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:13:36pm

re: #29 researchok

Actually insurance risk pools definitely work better when they're larger. Because they're risk pools.

SixDegrees Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:14:05pm

re: #11 researchok

Brooklyn, NY has a population twice that of Hawaii. Publicly funded health care works in Hawaii because the population is small.

What works for a population of 1.2 million people cannot be extrapolated to work for 300 plus million.

Canada is a prime example. Their population is roughly 10% that of the US. Nevertheless, their public healthcare is operating in crisis mode. ER waits are long and even procedures, tests and surgery often subjects Canadians to long waits that would be considered unacceptable here.

That said, I'm all for health care reform. I believe it ought to be brought in slowly. For example, universal coverage for those 0-12 (including prenatal) and from age 65 onwards. As it is, that's where the bulk of health dollars are spent. Let's see what works and what doesn't.

And we can start by taking away the monopoly health care insurance companies have and allow people to buy across state lines. Competition is a good thing.

And while we're picking the low-hanging fruit, there's those tens of billions of dollars that are wasted annually on Medicare and Medicaid through inefficiencies and fraud that were identified as one of the economic factors that would make the health care bill possible without increasing costs. Health care bill or no, that waste should be actively ferreted out of the system.

One can only be left wondering why action hasn't already been taken to right these wrongs.

Feline Fearless Leader Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:14:52pm

re: #24 political lunatic

They'll have to modify the EPA regs as well. I suspect that witch-burning will violate multiple emissions laws and you don't want the local communities having to deal with the fines and waste disposal issues.

Mosh Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:15:22pm

The biggest problem of government run health care is that it requires price controls. Price controls do not allow supply and demand to fluctuate. Supply and demand indicate to business owners where resources are most needed.

Kragar Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:15:47pm

re: #25 ED 209

Release the tiger!

HAHA! I got my rock. I'm safe.

Feline Fearless Leader Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:15:51pm

re: #25 ED 209

Release the tiger!

No tiger. He has his magic anti-tiger rock. Thus the conundrum of being attacked by men armed with fresh fruit.

lawhawk Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:16:43pm

re: #33 oaktree

The most ridiculous thing I heard today related to candles. In the course of a segment on Valentine's Day gifts, someone was touting organic candles as being green simply because they didn't include oil. Huh? You're burning a material releasing emissions into the air. That's green?!

Obdicut Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:17:09pm

re: #34 Mosh

Health care is not an elastic market, though. Supply and demand don't fluctuate like they do in an elastic market.

Kragar Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:17:16pm

re: #36 oaktree

No tiger. He has his magic anti-tiger rock. Thus the conundrum of being attacked by men armed with fresh fruit.

But the tiger would eat them, leaving me safe with 2 pints of fresh raspberries.

jamesfirecat Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:17:48pm

re: #34 Mosh

The biggest problem of government run health care is that it requires price controls. Price controls do not allow supply and demand to fluctuate. Supply and demand indicate to business owners where resources are most needed.

Let me throw up a counter point.

Supply and demand work best when the price of something has a natural ceiling.

People will say "no that gas costs too much I'd rather ride a bike/walk/take public transportation."

In this case its "no that medicine costs too much, I would rather die" that's no a phrase you can expect to hear very often. Of course more often you see people forgoing the kind of screening they should be getting to make sure they're healthy, so they end up making that same decision without realizing it.

How can the market put an accurate price on someone's health and well being?

Feline Fearless Leader Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:18:22pm

re: #39 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

But the tiger would eat them, leaving me safe with 2 pints of fresh raspberries.

But your rock would have scared the tiger away.

ED 209 Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:18:39pm

re: #36 oaktree

No tiger. He has his magic anti-tiger rock. Thus the conundrum of being attacked by men armed with fresh fruit.

Pull the lever, releasing the 16 ton weight on his head!

Cato the Elder Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:19:07pm

Sarah Palin tried to get a degree in Hawai'i, on her long, long road from basketball player to proud holder of a BS in BS.

Apparently she found all the different ethnicities unsettling, so she quit. (Imagine that!)

Hawai'i, it seems, may not be part of the real America.

researchok Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:19:22pm

re: #19 Obdicut

Can you explain why you don't think health insurance companies would simply flock to the state with the fewest consumer protections in exactly the same way that credit card companies did, if you allowed them to compete across state lines?

For one thing, while consumer protections do vary from state to state, they aren't all that different. This is especially true when it comes to insurance. Insurance companies will thrive if they offer a better and more reliable product, readily available to all.

That's why and how Honda and Toyota became big car makers. You're looking to protect GM and Chrysler.

Kragar Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:19:35pm

re: #41 oaktree

But your rock would have scared the tiger away.

Never said how far it scares them away.

Civil Sam Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:19:54pm

re: #11 researchok

There is no health insurance monopoly the keeps people from buying insurance in other states.

Local and state governments keep people from buying insurance across state lines because each state has laws that mandate what kind of coverage your policy must provide. This is also why insurance is often more expensive than it needs to be.

Mosh Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:20:07pm

re: #40 jamesfirecat

Let me throw up a counter point.

Supply and demand work best when the price of something has a natural ceiling.

People will say "no that gas costs too much I'd rather ride a bike/walk/take public transportation."

In this case its "no that medicine costs too much, I would rather die" that's no a phrase you can expect to hear very often. Of course more often you see people forgoing the kind of screening they should be getting to make sure they're healthy, so they end up making that same decision without realizing it.

How can the market put an accurate price on someone's health and well being?

Prices differ from costs. Prices are just a number, cost is the actual amount it takes to produce a good or service. Yes, you can put a cost on someone's health. You can try and cut the cost with a price control law put that extra cost will be placed elsewhere. Either in more expensive services, higher taxes, hidden fees, you name it.

Mosh Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:20:51pm

re: #38 Obdicut

Ask a hospital owner.

researchok Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:21:03pm

re: #31 Obdicut

Actually insurance risk pools definitely work better when they're larger. Because they're risk pools.

And that's my point- let's expand the options available to consumers.

researchok Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:22:37pm

re: #46 Civil Sam

There is no health insurance monopoly the keeps people from buying insurance in other states.

Local and state governments keep people from buying insurance across state lines because each state has laws that mandate what kind of coverage your policy must provide. This is also why insurance is often more expensive than it needs to be.

It was my understanding that Major League Baseball and health insurance were the only exception to federal the monopoly regulations.

I'll have to check that out.

Interesting Times Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:23:08pm

re: #11 researchok

Canada is a prime example. Their population is roughly 10% that of the US. Nevertheless, their public healthcare is operating in crisis mode. ER waits are long and even procedures, tests and surgery often subjects Canadians to long waits that would be considered unacceptable here.

If your doctor flags a test or procedure as urgent, you'll get it in a timely manner (speaking from direct personal experience here, as I'm Canadian - no, our system isn't perfect, but under no circumstances would I EVER trade it for what the US has now...I still can't get over how people can wind up spending the equivalent of rent or mortgage on health insurance premiums)

Obdicut Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:23:23pm

re: #44 researchok

For one thing, while consumer protections do vary from state to state, they aren't all that different

On what grounds do you say that? It's totally untrue. Some states have enormous differences in consumer protection. If there was no big difference, the credit card companies wouldn't have all moved.

Insurance companies will thrive if they offer a better and more reliable product, readily available to all.

What does this have to do with allowing them to compete across state lines?

Insurance companies will definitely thrive if the few legal recourses against them are further weakened by allowing them to move to whatever state (Deleware again, probably) have the weakest consumer protection laws. Right now, for example, you cannot sue an insurance company in civil suit for damages caused by refused payment for care; you can't sue them for death, either. You can sue them to provide coverage, but if you die during that lawsuit, there is no suit against them your heirs can bring.

In a few states, creative attorney's have begun to find loopholes in this protection, but it's taken a long time, and they only work in some states.

I think that being able to or not being able to sue for death due to refused coverage is a rather significant difference in consumer protection, don't you?

Mosh Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:23:24pm

Probably the biggest roadblock to health care reform, besides lobbyists, is the US Constitution. Establishing a national, single-payer health care system is not an enumerated power in the Constitution. So either every state has to have their own system, like they do with Medicaid, or we have to pass a constitutional amendment (good luck with that).

The Sanity Inspector Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:24:06pm

re: #10 political lunatic

Why is socialism still a valid thing to be scared of in the minds of independent voters and Republicans besides the whole "It's a path to communism!" theory anyway? It's not like communism is still a valid political system in most democracies around the world, so what gives?

It's now a disembodied evil spirit, flitting through the intelligentsia and bien pensants of the world, searching for an unguarded body politic to possess.

researchok Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:24:12pm

re: #32 SixDegrees

And while we're picking the low-hanging fruit, there's those tens of billions of dollars that are wasted annually on Medicare and Medicaid through inefficiencies and fraud that were identified as one of the economic factors that would make the health care bill possible without increasing costs. Health care bill or no, that waste should be actively ferreted out of the system.

One can only be left wondering why action hasn't already been taken to right these wrongs.

You're right. It's a lot easier to monitor fraud in a small population than in a bigger one.

Obdicut Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:24:37pm

re: #48 Mosh

Ask them what, exactly?

re: #53 Mosh

And disband the air force, too. Also, give back the Louisiana Purchase.

Varek Raith Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:25:29pm

re: #56 Obdicut

Ask them what, exactly?

re: #53 Mosh

And disband the air force, too. Also, give back the Louisiana Purchase.

NASA.

researchok Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:25:31pm

re: #52 Obdicut

What does this have to do with allowing them to compete across state lines?

Insurance companies will definitely thrive if the few legal recourses against them are further weakened by allowing them to move to whatever state (Deleware again, probably) have the weakest consumer protection laws. Right now, for example, you cannot sue an insurance company in civil suit for damages caused by refused payment for care; you can't sue them for death, either. You can sue them to provide coverage, but if you die during that lawsuit, there is no suit against them your heirs can bring.

In a few states, creative attorney's have begun to find loopholes in this protection, but it's taken a long time, and they only work in some states.

I think that being able to or not being able to sue for death due to refused coverage is a rather significant difference in consumer protection, don't you?

Insurance companies are different- there is a reason there are state insurance commissions. For one thing, there are compacts that recognize insurance in one jurisdiction to be valid in another.

researchok Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:26:33pm

re: #52 Obdicut

What does this have to do with allowing them to compete across state lines?

Insurance companies will definitely thrive if the few legal recourses against them are further weakened by allowing them to move to whatever state (Deleware again, probably) have the weakest consumer protection laws. Right now, for example, you cannot sue an insurance company in civil suit for damages caused by refused payment for care; you can't sue them for death, either. You can sue them to provide coverage, but if you die during that lawsuit, there is no suit against them your heirs can bring.

In a few states, creative attorney's have begun to find loopholes in this protection, but it's taken a long time, and they only work in some states.

I think that being able to or not being able to sue for death due to refused coverage is a rather significant difference in consumer protection, don't you?

By the way, you're making a great case for tort reform!

jamesfirecat Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:27:21pm

re: #47 Mosh

Prices differ from costs. Prices are just a number, cost is the actual amount it takes to produce a good or service. Yes, you can put a cost on someone's health. You can try and cut the cost with a price control law put that extra cost will be placed elsewhere. Either in more expensive services, higher taxes, hidden fees, you name it.

If we leave it up to the market, whats to stop them from constantly jacking up the price to increase their profits since they're selling a good people can literally "not live without"?

Obdicut Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:27:23pm

re: #58 researchok

Insurance companies are different- there is a reason there are state insurance commissions. For one thing, there are compacts that recognize insurance in one jurisdiction to be valid in another.

Can you please explain why you feel that insurance companies are different, and why they wouldn't move to the state with the weakest consumer protections? I realize you think that they're different. Why are they different?

Varek Raith Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:27:33pm

re: #59 researchok

By the way, you're making a great case for tort reform!

Doesn't Texas have tort reform?

Obdicut Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:28:07pm

re: #59 researchok

Given that tort reform has showed no lower costs in Texas, where it has been in place for many years now, why do you think tort reform is any part of a larger solution to health insurance reform?

Mosh Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:28:29pm

re: #56 Obdicut

Ask a hospital owner if they have to constantly examine if they need more penicillin, zoloft, wheelchairs, or any kind of specialist. A hospital owner has to examine if he needs more or less of every kind of drug and doctor in his hospital. If the patients are deprived of it or if more is needed he'll get more.

The Air Force is an implied power, health care is not.
No one in their right mind would advocate giving the Louisiana Purchase back to the French.

HelloDare Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:29:11pm

Healthcare should be left to the states. That being said, Obama blew it. If he had worked with the Republicans, like he said he would do in the campaign, he could have passed a healthcare bill by now -- something both the vast majority of both dems and republican could have agreed on -- a pool for people with preexisting conditions, the ability to buy insurance across state lines, some form of mild tort reform. He could have had that. And it would not have precluded trying to get more passed later.

He would have been a hero to most who voted for him and many who did not.

But he didn't do that. He let Reid and Pelosi dictate healthcare reform. Obama blew it. He may be brilliant but it sure isn't stopping him from being stupid.

jaunte Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:30:00pm

re: #62 Varek Raith

Texas now has a cap on non-economic damages of $250,000 per defendant.

Obdicut Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:30:10pm

re: #64 Mosh

Ask a hospital owner if they have to constantly examine if they need more penicillin, zoloft, wheelchairs, or any kind of specialist. A hospital owner has to examine if he needs more or less of every kind of drug and doctor in his hospital. If the patients are deprived of it or if more is needed he'll get more.

What on earth does this have to do with anything we were talking about?

The Air Force is an implied power, health care is not.

Sez you. Why do you think that you can blithely say that there are implied powers in the constitution, but dismiss General Welfare? Hell, health care is pretty much a national security issue as well.

No one in their right mind would advocate giving the Louisiana Purchase back to the French.

And the constitutional authority for it was..?

palomino Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:30:52pm

re: #53 Mosh

Probably the biggest roadblock to health care reform, besides lobbyists, is the US Constitution. Establishing a national, single-payer health care system is not an enumerated power in the Constitution. So either every state has to have their own system, like they do with Medicaid, or we have to pass a constitutional amendment (good luck with that).

Establishing SS and Medicare administrations wasn't based on enumerated powers either. With the expansive reading of the interstate commerce clause, the fed. govt. can get involved with just about anything that has a substantial nexus to interstate trade, as health care clearly does. But you're right about lobbyists being the biggest obstacle.

Mosh Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:31:03pm

re: #60 jamesfirecat

If we leave it up to the market, whats to stop them from constantly jacking up the price to increase their profits since they're selling a good people can literally "not live without"?

People always look for the lowest price. Look at airline deregulation in the 1990s, we ended price controls on air fair and smaller cheaper airlines emerged. Airlines originally kept their fair high but after smaller competitors emerged they where forced to lower their prices.

The ban on shopping for insurance across state lines has allowed insurance companies to monopolize. The lobbyists are in Washington to keep that ban in place.

SasyMomaCat Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:31:35pm

dang it, guys - I look away to construct a relevant comment and everyone moves upstairs while I'm not looking. I promise, I took a shower this morning!

Varek Raith Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:32:34pm

re: #64 Mosh

The Air Force is an implied power, health care is not.
No one in their right mind would advocate giving the Louisiana Purchase back to the French.

On what Constitutional grounds do you base this on, exactly?

Obdicut Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:32:35pm

re: #69 Mosh

Can you answer my question, then? Why wouldn't the insurance companies move to the state with the absolutely weakest consumer protections?

jamesfirecat Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:32:50pm

re: #69 Mosh

People always look for the lowest price. Look at airline deregulation in the 1990s, we ended price controls on air fair and smaller cheaper airlines emerged. Airlines originally kept their fair high but after smaller competitors emerged they where forced to lower their prices.

The ban on shopping for insurance across state lines has allowed insurance companies to monopolize. The lobbyists are in Washington to keep that ban in place.

Why can't the companies act in collusion to a certain degree to slowly and steadily raise healthcare costs? There is no alternative to health insurance besides paying for everything out of pocket which is far too expensive to be a truly "reasonable" alternative.

By the way OT you haven't talked back to me on the other thread about abortion in a while, does that mean you give up and admit I was right?

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:33:30pm

re: #43 Cato the Elder

Sarah Palin tried to get a degree in Hawai'i, on her long, long road from basketball player to proud holder of a BS in BS.

Apparently she found all the different ethnicities unsettling, so she quit. (Imagine that!)

Hawai'i, it seems, may not be part of the real America.

The Washington Times said about that, didn't they?

andres Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:34:24pm

re: #53 Mosh

Probably the biggest roadblock to health care reform, besides lobbyists, is the US Constitution. Establishing a national, single-payer health care system is not an enumerated power in the Constitution. So either every state has to have their own system, like they do with Medicaid, or we have to pass a constitutional amendment (good luck with that).

Why do you hate the Air Force so much. :'(

palomino Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:36:48pm

re: #65 HelloDare

That sounds very moderate and reasonable, but what makes you think the GOP would have gone along with that?

The GOP strategy from the start, even before there was a bill with any specific provisions, was to oppose everything, lest Obama get a political victory.

Varek Raith Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:36:56pm

re: #75 andres

Why do you hate the Air Force so much. :'(

Implied Powers...heh, that's just teeming with partisan abuse...

andres Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:37:19pm

re: #65 HelloDare

Healthcare should be left to the states. That being said, Obama blew it. If he had worked with the Republicans, like he said he would do in the campaign, he could have passed a healthcare bill by now -- something both the vast majority of both dems and republican could have agreed on -- a pool for people with preexisting conditions, the ability to buy insurance across state lines, some form of mild tort reform. He could have had that. And it would not have precluded trying to get more passed later.

He would have been a hero to most who voted for him and many who did not.

But he didn't do that. He let Reid and Pelosi dictate healthcare reform. Obama blew it. He may be brilliant but it sure isn't stopping him from being stupid.

Stop revising what happened last year. Republicans were given ample opportunities to join the discussion, to the point of Obama negotiating directly with Sen. Snowe, the last Republican Congressperson willing to give this a chance (before the whole Tea Party/RNC Purity crash)

webevintage Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:38:22pm

re: #76 palomino

That sounds very moderate and reasonable, but what makes you think the GOP would have gone along with that?

The GOP strategy from the start, even before there was a bill with any specific provisions, was to oppose everything, lest Obama get a political victory.

Come on now, you know it is not "being bipartisan" unless you are agreeing to everything the Republicans want.
/

Mosh Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:39:26pm

re: #67 Obdicut

And the constitutional authority for it was..?

I was trying to explain that supply and demand applies to hospital owners and the health industry too.

The Justices of the time claimed that there was no constitutional authority for the Louisiana Purchase but they allowed it because it was a great opportunity.

General Welfare: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison, Father of the Constitution

andres Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:39:30pm

re: #69 Mosh

People always look for the lowest price. Look at airline deregulation in the 1990s, we ended price controls on air fair and smaller cheaper airlines emerged. Airlines originally kept their fair high but after smaller competitors emerged they where forced to lower their prices.

The ban on shopping for insurance across state lines has allowed insurance companies to monopolize. The lobbyists are in Washington to keep that ban in place.

One thing is a product. Insurance is not a product. As many as hammered by now, insurance works very different from normal markets.

Mosh Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:40:21pm

re: #73 jamesfirecat

I struck down all your points in the last thread. I was done.

Obdicut Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:41:51pm

re: #80 Mosh

I was trying to explain that supply and demand applies to hospital owners and the health industry too.

Do you know what an elastic vs. an inelastic market is?

The Justices of the time claimed that there was no constitutional authority for the Louisiana Purchase but they allowed it because it was a great opportunity.

So do you think that we shouldn't have done the Louisiana Purchase?

General Welfare: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison, Father of the Constitution

Do you know what the "great Compromise" was?

Mosh Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:41:56pm

re: #73 jamesfirecat

Why can't the companies act in collusion to a certain degree to slowly and steadily raise healthcare costs? There is no alternative to health insurance besides paying for everything out of pocket which is far too expensive to be a truly "reasonable" alternative.

Read about anti-trust law.
Link

jamesfirecat Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:42:17pm

re: #82 Mosh

I struck down all your points in the last thread. I was done.

Cause you can tell someone has one an argument when they run out of things to say and resort to mindless down dinging!

palomino Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:42:45pm

re: #79 webevintage

Come on now, you know it is not "being bipartisan" unless you are agreeing to everything the Republicans want.
/

Exactly. All this talk about tort reform, as if throwing that bone to the gop would have gotten any support from the right for Dem proposals.

Mosh Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:42:49pm

re: #83 Obdicut

Do you know what the "great Compromise" was?

General Welfare: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." - James Madison, Father of the Constitution
Do you know what the "great Compromise" was?

What does slavery have to do with welfare?

Obdicut Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:42:58pm

re: #82 Mosh

Down-dinged for declaring yourself the victor in an argument. Really no point in talking to yourself if you're just going to crown yourself king.

Obdicut Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:44:20pm

re: #87 Mosh

It doesn't. You're thinking of the three-fifths compromise.

Do you know what the "great compromise" was?

jamesfirecat Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:45:24pm

re: #82 Mosh

I struck down all your points in the last thread. I was done.

Really? You never tried to rebut my post 573 where I showed how agreeing to have sex and agreeing to carry a child are two different things...

ShaunP Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:46:37pm

re: #84 Mosh

Read about anti-trust law.
Link

Read about health insurance exemption from the antitrust act:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Mosh Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:46:50pm

re: #89 Obdicut

It doesn't. You're thinking of the three-fifths compromise.

Do you know what the "great compromise" was?

I admit I looked it up. But what does the creation of a bicameral legislature have to do with "general welfare"?

Mosh Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:47:46pm

re: #91 ShaunP

Read about health insurance exemption from the antitrust act:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

I'll admit, I didn't know about that case. Thanks for the link.

researchok Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:48:18pm

re: #63 Obdicut

Given that tort reform has showed no lower costs in Texas, where it has been in place for many years now, why do you think tort reform is any part of a larger solution to health insurance reform?

John Edwards is considered the one guy who ended costing the citizens in NC higher insurance rates after he lied about the causes CP in court. Many say he is responsible for the shortage in OB-GYN's in the state.

I live in NC- there is a reason not even his home county voted for him.

Mosh Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:48:43pm

re: #90 jamesfirecat

Really? You never tried to rebut my post 573 where I showed how agreeing to have sex and agreeing to carry a child are two different things...

I'm not going to repeat myself. Go back and read the thread again.

andres Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:48:47pm

re: #77 Varek Raith

Implied Powers...heh, that's just teeming with partisan abuse...

For some reason, I've always liked Air Force planes.

Obdicut Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:50:51pm

re: #92 Mosh

It doesn't. It's pointing out that Madison is in no way the final authority on the constitution, and citing him as though he is is dishonest. The constitution was something agreed upon by delegates, democratically; it belongs to all who signed it.

The founding fathers held different opinions on many subjects, including general welfare. None of them overrule each other. The constitution is what it is, and the Supreme Court has held the general welfare and commerce clauses to be sufficient for many things for many, many years. That you are attempting to make an argument for a sudden return to solely enumerated powers in the constitution-- especially while arguing so heavily against states' rights-- is pretty absurd to me.

Feel free to answer any of the other outstanding questions that you haven't, as well.

Mosh Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:51:08pm

re: #96 andres

For some reason, I've always liked Air Force planes.

Samesies!

recusancy Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:51:18pm

re: #11 researchok

And we can start by taking away the monopoly health care insurance companies have and allow people to buy across state lines. Competition is a good thing.

That's in the current bill that the GOP is against.

100

Obdicut Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:51:44pm

re: #94 researchok

So, you don't have any answer for me?

Why do you think tort reform plays any real part in health insurance reform, when it has had no effect in the states it has already been tried in?

101

jamesfirecat Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:51:50pm

re: #95 Mosh

I'm not going to repeat myself. Go back and read the thread again.

"Getting mugged is non-consensual. Having sex is."

573 shows how you can have consensual sex without consenting to carry a child.

Or do you think that is impossible?

102

researchok Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:54:24pm

re: #100 Obdicut

So, you don't have any answer for me?

Why do you think tort reform plays any real part in health insurance reform, when it has had no effect in the states it has already been tried in?

I would say lack of tort reform has cost NC dearly.

I don't know all the ins and outs of tort reform legislation. What I do know is that the trial lawyers are hell bent on stopping it and are spending fortunes to do just that.

103

Mosh Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:55:41pm

especially while arguing so heavily against states' rights-- is pretty absurd to me.

When did I argue against state's rights?
re: #97 Obdicut

You are right, Madison does not hold final say. Find another quote from a Founder that counters my Madison quote, that says that the federal government should provide welfare services to us.

Please restate any questions I have missed. I am debating with two people right now and I'm sorry if one slipped through the cracks.

104

Varek Raith Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:55:47pm

re: #102 researchok

I would say lack of tort reform has cost NC dearly.

I don't know all the ins and outs of tort reform legislation. What I do know is that the trial lawyers are hell bent on stopping it and are spending fortunes to do just that.

Okay, now about Texas. As far as I can tell, tort reform there has had no effect on the cost of healthcare.

105

researchok Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:56:30pm

re: #99 recusancy

That's in the current bill that the GOP is against.

The GOP may be against the current bill as it is. That doesn't mean they are against every single provision. They have said repeatedly they would support cross state line sales of health insurance.

106

Obdicut Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:58:09pm

re: #102 researchok

So you don't care that tort reform is actually ineffective, because it's an ideological goal of yours?

107

recusancy Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:58:13pm

re: #105 researchok

The GOP may be against the current bill as it is. That doesn't mean they are against every single provision. They have said repeatedly they would support cross state line sales of health insurance.

Of course not. They could be FOR every single provision and they wouldn't vote for it because it would help Obama and the dems.

108

Mosh Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:59:21pm

re: #101 jamesfirecat

No, it is not different. The biological purpose of sex is to have children. It's pleasurable and fun because of natural selection, it made reproduction more likely.

Doesn't matter how many layers of condoms you use or how much birth control you take, or how many vasectomies you have, there is still that small .1% chance. By having sex you are mature enough to understand that a child is possible, you take cautions to try and prevent it, but as your 8th grade health class teacher told you "it can still happen".

109

recusancy Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:59:28pm

re: #102 researchok

I would say lack of tort reform has cost NC dearly.

I don't know all the ins and outs of tort reform legislation. What I do know is that the trial lawyers are hell bent on stopping it and are spending fortunes to do just that.

And insurance companies are hell bent on stopping health reform and spending fortunes to do just that.

110

researchok Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:59:28pm

re: #104 Varek Raith

Okay, now about Texas. As far as I can tell, tort reform there has had no effect on the cost of healthcare.

I don't know enough about it. I do suspect like most controversial items, the trial lawyers are spinning away. They are against tort reform tooth and nail. Geez, they've paid everyone off on both sides to elicit support.

That alone causes me concern.

My initial remarks were in response to obdicuts comment.

111

jaunte Fri, Feb 12, 2010 1:59:51pm

re: #104 Varek Raith

Okay, now about Texas. As far as I can tell, tort reform there has had no effect on the cost of healthcare.

Here's a link to a report (.pdf) about the economic effects:

Last year, TLR commissioned a study by The Perryman Group to figure out the impact of these reforms (the above are excerpted from that report). Here are the economic impact findings of that study:
$112.5 billion increase in annual spending
$51.2 billion increase in annual output – goods and services produced in Texas
$2.6 billion increase in annual state tax revenue
$468.9 million in annual benefits from safer products
$15.2 billion in annual net benefits of enhanced innovation
499,000 permanent jobs
430,000 additional Texans have health insurance today as a result of the medical liability reforms

112

jaunte Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:00:50pm

re: #111 jaunte

And the link would be good, too:
[Link: docisinblog.com...]

113

Obdicut Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:01:29pm

re: #103 Mosh

You are right, Madison does not hold final say. Find another quote from a Founder that counters my Madison quote, that says that the federal government should provide welfare services to us.

Okay:

Education is here placed among the articles of public care, not that it would be proposed to take its ordinary branches out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal; but a public institution can alone supply those sciences which, though rarely called for, are yet necessary to complete the circle, all the parts of which contribute to the improvement of the country, and some of them to its preservation.

Jefferson

Easy one.

Now, do you really not understand that saying you want companies to be able to compete across state lines is an argument against states' rights?

114

jamesfirecat Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:01:45pm

re: #108 Mosh

No, it is not different. The biological purpose of sex is to have children. It's pleasurable and fun because of natural selection, it made reproduction more likely.

Doesn't matter how many layers of condoms you use or how much birth control you take, or how many vasectomies you have, there is still that small .1% chance. By having sex you are mature enough to understand that a child is possible, you take cautions to try and prevent it, but as your 8th grade health class teacher told you "it can still happen".

By your logic if you step out into a street and get hit by a drunk driver, you have no right to sue him.

Yes you tried to be careful, and yes he didn't mean for it to happen the poor fellow, but it still did happen and you knew there were such things as drunk drivers and even if it was only a 0.0001% chance of it happening, you still knew it could happen, and you put yourself in a position where it could happen.

Or am I wrong? If so why?

115

Obdicut Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:02:02pm

re: #108 Mosh

Why does the biological purpose of sex matter?

116

researchok Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:02:46pm

re: #109 recusancy

And insurance companies are hell bent on stopping health reform and spending fortunes to do just that.

Yup- what a lineup of thieves!

117

Mosh Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:03:27pm

re: #113 Obdicut

Now, do you really not understand that saying you want companies to be able to compete across state lines is an argument against states' rights?

I'm afraid I don't. Auto companies, fast food chains, etc all compete across state lines. Each state has their own regulations. I don't see how this violates state's rights.

Good Jefferson quote. :) Here's an upding.

118

researchok Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:05:05pm

See the LGF link on health reform.

Some great stuff in there.

119

recusancy Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:06:26pm

re: #116 researchok

Yup- what a lineup of thieves!

So you'd be for the bill were tort reform added in?

120

Mosh Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:07:06pm

re: #114 jamesfirecat

By your logic if you step out into a street and get hit by a drunk driver, you have no right to sue him.

Yes you tried to be careful, and yes he didn't mean for it to happen the poor fellow, but it still did happen and you knew there were such things as drunk drivers and even if it was only a 0.0001% chance of it happening, you still knew it could happen, and you put yourself in a position where it could happen.

Or am I wrong? If so why?

The drunk driver broke the law. Last I checked having consensual sex is not against the law.

Do you not understand that consenting to having sex, knowing the possible consequences is different from a person breaking the law?

Did you forget that I'm pro-choice?

121

recusancy Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:07:41pm

re: #118 researchok

See the LGF link on health reform.

Some great stuff in there.

Great stuff for getting last August's news. The bill's have changed greatly since then.

122

Obdicut Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:08:07pm

re: #117 Mosh

I'm afraid I don't. Auto companies, fast food chains, etc all compete across state lines. Each state has their own regulations. I don't see how this violates state's rights.

Oh, maybe you just don't understand my question on th issue. If you buy an insurance policy while you live in Idaho, but you buy it from a company in Deleware, and they fuck you over, do you think you should have the right to sue them in civil court in Idaho, where you bought the policy?

Because generally, the boiler-plate 'allowing them to compete across state lines' implies respecting the companies state of residence, meaning all lawsuits against them would take place in that state-- which is why consumer protections matter.

That's the first and foremost question.

123

Obdicut Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:08:48pm

re: #120 Mosh

You really are kind of lost in his analogy, man.

Again, why does the biological purpose of sex matter? Why are we considering it?

124

researchok Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:10:15pm

re: #119 recusancy

So you'd be for the bill were tort reform added in?

Pretty much- that and as I noted in my comment that got all this started.

I believe health care reform has to get done. I also believe we can do it in a way that makes sense. Most of what we have seen so far is pretty good. A lot however, is not. Let' see what works and what doesn't before we finalize the deal.

125

Mosh Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:10:18pm

re: #122 Obdicut

Oh, maybe you just don't understand my question on th issue. If you buy an insurance policy while you live in Idaho, but you buy it from a company in Deleware, and they fuck you over, do you think you should have the right to sue them in civil court in Idaho, where you bought the policy?

Because generally, the boiler-plate 'allowing them to compete across state lines' implies respecting the companies state of residence, meaning all lawsuits against them would take place in that state-- which is why consumer protections matter.

That's the first and foremost question.

That is actually a very well thought out, reasonable question that I do not know the answer to. I'm not a judge or a lawyer. I'm just some dipshit debating on the internet.

126

Mosh Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:11:53pm

re: #122 Obdicut

BTW: Congratulations on your engagement. Mazel tov! :)

127

researchok Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:12:41pm

re: #121 recusancy

Great stuff for getting last August's news. The bill's have changed greatly since then.

How do you know that? No one has seen any of the bills!

That's a big reason I and a whole lot of others are suspicious.

128

Obdicut Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:12:42pm

re: #125 Mosh

Fair enough. I'm just warning you that "allow them to compete across state lines!" sounds great and libertarian and all, but what it really means-- as it did in the case of the credit card companies-- is that the companies would locate themselves in the state with the weakest consumer protections. Also, unless you had a federal law forcing states to adopt some sort of related regulations, most companies wouldn't bother selling across state lines unless they got that benefit of lawsuit protection, since creating packages that fit all states regulations would be an enormous hassle. It'd probably be easier to just keep it the same as it is now, for them.

129

recusancy Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:13:51pm

re: #124 researchok

Pretty much- that and as I noted in my comment that got all this started.

I believe health care reform has to get done. I also believe we can do it in a way that makes sense. Most of what we have seen so far is pretty good. A lot however, is not. Let' see what works and what doesn't before we finalize the deal.

Are you reading from a politicians cue cards? That's the most boiler plate typical politician speak I've ever read. It means nothing. It's filler used to placate the masses while we sit on our hands.

130

Mosh Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:14:27pm

re: #128 Obdicut

Another upding!

BTW, what do you think the solution to our health care problem is? Single-payer, a public option?

131

Gus Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:14:32pm

Bravo to John Oliver for pointing out the ignorance of some of the participants of this RNC meeting in Hawaii. They're partly in Hawaii to create a strategy against health care reform and aren't even familiar with the current policy of the host state.

John Oliver is quite a talented political comedian. There was another segment in Hawaii on The Daily Show regarding the so called elitism of President Obama and his Hawaiian roots. What struck me the most was the contrast between the criticisms of President Obama as "elitist" that was educated in one of the finest schools in "exotic Hawaii" and then seeing that the GOP had their "elitist" and exclusive gathering in "exotic Hawaii."

132

researchok Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:16:08pm

re: #129 recusancy

Are you reading from a politicians cue cards? That's the most boiler plate typical politician speak I've ever read. It means nothing. It's filler used to placate the masses while we sit on our hands.

No, I've been saying that all along- for over a year now.

133

Varek Raith Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:16:40pm

re: #112 jaunte

And the link would be good, too:
[Link: docisinblog.com...]

Hmm, more research on this, I need. I retract my 'doesn't work' comment until further notice.

134

recusancy Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:20:00pm

re: #132 researchok

No, I've been saying that all along- for over a year now.

I meant the bolded portion.

Either way... How does being able to buy across state lines get rid of monopolies? Conglomeration is what will happen. It's not like they're being innovative and coming up with new products that would allow a fiesty upstart to challenge the big boys. Insurance is insurance. It's a distribution of wealth to those in need of medical care with the insurance company taking a cut.

135

jamesfirecat Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:22:20pm

re: #120 Mosh

The drunk driver broke the law. Last I checked having consensual sex is not against the law.

Do you not understand that consenting to having sex, knowing the possible consequences is different from a person breaking the law?

Did you forget that I'm pro-choice?

Okay then sorry here's your example.

I'll admit I've been going around in circles for a while with illegal actions so here is my new one....

Do we blame a person who moves to Florida to enjoy the weather if their house is blown away by a Hurricane knowing that such things are hurricanes exist and that they happen in Florida?

136

researchok Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:24:26pm

re: #134 recusancy

I meant the bolded portion.

Either way... How does being able to buy across state lines get rid of monopolies? Conglomeration is what will happen. It's not like they're being innovative and coming up with new products that would allow a fiesty upstart to challenge the big boys. Insurance is insurance. It's a distribution of wealth to those in need of medical care with the insurance company taking a cut.

Buying across state lines allows for competition- that's how you get rid of monopolies. You can buy the product that you like the best at the best price you can.

Lots of insurance companies would be happy to take your premiums.

137

HelloDare Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:26:12pm

re: #76 palomino

re: #78 andres

I'm accused of revising history. That's cute. Obama never met with Republicans on healthcare. Obama shut them and the public out of the whole healthcare process. The republicans did have a plan. It was in McCain's platform. There were other plans, too.

138

HelloDare Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:29:52pm

re: #137 HelloDare

Sorry, here's that link: [Link: www.heritage.org...]

139

Obdicut Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:36:55pm

re: #130 Mosh

Me, personally? Single-payer, from a practical point of view. But more importantly, really, I think we need the following:

1. More PAs and Nurse Practitioners, with greater mandates of service. A lot more.

2. A switch away from fee-for-service to some sort of payment plan based on total care.

3. Transparency of insurance companies actuarial tables. in other words, we get to see 'em.

140

researchok Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:42:08pm

re: #139 Obdicut

Me, personally? Single-payer, from a practical point of view. But more importantly, really, I think we need the following:

1. More PAs and Nurse Practitioners, with greater mandates of service. A lot more.

2. A switch away from fee-for-service to some sort of payment plan based on total care.

3. Transparency of insurance companies actuarial tables. in other words, we get to see 'em.

I like 1 and 3, with some caveats.

PA's and NP's can only have so much authority- can you see the lawyers?

As for open actuarial tables, I'd give you 5 updings for that!

As for the total care concept, that would only work with GP's.

141

jaunte Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:43:31pm

re: #133 Varek Raith

Hmm, more research on this, I need. I retract my 'doesn't work' comment until further notice.

:)

It helps some things, but it's not a cure-all.

142

Obdicut Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:44:09pm

re: #140 researchok

Here's an article that explains more of where i'm coming from:

[Link: www.newyorker.com...]

143

researchok Fri, Feb 12, 2010 3:03:16pm

re: #142 Obdicut

Here's an article that explains more of where i'm coming from:

[Link: www.newyorker.com...]

Good article, TY.

Still, a lot of the numbers he has are problematic.

I grew up in the UK and I can tell you, the NHP isn't all it's cracked up to be. That's why so many people are opting out.

As for health care in France, it's OK but not great. There are great hospitals out there but as in Canada, you have to wait. And don't ask about the taxes in France needed to pay for it all.

Long story short, we need a hybrid system- and that's what we do best. We make things work

144

Obdicut Fri, Feb 12, 2010 3:05:09pm

re: #143 researchok

I don't care if it's a hybrid system. That's fine. I just want us to stop pretending our current system is sustainable. It isn't. I also want us to stop pretending we don't already pay for the cost of the uninsured, which we do.

145

researchok Fri, Feb 12, 2010 3:12:48pm

re: #144 Obdicut

I don't care if it's a hybrid system. That's fine. I just want us to stop pretending our current system is sustainable. It isn't. I also want us to stop pretending we don't already pay for the cost of the uninsured, which we do.

I couldn't agree more.

What bothers me most about all this are the closed doors.

If we there was so much pork in the stimulus package, can you imagine what this looks like? To be clear, I'm talking about both sides here. We have no idea what was promised to whom, not to mention the usual pork.

I'll tell you, if we had term limits a whole lot more would get done.

146

JanglerNPL Fri, Feb 12, 2010 3:16:12pm

re: #112 jaunte

Two things: First, one should note that the figures you cite apply to the time period 1995-2008 (Bush, as governor, apparently signed a tort reform bill into law in 1995 and another one in 2003).

Second, realize that this is not a peer-reviewed study, so take its conclusions with a grain of salt. I can find very little information about the Perryman Group, but the report says it uses the methodology of the Pacific Research Institute, a conservative think tank which flirts with AGW denialism. Sample quote from the linked page:

The last decade of global temperatures (from about January 1999 onward) reveals little to no warming.

I do not say this as an attempt at guilt-by-association; I'm just saying don't take their study as gospel. I doubt you would put much stock in a report from the Center for American Progress saying that tort reform would be harmful; I hope you can see that the same caveat applies here, even if you agree with this group's politics.

147

JanglerNPL Fri, Feb 12, 2010 3:22:28pm

re: #146 JanglerNPL

Er, I mean..."and Perry signed another one in 2003". Obviously Bush wasn't governor then.

148

krypto Fri, Feb 12, 2010 3:30:21pm

re: #53 Mosh

Probably the biggest roadblock to health care reform, besides lobbyists, is the US Constitution. Establishing a national, single-payer health care system is not an enumerated power in the Constitution. So either every state has to have their own system, like they do with Medicaid, or we have to pass a constitutional amendment (good luck with that).

Perhaps that question really deserves to be left to courts and constitutional lawyers, rather than bloggers on discussion boards. The national single payer system for people over 65, Medicare, seems to have survived constitutional tests thus far (even before its single payer character was weakened by Medicare Advantage plans).

149

dean_k Fri, Feb 12, 2010 3:41:21pm

re: #143 researchok

I grew up in the UK and I can tell you, the NHP isn't all it's cracked up to be.

I have lived all my life in the UK, and I can tell you, the NHS in my opinion, is all it's cracked up to be and more.

That's why so many people are opting out.

Sorry, what people, and how many?

I apologise for being narky but I'm tired of Non-British people trying to slag of our health service. If you want to keep your current system, fine, I couldn't care less, but stop distorting the truth about ours.

150

JanglerNPL Fri, Feb 12, 2010 3:43:31pm

re: #149 dean_k

Heh..."apologise" and "slag". You really *are* British! :-P

151

jaunte Fri, Feb 12, 2010 4:30:32pm

re: #146 JanglerNPL

Good point; I wouldn't take all the numbers in that report as gospel.

152

jaunte Fri, Feb 12, 2010 4:57:51pm

re: #146 JanglerNPL

This is probably a much more reliable study:

The latest analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that government health care programs could save $41 billion over 10 years if nationwide limits on jury awards for pain and suffering and other similar curbs were enacted. Those savings are nearly 10 times greater than the CBO estimated just last year.
[Link: www.boston.com...]

153

JanglerNPL Fri, Feb 12, 2010 5:20:13pm

re: #152 jaunte

Yeah, that's the one I put the most faith in. The savings aren't chicken feed, but they aren't staggering either, esp. when compared with the $130 billion deficit reduction over the first ten years that the Senate bill already provides. ([Link: www.cbo.gov...]

154

andres Fri, Feb 12, 2010 6:08:44pm

re: #137 HelloDare

re: #78 andres

I'm accused of revising history. That's cute. Obama never met with Republicans on healthcare. Obama shut them and the public out of the whole healthcare process.

O Rly? Ya Rly!
/

The republicans did have a plan. It was in McCain's platform. There were other plans, too.

Can't see your link, it's borken. The only other Republican health care "reform" filed last year, it held so little support among Republicans it was quickly forgotten. What did it include? Only standard Republican talking points. IIRC, it was evaluated by the CBO, and the result was that it wasn't enough to control costs.

155

andres Fri, Feb 12, 2010 6:28:06pm

re: #154 andres

On McCain's Health Care proposal:

At first glance, I see two worrying points:

* Health insurance competition on a national scale: Without good oversight, this breaking the state lines will have the same after effect of the credit reform: all HC insurances will move to the state with less regulation. Not a good prospect.

* Federal assistance to the states to cover vulnerable populations: Wouldn't this create even more debt? This is just pouring money to a population that has higher than average health care costs without any way to curtail costs.

156

shai_au Fri, Feb 12, 2010 7:49:53pm

I don't know about the practicality of using the Hawaiian model for the rest of the US, but even so, that Daily Show bit was exceptionally funny. I've never been much of a John Oliver fan, but he did really well in that segment. :)

157

Opal Fri, Feb 12, 2010 9:06:58pm

re: #44 researchok

"For one thing, while consumer protections do vary from state to state, they aren't all that different."

Are you sure? The AMA reported otherwise:

[Link: www.ama-assn.org...]

158

Opal Fri, Feb 12, 2010 9:10:47pm

re: #53 Mosh

Probably the biggest roadblock to health care reform, besides lobbyists, is the US Constitution. Establishing a national, single-payer health care system is not an enumerated power in the Constitution. So either every state has to have their own system, like they do with Medicaid, or we have to pass a constitutional amendment (good luck with that).

There are no plans for single-payer, but if there were such plans, why would that have to be enumerated in the Constitution?

159

stayfrosty Sat, Feb 13, 2010 3:42:03am

Stewart is such a self-deluding hack. It's not like the Republican health care ideas were hidden in a cave since Obama took office and now he needs to bring them into a televised debate to learn about them. On the contrary, Obama deliberately took a hands-off approach and allowed the most liberal members of his party, lead by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, to basically run the show on health care reform. So, of course not a single Republican proposal (such as creating a nationwide insurance market, etc.) was entertained, and even fairly liberal Republicans like Sen. Olympia Snowe were left out in the cold.

And a year later, nothing has been done, not because of Republicans, but because of Obama's own party. The Democrats have had bigger majorities in Congress than Republicans had under eight years of Bush, but have been unable to get anything passed because far-left Democrats (the ones Obama's own Chief of Staff recently called "f------ retards") and "Blue Dog" Democrats (who realized that supporting a bill that poll after poll shows the public doesn't want would hurt their reelection chances in the more conservative states they hail from) couldn't agree a compromise.

So now, after huge defeats in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, Obama suddenly wants to bring Republicans into the fold for a good-faith discussion of his plan? If so, you'd expect him to be willing to start the discussions from scratch, which he's not. Instead, he's centering the debate around the liberal Senate plan and even more liberal House plan, both of which are antithetical to conservative free market-oriented solutions and include zero Republican input. And Stewart acts like Republicans have no reason to be skeptical.

Meanwhile, an aide to Nancy Pelosi revealed that Democrats are quietly pushing ahead with a plan to pass the Senate bill in reconciliation.

160

Decatur Deb Sat, Feb 13, 2010 3:54:32am

re: #159 stayfrosty

You wasted a lot of effort on a very dead thread (yourself and one other commenter). If you hit the "show users" button, it will list the LGFers that are linked to a thread.

161

aagcobb Sat, Feb 13, 2010 6:48:28am

re: #43 Cato the Elder

Sarah Palin tried to get a degree in Hawai'i, on her long, long road from basketball player to proud holder of a BS in BS.

Apparently she found all the different ethnicities unsettling, so she quit. (Imagine that!)

Hawai'i, it seems, may not be part of the real America.

Of course it isn't-its such a socialist hell-hole that even the GOP governor is participating in the conspiracy to pretend the kenyan-muslim-marxist usurper was born there! /sarc

162

stayfrosty Sat, Feb 13, 2010 7:47:08am

re: #160 Decatur Deb

You wasted a lot of effort on a very dead thread (yourself and one other commenter). If you hit the "show users" button, it will list the LGFers that are linked to a thread.

I don't live in the US so my times are usually off. I never really catch peak hours, unfortunately.

163

Decatur Deb Sat, Feb 13, 2010 7:53:05am

re: #162 stayfrosty

I drop off before some of the best late-night activity. If you check the Show Users block, or the Master Spy feature, you can find the thread that is most active at any given time.

164

stayfrosty Sun, Feb 14, 2010 6:21:18am

re: #163 Decatur Deb

I'm not seeing this "Show Users" button. Any help?

165

Decatur Deb Sun, Feb 14, 2010 6:26:38am

re: #164 stayfrosty

if you're still out there: It's the very bottom-most button on the LGF thread page.

166

stayfrosty Sun, Feb 14, 2010 7:03:22am

re: #165 Decatur Deb

Ahhh, that's why I didn't see it! Thanks, Deb.