# The Democrats Want Higher Taxes And Have The Public Option Back On The Table



## mudwhistle (Jul 22, 2010)

They say when your enemy is eating himself alive the best thing to do is pass the salt.



They can't admit to it because of Obama's promise to cut taxes for 95% of us....but most of the Dems still want to boost our taxes and now they've been looking at bringing back the Public Option again. They've been talking about it for a few weeks now.
There are some Democrats calling for keeping the Bush tax-cuts but they seem to be the ones that are the most in trouble in their states.

More Democrats Call for Keeping Tax Cuts - WSJ.com

House Progressives Push Reid To Put Public Option Back On Table


----------



## blastoff (Jul 22, 2010)

Dimocrats say the darndest things.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 22, 2010)

Now they're floating stories that support their attempts.

CBO: Public health option would save $68 billion through 2020 - The Hill's Healthwatch



> CBO: Public health option would save $68 billion through 2020
> By Julian Pecquet - 07/22/10 11:16 AM ET
> 
> Creating a public option that all Americans could choose would save $68 billion through 2020, according to a new analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.
> ...


----------



## WillowTree (Jul 22, 2010)

wonder why they think anyone would believe the CBO? 


they're so fucking stupid.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 22, 2010)

This is a hoot.  EVUL HMOs and the Medical System are ranked higher than Congress and the Medical System ranks higher than the Presidency.

And we're supposed to trust Congress and Obama to reform a Medical System in which people have more confidence than them?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jul 22, 2010)

Putting the public option in to action would be a fantastic idea. A real way to lower costs for everyone. We should be so lucky that a real public option passes. I wont hold my breath though.


----------



## Brubricker (Jul 22, 2010)

This is an election-year tactic. Whether they win or lose on this bill the real purpose is to energize their base for November.


----------



## peter (Jul 22, 2010)

Brubricker said:


> This is an election-year tactic. Whether they win or lose on this bill the real purpose is to energize their base for November.



They're still poised to loose regardless of effort. It's inevitable with so many seats they hold.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 22, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> Now they're floating stories that support their attempts.



Why are you afraid of a public option?


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 22, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> Putting the public option in to action would be a fantastic idea. A real way to lower costs for everyone. We should be so lucky that a real public option passes. I wont hold my breath though.



Yes because we all know that when government gives it away, it suddenly becomes FREE.  Right?
You fucking ignorant turd.  Public option will result in rationing health care.  It has to. There is no other alternative.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 22, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Yes because we all know that when government gives it away, it suddenly becomes FREE.  Right?



The proposed public option is funded entirely through premiums.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 22, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Yes because we all know that when government gives it away, it suddenly becomes FREE.  Right?
> ...



Just like Social Security and Medicare, right?


----------



## chanel (Jul 22, 2010)

Does this surprise anyone? How many hours did we waste trying to convince the Obamabots that this was simply a bait and switch. They are liars and frauds. Remember when you vote.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 22, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Just like Social Security and Medicare, right?



Uh, no. You may have noticed in your paycheck that Medicare Part A is funded through a payroll tax on people who aren't using it. Part B is partially funded through premiums, which cover about 25% of its costs.

The public health insurance option, on the other hand, is required by statute to cover all of its costs by charging premiums.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 22, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Just like Social Security and Medicare, right?
> ...



Just like they promised SS and Medicare.  We get it.  Do you?


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 22, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



FICA taxes were introduced in 1937 and they were raised in 1965 to cover the costs of Medicare. Medicare was never supposed to be funded entirely by premiums.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jul 22, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Medicare was never supposed to be funded entirely by premiums.



And neither is the public option. It may start out that way, but it will eventually morph into another government entitlement program that we can't afford.  It'll become another political wedge issue.  The Democrats will start crying that the poorest can't afford even the public option and that they should get subsidies or get it for free, blah, blah, blah, and then it turns into every other entitlement program in this country.  Other people start carrying the weight for other people.  In the end it will put the health care industry 100% under government control, which is what the Socialists want anyway.

We aren't stupid.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 22, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> And neither is the public option.



Actually, it is. It's right there in black and white. You can't argue that it's not intended to be paid through premiums since the bill clearly says that it is.



> The Democrats will start crying that the poorest can't afford even the public option and that they should get subsidies or get it for free



You're not very familiar with the law already on the books, are you?



> In the end it will put the health care industry 100% under government control, which is what the Socialists want anyway.



The public option would be a payer, not a provider.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 22, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > And neither is the public option.
> ...



There is no difference.
Social Security was supposed to be paid for out of premiums.  Fannie/Freddie were supposed ot be paid for out of profits.
Virtually every "cost free" government program has ended up costing taxpayers billions if not trillions of dollars.  Please cite one that hasnt.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 22, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Now they're floating stories that support their attempts.
> ...



Not really afraid of it. I just like living.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 22, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> There is no difference.
> Social Security was supposed to be paid for out of premiums.



I'm trying to figure out if you actually believe this or you just think the average reader of this thread is completely unfamiliar with history and you can get away with a claim like that. Either way, I'm mildly disgusted.

To be very clear: Social Security has always been financed by taxes on workers, all the way back to when it first started paying out benefits in 1937. It has never been paid for by "premiums" of people receiving benefits (probably in part because that idea makes no sense).



> Virtually every "cost free" government program has ended up costing taxpayers billions if not trillions of dollars.  Please cite one that hasnt.



The public option isn't free, it would be funded by premiums like any insurance company. You're looking for an equivalent to the concept of the public option but there hasn't been one.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 22, 2010)

Never should have taken the Public Option off the table

Only way to keep insurance companies honest and rates down


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 22, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Well ...thats why it is an OPTION. You are welcome to keep your existing policy

Why do you insist on denying other Americans the right to choose?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jul 22, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Actually, it is. It's right there in black and white. You can't argue that it's not intended to be paid through premiums since the bill clearly says that it is.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Read again what I wrote.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jul 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Never should have taken the Public Option off the table
> 
> Only way to keep insurance companies honest and rates down



And drive them out of business completely so the government can take over the whole thing


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Never should have taken the Public Option off the table
> 
> Only way to keep insurance companies honest and rates down



I suppose that would be true if your definition of keep the insurance companies honest is to drive them out of business.

I don't want to see those people lose their jobs. Nor do I want a government bueaucracy taking their place.

See, I can change insurance companies if I don't trust my insurer. I can find someone i do trust.

I have no power with a bueauacracy. I either have to take what little they give or die. While they can take as much of my money as they please.

Empowering government is never the best option.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



You can't choose your own insurance policy now? Is someone stopping you?

And please don't pretend I am stupid. I believe that there is an option about as much as I believed they would stop pushing for more control after the bill was passed. You guys want power over my life. Well, too bad. I am not giving it.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 22, 2010)

Since this bit doesn't seem to be well-appreciated here, let me quote the relevant part of this new bill (H.R. 5808):



> `(b) Premiums and Financing-
> `(1) ESTABLISHMENT OF PREMIUMS-`(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish geographically adjusted premium rates for the public health insurance option--  `(i) in a manner that complies with the premium rules under paragraph (3); and
> *`(ii) at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of-- `(I) health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and
> `(II) administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option.​*​


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 22, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> I have no power with a bueauacracy.



Bureaucracy is not an exclusively public concept. For example, a private insurance company is a bureaucracy, too.

That said, the fears that the public option is intended to run private insurers out of business have little grounding. A public option that's doing its job well wouldn't be particularly large.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 22, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Never should have taken the Public Option off the table
> ...



It doesn't drive them out of business, it forces them to be competitive.

They could always consider cutting executive salaries, DC Lobbyists, physician kickbacks, campaign contributions

No..just kidding
They would never do that


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 22, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



The law says OPTION
Until it says otherwise you are lying to state otherwise

Self employed Americans, those who work for small companies, those who are new to the job market do not have a choice...they are denied a competitive private policy. 

Yet you seek to deny them access to a low cost Government Option


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 22, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > There is no difference.
> ...



I agree you are disgusting in either naivete or disingenuousness.
WHether you call it "premium" or "tax" the result is the same: A system that is supposed to be self financing ends up costing government out of general tax funds.
Again, I challenge you to provide one example of a gov't program that was supposed to be externally financed and in fact has ended up that way. I've provided several that failed that test.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Options exist only where there are other choices.  Since employers will be dumping their liabilities on the government in droves there will be no other options.
Thus it is not an option at all but merely a stalking horse for single payer, i.e. socialized medicine.


----------



## jeffrockit (Jul 22, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



And medicare was originally stated to cost 3 billion at its start in 1966. It was then only going to cost 12 billion by 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was 107 billion. How far off do you think the estimates for the public option are going to be 24 years later?
Govt can not run most programs at there initial estimates as they realize they have a seemingly endless supply of funding from the taxpayers. They really don't try to stay on budget IMO.


----------



## jeffrockit (Jul 22, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



How can a private, for profit company, be forced to be competitive against a govt (taxpayer) funded business. The private co has to make a profit to survive and the govt does not. The private business has to earn the money it makes and the govt business just keeps taking from the taxpayer to fund its entity. No way you can consider that fair competition.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 23, 2010)

jeffrockit said:


> How can a private, for profit company, be forced to be competitive against a govt (taxpayer) funded business. The private co has to make a profit to survive and the govt does not. The private business has to earn the money it makes and the govt business just keeps taking from the taxpayer to fund its entity. No way you can consider that fair competition.



Some points to remember:


The proposed public option isn't funded by the taxpayer. It's funded by participants.
Your argument seems to be against _any_ non-profit insurance company competing with for-profit insurers. Many insurance companies (e.g. Blue Cross Blue Shield in many states) are non-profits. Is that unfair?
Again, the public option isn't "taking from the taxpayer." It charges premium that cover costs.

I think the point of this entity is being lost. To quote some things I said in another post:

The idea behind the public option was never that the public option would became the only insurer or that all insurance would eventually reimburse at rates set like Medicare rates. Instead, it would've put pressure on private insurers and providers alike to start controlling costs. The reason, of course, is that since the robust public option would have reimbursed at lower rates than private insurers, its premiums would be lower.

Insurers would face pressure to negotiate lower reimbursement rates to keep their own premiums down and providers would have an incentive to grant lower rates, lest more customers flock toward the public option (an outcome that would lower reimbursements to those providers more than would granting private insurers lower--but still higher than public option--rates). The intent wasn't for it to take over the market but rather to reshape the landscape in which the insurer-provider negotiation takes place. In one sense, it would have given private insurers cover (and leverage) to start bringing down rates.

As I mentioned in this thread, providers are playing a huge role in driving up costs--when your premiums skyrocket, it's often because providers are extorting more money out of your insurer. Sure, sometimes it's malfeasance on the part of the insurer but that will be pretty well contained under the new law with medical loss ratios, scrutiny of rate increases to make sure they're needed to cover costs, and so on. But what's not being addressed is providers who have the market clout to drive up prices by getting away with absurd mark-ups of their services.

Your insurer may not have the bargaining power (or the will, frankly) to say no when providers in its network continue jacking up reimbursement rates. Which means something new is needed in the mix. One possibility is the robust (i.e. reimbursing at Medicare + 5%) public option, which gives providers a reason to go easy on the hikes it passes on to insurers, and lights a fire under insurers' asses to get serious about containing premiums. There are alternatives (I'm going to post a thread about all-payer rate setting in the Health forum sometime today or tomorrow) but the public option is worth a shot.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 23, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You just pull this shit out of your ass on a continual basis??

These supposed actions don't come from reality or even logical thinking.. they come from your pipe dreams... A public option will not cause them to be 'competitive' whatsoever

And lord knows that the government exists to ensure those in charge of businesses have to make less...  and if you think contributions and lobby spending will decrease with more governmental control, I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 23, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> The proposed public option isn't funded by the taxpayer. It's funded by participants.



Except that not all participants will be able to pay in a public option.. hence the WANT for it... it will be indeed either some participants paying for others, or taken out of the federal tax revenues.... you know it, I know it, and any logical thinking person who is not all into getting their government freebie and blinded by Obama worship knows it


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 23, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> They say when your enemy is eating himself alive the best thing to do is pass the salt.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why can't people understand the heathcare law just open the door for the government to take control of peoples lives. Are you so surprised to see that the public option is back on the table?


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 23, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Got news for you...
Employers are droping healthcare covrage in droves right now. They do not want to be in the health insurance business. The paperwork and long term liabilities are excessive

Their response is that all those new employees they hire are not offered health insurance or else they water down the policy they offer

Having a Government Option would be a safe haven for employees to go if they do not get adequate insurance from their employer


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 23, 2010)

DiamondDave said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Of course these actions don't come from logical thinking

No way would the Insurance Industry ever consider paying their top executives less. They would also never consider cutting what they pay lobbyists or Political campaigns....

Thats how they keep the Government Option from being considered


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 23, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Because business, if shown to be ineffective against ACTUAL competition, will have to make adjustments or FAIL... and if a new insurance company has huge success with paying less or insists from it's executives that it should only make 2% profit or whatever else... more power to them

What is being done with this "public option" is not the job of government, nor should it be

And as stated, you left wing twit, if you think that favors, contributions, and lobbyists will be cut with more government control and intervention, you are motherfucking delusional


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jul 23, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Horse shit.  The government can undercut insurance companies by subsidizing the public option with tax dollars *which they will do*, thus putting insurance companies out of business.  Employers will drop their employees' health insurance benefits because there is now a public "option" forcing them onto the government program no longer making it an option.  Eventually, the government becomes the primary insurer and voila!  Socialized health care, which is exactly what the socialists wanted in the first place.  This is the logical progression of things.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 23, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



fuck you and the public option.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jul 23, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Got news for you...
> Employers are droping healthcare covrage in droves right now.



Got news for you.... no they aren't, but they will be once the government starts offering an "option."


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 23, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



It's exactly what I have been saying long before the new healthcare law became a law.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jul 23, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> The law says OPTION
> Until it says otherwise you are lying to state otherwise



No, we're just knowledgeable of history and possess common sense, enabling us to draw the logical conclusion of how it will come to pass.  Now perhaps you are too stupid and naive to have learned from the historical encroachment of government and hence deserve to live in serfdom, which appears to be your goal anyhow.  Pretty sad.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 23, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Got news for you...
> ...



You are right on both counts.
I know one business owner right now talking to his accountant about how much more or less dumping everyone on the state and paying the fine would cost.  At some point it will make sense for businesses to do this.  And the argument about it being self funding is nonsense.  People with no means to pay for it will be on it as well.  By definition it cannot be self funding in that case.
Public option is merely a stalking horse for single payer. Barney Frank said as much.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 23, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Regardless of whether there is a public option or not, business is dumping health insurace at every opportunity. They do not want to be in the insurance business

Who is going to fill the void?


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 23, 2010)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The law says OPTION
> ...



Serfdom????

Overreach much?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jul 23, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > There is no difference.
> ...



Greenbeard, there is no point in trying to point out facts to the close minded here. They will continue to believe what they want to believe and will tell us what WILL happen based upon their opinion. They make these statements as if they were actual fact and not just their opinion. 

Mind you, no actual solutions will be proposed by them, just negativity about the best possible solution to control health care premiums in this country. 

I'm sure I'll get cursed and called every name imaginable now, but that's what I expect from them. It's like a broken record around here.


----------



## AquaAthena (Jul 23, 2010)

chanel said:


> Does this surprise anyone? How many hours did we waste trying to convince the Obamabots that this was simply a bait and switch. They are liars and frauds. Remember when you vote.



Who did not see this one coming??? Just another lock step to Marxism as Obama enslaves American taxpayers and citizens, for power and control....


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 23, 2010)

jeffrockit said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Thank you for admitting that the government run plan would be more efficient and cost less

Life is not always fair.......it is not fair when you are denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition
it is not fair that you lose your health insurance when you lose your job
it is not fair that you pay significantly more for insurance if you own your own business than if you work for a large employer


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 23, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Republicans....The Party of Fuck You


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 23, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



No, you've already been told this is not happening.  Please post something--anything--that supports this statement.


----------



## Mr Natural (Jul 23, 2010)

The Health Care legislation is a worthless piece of crap without the Public Option.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 23, 2010)

Mr Clean said:


> The Health Care legislation is a worthless piece of crap without the Public Option.



FOr once you post absolute truth.
And then screw it up by adding the verbiage starting with "without."
You could screw up a one car parade.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jul 23, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Since it appears that you don't know how to use Google. You're welcome. 

Firms cancel health coverage - The Boston Globe

Rising costs prompting small businesses to drop health insurance benefits - chicagotribune.com


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 23, 2010)

Mr Clean said:


> The Health Care legislation is a worthless piece of crap without the Public Option.



Just an oportunity for Private Insurers to add 30 million prople. The Public Option, which is not a Government run insurance but the Goverment managing a pool of insurers is need to check the insurance companies from exploiting the healthcare bill

Again.....if you don't want the OPTION....why deny it to those who do?

Are you afraid the Government Option will do too good a job of insuring Americans?


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 23, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Rabbi...as usual, your opinion has nothing to do with the truth


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 23, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You're right.  Thank you.  For proving my case.
The first link is from the Boston area.  Recall that MA has Romneycare, which is the model for Obamacare. So of course businesses are dumping their liabilities on the gov't.  Same will happen when Obamacare gets phased on.  We've made that point.  This just proves it.
THe second one concerns very small businesses.  It says nothing about medium sized or large businesses.  Obamacare will of course accelerate the process.
So yes, thanks for these links, which amply prove the point.
Now get back to your crayons.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jul 23, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



You said business wasn't dropping coverage and asked for proof. I provided it and then you say, "this is small business, not large business", which is not what you asked for. 

Way to be a man and at least admit you were wrong about something.


----------



## DiamondDave (Jul 23, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Can you not purchase your own insurance?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 23, 2010)

DiamondDave said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



True why do people feel they are entitled to things they have not worked for?


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 23, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Standard Operating Procedure from the Rabbi

Demand proof and then move the goal posts.....Basic Truther tactics


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 23, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



No moving the goal posts.  The claim, and implication, was that businesses en masse were dropping health care.
That is false.  The existence of those two articles proves it is false.
If the claim was not that businesses are doing it en masse, then what was the point?  You might as well say businesses are expanding because one or two are in fact expanding.  It is irrelevant and misleading.  Like all of Rightwinger's posts.


----------



## Mr. Peepers (Jul 23, 2010)

> Social Security was supposed to be paid for out of premiums. Fannie/Freddie were supposed ot be paid for out of profits.
> Virtually every "cost free" government program has ended up costing taxpayers billions if not trillions of dollars. Please cite one that hasnt.



pssst.  Moron.  Fannie and Freddie are PRIVATE corporations contracted by the government.  They are not a government program.


----------



## Cuyo (Jul 23, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Public option would have been premium based, but not-for-profit.  It's not free insurance.


----------



## Cuyo (Jul 23, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Social security _is_ paid out of premiums, and the average recipient ultimately gets out more than they put in.  Due to people living longer the program is headed toward insolvency - Which is what both parties are now working on correcting.

But it's been covered by it's respective tax ("Premium") every year.  Including this year.


----------



## Cuyo (Jul 23, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Single payer is not socialized medicine, but other than that little factoid, this is the first post you've made in this thread that holds any water.

However, if you truly believe in the inefficiency of government programs, then common sense would mandate that the private sector will provide a better deal than that of which the government is capable.  Therefore, your manifesto should conclude that there will always be private competitors.


----------



## Cuyo (Jul 23, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Oh Winger, you know better.  There are no _Republicans_ on this board.  They're all _independents_.  They just happen to be independents that believe the propaganda of the Republicans 10 times out of 10.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 23, 2010)

Mr. Peepers said:


> > Social Security was supposed to be paid for out of premiums. Fannie/Freddie were supposed ot be paid for out of profits.
> > Virtually every "cost free" government program has ended up costing taxpayers billions if not trillions of dollars. Please cite one that hasnt.
> 
> 
> ...



Wrong....



> *The federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac* refers to the placing into conservatorship of government sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by the U.S. Treasury in September 2008. It was one financial event among many in the ongoing subprime mortgage crisis.
> 
> On September 6, 2008, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), James B. Lockhart III, announced his decision to place two Government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation), into conservatorship run by the FHFA.[1][2][3]
> 
> ...


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 23, 2010)

What Mudwhistle said.  Mr. Peepers obviously can't be bothered to read a newspaper.
Fannie/Freddie were chartered by the federal gov't and always an implicit guarantee--that became explicit--that the gov't would bail them out.  Which is what happened.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 23, 2010)

DiamondDave said:


> Except that not all participants will be able to pay in a public option.. hence the WANT for it...



As was the case last year, there seems to be a tremendous amount of confusion as to what a public option is. It's not Medicaid. We already have something like Medicaid--it's called Medicaid. A public option is not for the poor, people who can't afford to pay premiums--it's for anyone in the individual market who wants to buy insurance from it. Its premiums will be lower than most private plans because of the way it reimburses providers--_that's_ why people want it and that's where its value lies. As I explained in a post above, the point of that is to get private insurers and providers alike to put the brakes on rising premiums, lest private insurers lose customers to the public option and providers have to settle for lower reimbursements. The better the public option works, the smaller the differential in its premiums from the average private premium and consequently the less attractive it is relative to private payers (i.e. the less customers it has). 

Its purpose isn't to swoop up all the customers in the market, its job is to re-shape the landscape in which payers and providers negotiate reimbursements (which ultimately determines how high your premiums are and how fast they're rising). I wouldn't have access to the public option (I'm in a employer-based plan) but I still wouldn't mind seeing it introduced because it would be an improvement to the existing health care market as a whole.



Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Horse shit.  The government can undercut insurance companies by subsidizing the public option with tax dollars *which they will do*, thus putting insurance companies out of business.



Private insurers are being subsidized under the new reform law (via subsidies low-to-middle income people can spend only on premiums).



> Employers will drop their employees' health insurance benefits because there is now a public "option" forcing them onto the government program no longer making it an option.  Eventually, the government becomes the primary insurer and voila!  Socialized health care, which is exactly what the socialists wanted in the first place.  This is the logical progression of things.



An employer who dumps coverage (which, by the way, there's an employer mandate to help prevent) sends his employees into health insurance exchanges, which are full of private plans. If this new public option bill, H.R. 5808, were to pass there would then be a public plan available to people buying in the exchanges. Does the public plan steal their customers? Not if they pressure providers to stop jacking up reimbursements (something insurers have a difficult time doing now but would have significantly more leverage to do if a viable publicly plan were competing with them).



The Rabbi said:


> You are right on both counts.
> I know one business owner right now talking to his accountant about how much more or less dumping everyone on the state and paying the fine would cost.  At some point it will make sense for businesses to do this.



This is somewhat off the immediate topic, but decoupling health insurance from jobs would be a _good_ thing. You'd have more choice (I have no choice of insurance options through my current employer), more portability, and more competition in a single marketplace. The employer mandate--the fine--is there partially to help pay for the health care system and partly to maintain the current system as it is since people don't like abrupt change. Ultimately I'd like to see that preference for employer-sponsored insurance go away (and this is an idea many on the right--from Milton Friedman to Ron Paul--have embraced at various points).



> And the argument about it being self funding is nonsense.  People with no means to pay for it will be on it as well.  By definition it cannot be self funding in that case.



That's not true. People with no means to pay (i.e. who are below the 133% of the poverty level threshold) will be on Medicaid, a very different beast.




The Rabbi said:


> You're right.  Thank you.  For proving my case.
> The first link is from the Boston area.  Recall that MA has Romneycare, which is the model for Obamacare. So of course businesses are dumping their liabilities on the gov't.  Same will happen when Obamacare gets phased on.  We've made that point.  This just proves it.



How does a business dropping coverage dump liabilities on the government? I assume you're talking about subsidies to buy private insurance in the Connector, not actually pushing people onto a public insurer since there isn't any such thing in Massachusetts (beyond Medicaid, of course).


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 23, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Never should have taken the Public Option off the table
> 
> Only way to keep insurance companies honest and rates down



The Public Option isn't really an option at all.

It needs to be changed to "The Public Mandate" because insurance companies can't compete nor can they stay in business because regulations are going into effect next January intended to put them out of business. 

Soon all insurance companies will be gone and Uncle Sugar with be the only option left.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 23, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> The Public Option isn't really an option at all.
> 
> It needs to be changed to "The Public Mandate" because insurance companies can't compete nor can they stay in business because regulations are going into effect next January intended to put them out of business.



The public option would have to comply with the same regulations as every private insurer.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 23, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > The Public Option isn't really an option at all.
> ...


If that were the case, what would be the point?


----------



## Cuyo (Jul 23, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Never should have taken the Public Option off the table
> ...



But why not?  I thought the government was inefficient?  Surely the private sector will be offering the better deals.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 23, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> If that were the case, what would be the point?



Sometimes I feel like David Duchovny's character from Zoolander: "Are you serious? I just told you that, a moment ago."

Read.

And yes, it is true. You can easily look that up by reading the bill, it's very short. Look up H.R. 5808 on THOMAS.



> `(2) OFFERING THROUGH EXCHANGES-
> 
> `(A) EXCLUSIVE TO THE EXCHANGE- The public health insurance option shall only be made available through Exchanges established under this title.
> 
> `(B) *ENSURING A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD- Consistent with this section, the public health insurance option shall comply with requirements that are applicable under this title to health benefits plans offered through such Exchanges, including requirements related to benefits, benefit levels, provider networks, notices, consumer protections, and cost sharing.*​


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 23, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


They are.  BUt they have access to tax money that private companies dont.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 23, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > If that were the case, what would be the point?
> ...



Sometimes I feel like Gunnery Sgt Hartman:
What is your major malfunction, numbnuts?

I asked what the purpose of having a gov't entity in the insurance market would be.  And you respond totally off topic.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 23, 2010)

Linking to the post where I already explained in detail what the purpose would be is off topic?


----------



## Cuyo (Jul 23, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



So?  What does that have to do with selling insurance?  They have a capacity to insure far more people than any individual private insurer, but since it's premium funded and (according to conservative think) is extremely inefficient, why wouldn't you conclude it will cost more for the same coverages?


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 23, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



So which is it?

Is the Government too incompetent to insure Americas health or a super competetor that private companies can't compete with?


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 23, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> Now they're floating stories that support their attempts.
> 
> CBO: Public health option would save $68 billion through 2020 - The Hill's Healthwatch
> 
> ...


Sorry, I'll trust the CBO over the opinions I read on here.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 23, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Cons support corporations over individuals' well being.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 23, 2010)

Political Junky said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



I never saw anyone fight so hard for insurance companies


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 23, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Linking to the post where I already explained in detail what the purpose would be is off topic?



Yes.  Because you didnt explain it.
And your rambling incoherent explanation somehow fails to realize that rates are high PRECISELY BECAUSE gov't (Medicaid/Medicare) reimburse at such low rates doctors must make it up on private insurance.
So this "solution" will actually make things worse.  People on a "public option" will have fewer choices as fewer physicians accept the public option care because of low reimbursement rates.  The existence of more ultra low reimbursement rates will cause those remaining doctors and health orgs to raise rates for everyone else to subsidize those paid out of public option.  As the reimbursement from private companies go op, so do their rates.  This throws more people on to the public option as they cannot afford the higher premiums.  Eventually everyone is on the public option and gov't will mandate that physicians take it.

In the real world a private company attempting to reimburse at below market rates would go out of business since no one would accept their coverage and insureds would find better plans.  But the gov't cannot go out of business.
The public option is a stalking horse for single payer and we have just proven it.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 23, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I'll take private companies over government mandates anytime.


----------



## Cuyo (Jul 23, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The arguments are so ridiculous and easily defeated... It's astounding they've picked up any traction at all.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 23, 2010)

Political Junky said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Now they're floating stories that support their attempts.
> ...



Because they have such a great track record at predictions, right?
Health Care Reform Cost Estimates: What is the Track Record? | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 23, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> And your rambling incoherent explanation somehow fails to realize that rates are high PRECISELY BECAUSE gov't (Medicaid/Medicare) reimburse at such low rates doctors must make it up on private insurance.



There isn't much evidence to indicate a significant cost shift associated with the existing public payers. In its last report to Congress on Medicare payment policy, MedPAC pushed back against this suggestion pretty hard (all emphasis is mine):

"Why are profit margins on privately insured patients so high? Is it because hospitals under financial stress tend to have significant Medicare losses, which force them to have relatively high private-payer prices? The answer is no. *We find instead that hospitals under financial pressure tend to control their costs, which makes it more likely that they profit from Medicare patients. *In fact, we find that Medicare margins are lowest in the hospitals with abundant resources (i.e., low financial pressure). Therefore, it appears that hospitals are raising prices when they have the market power to do so. As revenue rises, costs rise, and Medicare margins fall. Our key findings are:


Costs vary widely from hospital to hospital.
 An abundance of financial resources is associated with higher costs.
 Higher costs cause losses on Medicare patients.
 As a result, hospitals with abundant financial resources tend to have Medicare losses.
 In contrast, hospitals with limited financial resources constrain their costs. Medicare payments are usually adequate to cover the costs of these financially pressured hospitals.

The Commission has argued that *high profits from non-Medicare sources permit hospitals to spend more*, and nonprofit hospitals tend to do so (for-profit hospitals may retain a larger share of their revenues as profits). The causal chain is as follows: A hospital&#8217;s market power relative to insurers, payer mix, and donations determines its level of financial resources. When financial resources are abundant, nonprofit hospitals spend more, add employees, and increase their costs per unit of service. High costs by definition lead to lower Medicare margins because costs do not affect Medicare revenues (which are based on predetermined payment rates). Therefore, when costs increase, Medicare margins ((revenue &#8211; costs)/revenue) decrease. *In other words, income affects spending and costs per unit of service. Hence, if Medicare were to increase its payment rates, hospitals might spend some or all of that revenue rather than use it to lower the prices charged to private insurers.* [. . .]

The data indicate that the hospitals with the largest Medicare losses tend to be in better financial shape than other hospitals. From 2002 to 2006, hospitals with low Medicare margins had median total (all payer) margins of 4.6 percent compared with 3.4 percent for hospitals with high Medicare margins. In addition, net worth for the high-cost hospitals rose by 17 percent from 2004 to 2006 compared with a 14 percent rise for low-cost hospitals. While causation may flow in both directions to a degree, the data suggest that the primary reason Medicare margins are inversely related to private-payer profits is that high non-Medicare profits are followed by high hospital costs.

It may appear odd that hospitals with high costs have high total profit margins. In a typical industry, high profits are not associated with high unit costs. The hospital industry is different, however, because of the dominance of nonprofit providers, the influence of payer mix, hospital and insurer market power, and the effect of investments and donations on hospital finances.

Increasing Medicare payments is not a long-term solution to the problem of rising private insurance premiums and rising health care costs. In the end, affordable health care will require incentives for health care providers to reduce their rates of cost growth and volume growth."​



> So this "solution" will actually make things worse.  People on a "public option" will have fewer choices as fewer physicians accept the public option care because of low reimbursement rates.



You argue this at the same time you argue it will be an attractive option for most people in the individual market.



> The existence of more ultra low reimbursement rates will cause those remaining doctors and health orgs to raise rates for everyone else to subsidize those paid out of public option.



Therein lies the feature that distinguishes the public option for Medicaid or Medicaid: it's an _option_. Medicare and Medicaid are not open to you, thus their payment policies don't affect the relationship between your payer and provider. There is no credible threat that if they don't control premium increases you'll go buy insurance from Medicare because you can't do that. 

That's the entire reason cost shifting can even occur, theoretically (though, as I said, there's limited evidence that it happens to any significant degree). You cost shift from A to B* because B can't join A*. If B _could_ join A then, as you correctly point out, cost shifting would encourage him to do so.

Now imagine A is an available option (that is, an open public option, instead of the closed off Medicare). Since A reimburses at a lower rate than B, a provider would have very little incentive to take actions to shift B to A. Medicare + 5% will cover provider costs, meaning there's no necessity and nothing to be gained from attempting to drive up premiums on non-public payers. In fact, the incentive for the provider is now to reduce his own markups on medical services for private payers, allow them to control the growth in their own premiums, and reduce the disparity in premiums between public and private options.

Then private payers continue to have abundant customers and since they pay more (though, if all goes well, not too much more) than the public option, providers are better off. In other words, easing their upward pressure on private payer premiums ultimately helps providers financially because it prevents an exodus of customers from private plans to the public plan (which, again, reimburses less). 

Cost shifting in such a situation makes absolutely no sense and certainly isn't financially necessary.




> In the real world a private company attempting to reimburse at below market rates would go out of business since no one would accept their coverage and insureds would find better plans.



There is no "market rate" for provider reimbursements. Different payers will pay the same provider different rates for the exact same service. That is, unless you have all-payer rate setting (which, as I said earlier in this thread, I'll post a thread about in the near future).


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Jul 23, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> They say when your enemy is eating himself alive the best thing to do is pass the salt.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fuck that!!!!!!!!!


----------



## jeffrockit (Jul 23, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The well used Liberal mantra of "fairness". I admitted no such thing in my response. I completely refuted your contention that it would make HC insurance "more competitive" as there is no competition with the govt and their endless pool of money. The cost numbers continue to go up even with the HC plan in its infancy. The fact is the govt can't run anything cost effective. Medicare was stated to cost 12 million by year 1990. In actuality, the cost was 107 billion by that year. Tell me again how the govt plan will cost less.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 24, 2010)

Greenbeard.....your explanation is quite lengthy so I decided to respond without quoting you in an attempt to be more to the point.

It seems that in almost every program the Democrats have started...Cash For Clunkers...their Jobs bill....mortgage assistance programs....they are both expensive and ineffective at solving the problem they were advertised to have addressed. I don't see Health Care being any different.

The Public Option is a total misnomer. It is advertised as an option but regulations in the Health Care bill were put there to make Single Payer the only option within a few years...maybe sooner. Insurance providers have looked at the mandates in the bill and they recognize that simple things like waving preconditions and requiring higher percentages for claims as a percentage of their total operating expenses will put them out of business within two to three years. They know when the regulations kick in next Jan. they'll have to raise premiums just to maintain enough cash on hand to meet the new requirements. This will open them up for the usual Marxist tactics of the Obama Administration. Once this starts a takeover will soon follow. Insurance companies will be labeled as rich greedy jerks that need more regulations.....and the regulators will quickly regulate those rich greedy jerks into a corner and out of business. Single Payer will be soon to follow.

You see the government will become a competitor to insurance companies....with an almost limitless ability to ether borrow or print money. Insurance companies will be in effect regulated by their competition. They have to raise premiums to meet their requirements but the government will be exempt from those requirements so they won't be operating on an even playing field. Insurance companies will be able to offer better coverage but their prices will be too high for anyone but the rich to afford. Soon even this will be demonized and laws will be put in place to outlaw buying your own insurance as is the case in Canada. Then the government will be in the position to dictate to us rather then simply provide an alternative.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 24, 2010)

jeffrockit said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



Sorry you aren't allowed on both sides of the fence here...

Either the Government provides a better more cost effective product that private insurerers can't compete with

Or as you say....."The fact is the govt can't run anything cost effective."


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 24, 2010)

> Insurance providers have looked at the mandates in the bill and they recognize that simple things like waving preconditions and requiring higher percentages for claims as a percentage of their total operating expenses will put them out of business within two to three years.



Which is why they get three big things in their favor:


An individual mandate to prevent adverse selection;
Government subsidies to shore up their pool's cash reserves; and
Risk adjustment to correct for differing risk profiles between pools (since underwriting won't be used to do this anymore)

All of these (including medical loss ratios, for that matter) have been tried either in states right here in this country or in other nations around the world and they don't drive insurers out of business. This isn't uncharted territory.



> You see the government will become a competitor to insurance companies....with an almost limitless ability to ether borrow or print money.



No. Only risk adjustment payments to the public option are allowed:

`(iii) LIMITATION ON FUNDING- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as authorizing any additional appropriations to the account, other than such amounts as are otherwise provided with respect to other health benefits plans participating under the Exchange involved.​


> Insurance companies will be in effect regulated by their competition. They have to raise premiums to meet their requirements but the government will be exempt from those requirements so they won't be operating on an even playing field.



No. The public option would be subject to the same rules as private insurers.

`(B) ENSURING A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD- Consistent with this section, the public health insurance option shall comply with requirements that are applicable under this title to health benefits plans offered through such Exchanges, including requirements related to benefits, benefit levels, provider networks, notices, consumer protections, and cost sharing.​
That includes funding all of its costs through premiums, even if that means raising them:

(1) ESTABLISHMENT OF PREMIUMS-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish geographically adjusted premium rates for the public health insurance option--
`(i) in a manner that complies with the premium rules under paragraph (3); and
*`(ii) at a level sufficient to fully finance the costs of--
`(I) health benefits provided by the public health insurance option; and
                              `(II) administrative costs related to operating the public health insurance option.​*​


> Insurance companies will be able to offer better coverage but their prices will be too high for anyone but the rich to afford.



Why do you think that is?


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 24, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



He's right and he can claim that.

Government insurance will at first be cheaper....but it will also add to the debt. 

They can tax your insurance payments.....which is a little surprise they'll be springing on us soon....which can bring in revenue.....but any payments they pay out will be a net loss. They'll be paying out a dollar and getting back a quarter.

 Anything an insurance company pays out can be taxed. There will be no government payout but they will be taking in that same quarter. So add up 20 million quarters....that's alot of bread. But add up the net loss of 75 cents 20 million times in the Public Option.....that's a big-time loss. Then multiply that by and average of about $5000 per beneficiary.....that's a net loss of say $75 billion dollars per year as opposed to a net gain of $1.25 billion per year with private insureance. Single payer any way you look at it is a very bad deal. It doesn't matter how much this may drive the costs down because they can never make up the loss without raising taxes and the government because of all of their extensive regulations will only end up jacking the price of everything up.


----------



## editec (Jul 24, 2010)

Funny how much people pretend to care about public opinion, isn't it?

Yet nobody much wants to live in a real democracy.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 24, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



Once again, you are debating slippery slope fantasies unsubstantiated by anything other than your predictions of doom and fear mongering

Fact is insurance companies have tremendous overhead and they create tremendous overhead in the paperwork they require from doctors. They add nothing to your health, they are just a mechanism to funnel money. For that, they take a hefty cut
Add to that the obscene executive salaries, money spent on lobbyists and political payouts and you have an industry who's primary function is to protect their profit


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 24, 2010)

editec said:


> Funny how much people pretend to care about public opinion, isn't it?
> 
> Yet nobody much wants to live in a real democracy.



Why would anyone want to live in a real democracy?  There is no real democracy on the planet. Thankfully so


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 24, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> > Insurance providers have looked at the mandates in the bill and they recognize that simple things like waving preconditions and requiring higher percentages for claims as a percentage of their total operating expenses will put them out of business within two to three years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tried and to date have failed miserably.



> > You see the government will become a competitor to insurance companies....with an almost limitless ability to ether borrow or print money.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Unless Single Payer becomes law. Then the Public Option will become history.



> > Insurance companies will be in effect regulated by their competition. They have to raise premiums to meet their requirements but the government will be exempt from those requirements so they won't be operating on an even playing field.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Course the Public Option is only a sheep in wolves clothing. The real goal is a single payer program which Obama said on the record he supports.



> That includes funding all of its costs through premiums, even if that means raising them:
> 
> (1) ESTABLISHMENT OF PREMIUMS-
> `(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish geographically adjusted premium rates for the public health insurance option--
> ...



Which is where the lie comes in...premiums will be raised at the behest of the government through taxes. We will be forced to pay for coverage. Lawsuits around the country are focusing on this simple fact.

Nobody should be forced to buy a product....*but the government defends this in court by calling it a tax. *So is it insurance or is it a tax? What happened to Obama's promise not to raise taxes on 95% of Americans?


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 24, 2010)

You're using underpants gnome logic, and not very well at that:

1. X, Y, Z are features of the public option
2. ???
3. Single-payer!






But as I just pointed out--using the actual text of this new public option bill--X, Y, and Z _aren't_ features of the public option. Your initial premise has no basis. Which makes step two even _more_ puzzling.



> Nobody should be forced to buy a product....*but the government defends this in court by calling it a tax. *So is it insurance or is it a tax? What happened to Obama's promise not to raise taxes on 95% of Americans?



If you don't buy insurance, you face a $695 (or 2.5% of income if it's higher) penalty or tax. That is, people who have insurance under the new law (~94% of the population) don't pay it.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 24, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> You're using underpants gnome logic, and not very well at that:
> 
> 1. X, Y, Z are features of the public option
> 2. ???
> ...



An obvious deflection. This will be mandated so ether they pay premiums or they collect benefits....which means redistribution of wealth. Ether way...it's a mandate against the rich which makes it still unconstitutional.

It's not cut and dried like you claim. And you're only answering the questions you want to.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 24, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> An obvious deflection. This will be mandated so ether they pay premiums or they collect benefits....



You do the former so you can do the latter. That's how insurance works.



> It's not cut and dried like you claim. And you're only answering the questions you want to.



What's not cut and dried? And what questions do you have?


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 24, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > An obvious deflection. This will be mandated so ether they pay premiums or they collect benefits....
> ...



Single payer is the problem.....it's gonna be slipped in. Obama won't rest until it is. Don't be so naive to assume he won't as much as everyone was naive to assume that the Public Option was history. 

Insurance companies are finding out what's in the bill after the fact. They claim that it will put them out of business because the government is the only entity that can afford to offer insurance under such conditions......and as soon as the conditions warrant it....benefits will be cut to keep expenses down....thus rationing will be instituted. It happened here in TN with Tenncare and it's happening in Mass.

The simple fact that the bill took over 2000 pages to explain the program means it's not cut and dried....not to mention that these people in Washington have zero credibility. They've already shown their hand and they've made several compromises that will eventually be pulled once the program is fully implemented....if ever.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 24, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



LOL

We can't even get a public option......Now the slippery slope is leading to single payer

You all know what is next.......SOCIALISM


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 24, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



We've already had that since WWII.

Social Security.....you know...

Give the Dems enough time and they'll find a way of getting it installed.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 24, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> Single payer is the problem.....it's gonna be slipped in. Obama won't rest until it is. Don't be so naive to assume he won't as much as everyone was naive to assume that the Public Option was history.



Again, there's nothing to respond to here because there's no factual or rational basis for this fear. I get it, you're afraid of single payer. But as I went through above, all of your rationales connecting the public option to some future single payer system fall apart when you actually look at the proposal being suggested. So what else is there to say?



> Insurance companies are finding out what's in the bill after the fact. They claim that it will put them out of business because the government is the only entity that can afford to offer insurance under such conditions......and as soon as the conditions warrant it....benefits will be cut to keep expenses down....thus rationing will be instituted. It happened here in TN with Tenncare and it's happening in Mass.



First of all, the government isn't offering insurance under the law (except under the existing programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which don't just allow anyone who wants to to sign up). That's why this new public option bill even exists. Arguably the law _should've_ included a public option because it was one of the most popular components of reform but ultimately it didn't.






Second, you're making two cross-cutting arguments here:

1) The mandates on insurers (the primary one people complain about being a _benefits_ mandate that requires a minimum level of coverage be offered) are too tough.
2) Insurers will slash benefits to meet the mandates.

You're essentially telling me that this onerous benefits mandate will lead insurers to...slash benefits. So in your worldview that would be...good? If that made sense (which I don't think it does), it would essentially undo the benefits mandate in the first place. Which I take it you'd be in favor of. So what's the problem?



> The simple fact that the bill took over 2000 pages to explain the program means it's not cut and dried....



So "it" refers to the law? Well, you're right, there's a lot in it.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 24, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Single payer is the problem.....it's gonna be slipped in. Obama won't rest until it is. Don't be so naive to assume he won't as much as everyone was naive to assume that the Public Option was history.
> ...



I never said insurers would slash benefits. Obama already has named board members outside of his cabinet to handle reviews on who will get coverage and thus treated and who will not. The insurers won't have a say in it anymore...much like they won't have a say in who they will insure with the removal of preexisting conditions.

And you can't trust Obama after his takeover of GM, Chrysler, AIG, Goldman Sachs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Nothing is stopping him from taking over another industry. He's already got a stranglehold on the petroleum industry now. Recent history indicates there won't be any evidence till after it's already happened.

Even though you are good at presenting the facts in the program but not all of the facts....you must be really gullible or blissfully ignorant if you think he won't repeat what he's already done in the last couple of years.


----------



## Cuyo (Jul 24, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



"Socialism" is more of an element of a system, then a system in itself.  I don't know of any existing system that doesn't have some elements of "Socialism."  And you're correct that during the FDR years (Not necessarily just after the war) we made decisive moves to incorporate more elements of what you call "Socialism."

A degree of Socialism is necessary to stabilize the economic system and maintain order.  What you forget is, when you sink the ship, everyone goes down.  Socialism can also serve as a catalyst for the private sector (Interstate highways, e.g.).  

You are correct that single payer could correctly be identified as a "Socialist" program, but it is not "Socialized medicine."  Single payer healthcare is the standard system used by the world today, not because it's a power grab or a means of control, but_ because it makes sense._

Just the same, it's not on the table right now, and never has been during this administration.  You cannot really chastise the Administration for something they haven't done yet.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 24, 2010)

Cuyo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I can if he's already voiced his support for it. His own words convict him. 

Don't make me pull up the youtube vids supporting this fact. I don't have the time right now because I have to open the store in a bit.

You can't continue to defend this guy just because the latest issue is at the stage where he hasn't done it yet. All of the other takeovers were at that point once too....until it happened....but then it was too late.

My biggest fear is once a new program is law it doesn't take much to tweak it till it's what you originally intended. You just have to be slick about it and not do it all at once. The UK started out with a low VAT but now it's currently 20%.

Obama cannot be trusted......remember only a couple of weeks before he took over GM he lied that he was not going to. In any court a witness that lies that blatantly automatically loses credibility and all of Obama's actions add weight to this assumption.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 24, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > And your rambling incoherent explanation somehow fails to realize that rates are high PRECISELY BECAUSE gov't (Medicaid/Medicare) reimburse at such low rates doctors must make it up on private insurance.
> ...



You have managed to quote something which does not support your contention.
And actually you end up supporting my argument that "public option" will make things worse, not better.
Thanks!


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 24, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> You have managed to quote something which does not support your contention.



Trying out your Jedi mind tricks or something? They're not working.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 24, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > You have managed to quote something which does not support your contention.
> ...



It's called "logic" and "argumentation."  No wonder they aren't working on you.
The fact remains that the gov't programs reimburse at sub par rates, which are made up by private insurers, which reimburse at a higher rate.  The article you cite says exactly that.  Allowing more people to go on a plan that reimburses at a low rate will not help the health care system in this country at all.
There is little question about all this, btw. It is pretty well established.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 24, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> The fact remains that the gov't programs reimburse at sub par rates, which are made up by private insurers, which reimburse at a higher rate.  The article you cite says exactly that.  Allowing more people to go on a plan that reimburses at a low rate will not help the health care system in this country at all.



What is says is that hospitals operating efficiently profit off of Medicare patients and those not under financial pressure don't. Meaning Medicare reimbursement rates are only problematic for for hospitals associated with higher rates of wasteful spending. Which indicates that if providers were pressured to control costs, they could and your premiums could be lower than they are (and certainly rising far more slowly). The problem, of course, is that providers have little incentive to reduce wasteful spending and payers don't have enough leverage to encourage them to.

Which is where the public option comes in. As long as customers have no choices other than private payers that negotiate (inflated) reimbursements to providers, providers are safe in protecting the status quo. The public option reimburses according to a fee schedule (Medicare + 5% and indexed from there). If providers want to avoid watching customers switch from private payers to the public option (which providers _would_ want to avoid since the fee schedule is invariably lower than private reimbursements), they must halt the constant reimbursement hikes and work to minimize the public/private payer differential. In other words, it changes the incentives in the payer-provider negotiation process to put downward pressure on rate increases, instead of upward pressure (which exists now).

What you seem to be missing is that the point isn't to get everyone on a public option, it's to give private payers a bargaining chip to use to keep their own reimbursement rates down. Lowering prices for everyone.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 24, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > The fact remains that the gov't programs reimburse at sub par rates, which are made up by private insurers, which reimburse at a higher rate.  The article you cite says exactly that.  Allowing more people to go on a plan that reimburses at a low rate will not help the health care system in this country at all.
> ...



OK.  SO you admit that
a) A public option will reimburse at lower rates than private payers.
b) Health providers will not want to accept public option money if they can get enough private money.

The result of just these two things, as you've already admitted, will be that fewer providers will accept public option money and thus will limit choices for insureds (there goes "if you like your doctor you can keep him.").  Also that public option will be cheaper--and free to insureds in many cases--and thus will suck the higher risk patients out of the risk pool.  This will drive up costs to the pool.  That increased cost will be paid for out of public tax money since the riskiest cases will not be able to pay enough themselves.
Added to this, and never mentioned, is the fact that insurance companies can offset their lower premiums by revenue from their investment portfolio.  A public option by definition cannot do this.  All revenue must come from earned premiums.  The only way to offset higher premium cost is by taking public tax money.
This is bound to happen.  There can be no other way.

As for your last point: Do you honestly think government negotiators are better than private negotiators?  Your contention is belied by the very fact that private insurers now reimburse at higher rates than Medicare/Medicade. If what you said was true, they would already be competing.  But it is not true.


----------



## jeffrockit (Jul 24, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You are going on the assumption that govt HC is competitive. As it is not based on my previous explanation, thye are not. Since govt provides no such competition in what is true level playing field competition, that is a mute point. The other poster stated that Govt HC will increase competition when in fact there is none because govt has an endless pool of money at their disposal. No one responding seems to grasp that as no one has argued against that point. Nice way of avoiding the actual debate.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 24, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> OK.  SO you admit that
> a) A public option will reimburse at lower rates than private payers.



Admit it? That's the _point_. 

During the debate last year, the original public option in the original House health care bill (H.R. 3200) was robust, like the one being proposed in this new bill. It relied on a fee schedule pegged to Medicare rates + 5%. However, when that bill went through markups and was debated, the consolidated bill that emerged (H.R. 3962) contained a weaker public option in which the public option's rates were negotiated with providers, just like any insurer. Once they abandoned the notion of relying on a set fee schedule--i.e. a _robust_ public option--most of the value of the proposal was lost. And ultimately no public option was included in the bill that became law last March.



> b) Health providers will not want to accept public option money if they can get enough private money.



Providers would prefer patients whose payers reimburse at higher rates, meaning they'd take actions to prevent seeing patients switch out of private insurance and migrate to the public option. That, too, is the point.



> The result of just these two things, as you've already admitted, will be that fewer providers will accept public option money and thus will limit choices for insureds (there goes "if you like your doctor you can keep him.").



The public option doesn't exist at present. Thus "if you like your doctor you can keep him" is completely inapplicable to what we're talking about here. If you switch to a new payer, of course your provider network may be affected. What will the provider network for the public option look like? Under the bill this thread is about, initially it will be the Medicare provider network, though those providers will be able to opt out of the public option if they wish. If it does have access issues, then it won't be a very popular choice and there's no need for you to fear that somehow it will attract every customer in the market.



> Also that public option will be cheaper--and free to insureds in many cases--and thus will suck the higher risk patients out of the risk pool.



Starting in 2014, no insurance pools price for risk. A higher risk customer isn't going to pay any more in a private insurance pool than is a low-risk customer buying the same product. 

The public option isn't free to anyone, it operates by the same rules as every plan in the exchanges. People between 133% and 400% of the poverty line get premium subsidies which they can take to any insurer they wish. But they pay a portion of their premiums that's determined by their income. And, as already noted, the exchanges will have risk adjustment mechanisms, whereby insurers who happen to get higher-than-average risk pools receive payments to offset their additional costs.




> Added to this, and never mentioned, is the fact that insurance companies can offset their lower premiums by revenue from their investment portfolio.  A public option by definition cannot do this.  All revenue must come from earned premiums.  The only way to offset higher premium cost is by taking public tax money.



What do you estimate is the quantitative impact on premiums of float revenue?



> As for your last point: Do you honestly think government negotiators are better than private negotiators?



No. That's why I don't want a public option with negotiated rates. If there's going to be one, it should be the one Woolsey is proposing here in H.R. 5808--one where reimbursements are set by the Medicare fee schedule, not negotiators.



> Your contention is belied by the very fact that private insurers now reimburse at higher rates than Medicare/Medicade. If what you said was true, they would already be competing.  But it is not true.



Medicare isn't competing with anyone. We've been through this--review the posts above. _You_ don't have the option to leave your insurer and buy into Medicare. Your insurer knows that, your providers know that. Thus your relationship with them and their relationship with each other is not affected by Medicare.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 24, 2010)

You agree with everything I posit and then somehow wish for a different outcome.
Never happen.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 25, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Just like Social Security and Medicare, right?
> ...




Really so they charge everyone, even those who can't afford insurance right now right.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 25, 2010)

Cons prefer to have people uninsured, thus clogging up emergency rooms. Then we all pay for their care with our taxes. Make sense? Of course not.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 25, 2010)

jeffrockit said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



So you admit the Government program would be more efficient and provide a better product at a lower cost

A win for the American People.....tough shit for the Insurance industry if they can't compete


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 25, 2010)

Political Junky said:


> Cons prefer to have people uninsured, thus clogging up emergency rooms. Then we all pay for their care with our taxes. Make sense? Of course not.



You mean like the way Obama and other Democrats wants this to continue with illegals?????

I think you're confused on this issue.

The right thinks everyone should pay their fair share....not continue to have millions of people sucking off of the rest of us. How else do you think our taxes will go down? After all lower taxes is their number one priority....not screwing everyone they don't like the way Liberals seem to want.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 25, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> You agree with everything I posit and then somehow wish for a different outcome.
> Never happen.



No. Your arguments (the few that you actually made) centered on cost-shifting, which as I pointed out can't occur if customers can flow freely between insurers. Thus the entire rationale that providers can continue wasteful spending when a public option is present in the market falls apart. Which means their only option is to ease their demands on private insurers, which ultimately puts downward pressure on your premiums.



Charles_Main said:


> Really so they charge everyone, even those who can't afford insurance right now right.



Who is "they"? Medicare? The whole point of the post you quoted is that Medicare _doesn't_ finance primarily through premiums. And low-income seniors fall into the category of dual eligibles, people who can get health care through both Medicare and Medicaid.

And if "they" refers to the proposed public option, it won't have people who can't pay premiums. Those people will be in Medicaid, which states will be expanding over the next four years.




mudwhistle said:


> You mean like the way Obama and other Democrats wants this to continue with illegals?????



Do you think they should've brought illegals into the health care system with this law?




> The right thinks everyone should pay their fair share....not continue to have millions of people sucking off of the rest of us. How else do you think our taxes will go down? After all lower taxes is their number one priority....not screwing everyone they don't like the way Liberals seem to want.



If you're getting insurance through your employer, you're not paying any taxes on those benefits even though they're compensation. That's a big subsidy you're getting for that insurance.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 25, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > You agree with everything I posit and then somehow wish for a different outcome.
> ...



There you go again.  First, customer cannot "flow freely between insurers" as they will have been dropped from their company health plan onto public option.
Do providers have "wasteful spending"?  Really?  Any evidence for that, that the cost of healthcare is due to waste?
They will increase their demands on private insurers because they will need to make up lost revenue from government reimbursements.  This is already the case, as you yourself admitted.  Public option will make it worse, not better.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 25, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> There you go again.  First, customer cannot "flow freely between insurers" as they will have been dropped from their company health plan onto public option.



It's becoming pretty clear that you're not familiar with how the health care markets work today or what the reform law does to it. So let's have a little crash course.

Broadly speaking, there are two markets for health insurance: the group market and the individual market. If you're getting a plan through your employer, you're in the group market. You're subsidized by the government and enjoy certain HIPAA protections against pre-existing conditions exclusions, unreasonable rate differences based on health status and things like that. Those protections have existed for over a decade.

The individual market, on the other hand, is where people who don't get coverage through work go to buy policies. They don't get the government subsidy that people in the group market get (which is especially significant because people who don't get coverage through their job are often lower-income than their peers in the group market), they often don't enjoy the consumer protections that people in the group market have, and it's generally a very opaque marketplace.

One of the primary goals of the insurance market reforms in the law is to make the individual market look a bit more like the group market. And it does that by creating a new structure through which individual policies are sold: the health insurance exchange. This is a transparent marketplace, governed by certain consumer protections, where you can buy quality insurance.

If your employer drops coverage, that means you leave the group market and shop for plans in the exchange (there are even provisions for doing this voluntarily: 1) certain employers can take their employees into the exchange to shop if they choose to and 2) free choice vouchers are available if your premiums through work are high enough--these let you take your employer's contribution and buy your own plan in the exchange). You don't get dumped on the public option--note that there _isn't_ even a public option on the books at this time so that suggestion makes no sense. What happens is, you enter the exchange and pick the plan you like from a menu of options. If a public option existed, it would be one of the choices on that menu of options.

So, yes, customers can freely flow between plans in the exchanges.



> Do providers have "wasteful spending"?  Really?  Any evidence for that, that the cost of healthcare is due to waste?



This is health economics 101. First of all, part of the reason I quoted that section of the MedPAC (and I suggest at some point you actually read it, it's interesting stuff) is because this is exactly what they're talking about. That said, last year Thomson Reuters put the number at $650-$800 billion per year. But the obvious inefficiency of medical providers is no less important than their 182% (on average) markup of services over the actual cost of treatment.

As I've said in another thread, there is at least one alternative to the public option that I think would probably be even more effective than it.



> They will increase their demands on private insurers because they will need to make up lost revenue from government reimbursements.



To reiterate: you can't cost shift from A to B when people in B can simply go to A. Cost shifting requires immobility on the part of those who're on the short end of the stick.

Let me ask you this: do you believe the American health system is as efficient right now as it can possibly be? That providers are charging exactly what they need to charge to sustain and flourish, with a healthy profit margin for those providers who are for-profit? In other words, do you think there is absolutely no health care cost problem in this country?



> This is already the case, as you yourself admitted.  Public option will make it worse, not better.



You're either not reading what I'm saying or not understanding it. I assume it's a little of both.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 25, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > You agree with everything I posit and then somehow wish for a different outcome.
> ...



Pretty soon you won't be...because the fine for not having coverage is much lower then the costs. Soon companies will be dropping coverage for their employees in favor of just paying the fines. Also paying premiums through payroll deductions is in all respects a tax. At least that is what the US Government used as a defense in various lawsuits around the country.

I suspect you're a plant. How the fuck would you know about the bill?

It's extremely hard to find a copy of *the current form* of the Health Care bill much less understand it.

Unless you were involved in the drafting and rewriting of this monstrosity or have been coached on the subject it's very difficult to understand....even though I have some legal background and I was at one time licensed in the state of Tennessee as an insurance agent I have to go through third parties to get most of my information.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 25, 2010)

Political Junky said:


> Cons prefer to have people uninsured, thus clogging up emergency rooms. Then we all pay for their care with our taxes. Make sense? Of course not.





That's highly inaccurate.

Take a look at the MA ObamaCare-esque experiment.   Everyone is covered, costs are out of control, and emergency rooms are just as crowded.

Why - when doctors' schedules are full, people use the emergency room as a drop in clinic.  Having or not having insurance doesn't change that dynamic.

_The combination of heavily subsidized demand and tight, over-regulated supply is a textbook formula for perpetuating the big, chronic price increases that bedevil today's health-care system.

Instead of attacking the real causes of the explosion in costs -- the combination of overly generous state aid and a dearth of competition among hospitals and physician groups -- Massachusetts is vilifying prestigious, non-profit insurers, and punishing them, believe it nor not, with price controls. In April, Governor Deval Patrick refused the request of carriers such as Harvard Pilgrim, the top-rated plan in the country, for premium increases of 8% to 32%. Instead, his administration is refusing all rate hikes over 7.7%; any rate requests the administration rejects are automatically held at 2009 levels.

In explosive emails released last week, Robert Dynan, chief of the financial analysis unit at the Division of Insurance, told Commissioner Joseph Murphy that the price caps would cause a "potential train wreck" and threatened "catastrophic consequences for the non-profit industry." Dynan warned that the non-profits, unlike national giants such as WellPoint (WLP, Fortune 500), operate on such slim margins that the controls could drive them into bankruptcy. Even now, four of the biggest insurers are threatening to stop taking new patients at rates so low they lose money on each new enrollee._


5 painful health-care lessons from Massachusetts - Jun. 15, 2010


----------



## Meister (Jul 25, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



Keep my existing policy and funding a public option? Where's my right to choose?


----------



## boedicca (Jul 25, 2010)

Don't you get it?  The Big Government Class doesn't think you are smart or deserving enough to choose for yourself.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 25, 2010)

And here's some info on MA emergency room usage:

_The number of people visiting hospital emergency rooms has climbed in Massachusetts, despite the enactment of nearly universal health insurance that some hoped would reduce expensive emergency department use.

According to state data released last week, emergency room visits rose by 9 percent from 2004 to 2008, to about 3 million visits a year.

When the Legislature passed the insurance law in 2006, officials hoped it would increase access to primary care doctors for the uninsured, which would improve their health and lessen their reliance on emergency rooms for the flu, sprains, and other urgent care. Residents began enrolling in state-subsidized insurance plans in October 2006; everyone was required to have coverage by July 1, 2007.

*But, according to a report from the Division of Health Care Finance and Policy, expanded coverage may have contributed to the rise in emergency room visits, as newly insured residents entered the health care system and could not find a primary care doctor or get a last-minute appointment with their physician.*_


Emergency room visits grow in Mass. - The Boston Globe


Now, how about that Berwick The Rationer being appointed to oversee Medicare?


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 25, 2010)

Somewhere I heard a stat that most people who go to emergency rooms in fact are covered by insurance.  And also that non emergency usage of emergency rooms, while certainly supported with anecdotal evidence, is not a big contributor to the cost of health care.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 25, 2010)

The biggest use of health care is end of life care.   

Berwick's appointment to Medicare means an agenda of rationing care to the elderly - which will undoubtedly mean shortening some lives as care is denied.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 25, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> Pretty soon you won't be...because the fine for not having coverage is much lower then the costs. Soon companies will be dropping coverage for their employees in favor of just paying the fines.



That would be a nice outcome but it's unlikely since the preference for employer-based coverage is strengthened under this law (in all the years employer-sponsored coverage has dominated the insurance market, there hasn't been a fine to coerce employers into providing it--they've done it for other reasons).



> I suspect you're a plant. How the fuck would you know about the bill?



I've read it. All of them actually, starting with the original House bill, H.R. 3200, in the summer of 2009. In fact, I've also read all of the Republican health care bills in the current Congress, too.

It wouldn't make much sense to take an interest in the subject and follow the public debate if I didn't want to become familiar with _what_ was being debated. Am I unique in thinking like that?



> It's extremely hard to find a copy of *the current form* of the Health Care bill much less understand it.



No, it isn't. Every bill introduced in Congress is available on THOMAS, the Library of Congress's site. Under "Search Bill Summary & Status" search by bill number. H.R. 3590 is the root bill, H.R. 4872 is the much smaller reconciliation bill that amended it. Or, if you want more of a community feel as you're reading it,  read it on Open Congress. Or on Gov Track.

If you prefer comprehensive summaries instead of the actual text of the law, there are about a hundred places you can go:

NASMD's summary
Kaiser's summary
Summary from some law firm
Section-by-section walk-through from the Senate Dem Policy Committee

In addition, THOMAS will show you the official summary of the law compiled by the Congressional Research Service when you search for it and OpenCongress provides its own section-by-section summaries.

I'm pretty sure at no point in American history has information been so readily available from the comfort of your living room. _Please_ start making use of it.



> Unless you were involved in the drafting and rewriting of this monstrosity it's very difficult to understand....even though I have some legal background.



No, I didn't design it but I'm confident I have a pretty good handle on it.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 25, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Instead of attacking the real causes of the explosion in costs -- the combination of overly generous state aid and a dearth of competition among hospitals and physician groups -- Massachusetts is vilifying prestigious, non-profit insurers, and punishing them, believe it nor not, with price controls.



I agree with this. We have to start going after providers. I'd like to see Massachusetts attempt to revive and revise an experiment it ended a long time ago.



boedicca said:


> Berwick's appointment to Medicare means an agenda of rationing care to the elderly - which will undoubtedly mean shortening some lives as care is denied.



Keep us updated on that.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 25, 2010)

We have to start going after providers?

What on earth do you mean by that?   Drafting them to work longer hours for no pay?


----------



## boedicca (Jul 25, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Berwick's appointment to Medicare means an agenda of rationing care to the elderly - which will undoubtedly mean shortening some lives as care is denied.
> ...





He's already told us in his own words:

_*"The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80% of the total health care bill out there. There is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open."*_


RealClearPolitics - Why Donald Berwick is Dangerous to Your Health


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 25, 2010)

As your own article points out (and the link to my thread explores a bit), providers in various places have cornered the market and driven up health care costs using their market clout. Insurers don't have enough leverage to hold down reimbursements at the negotiating table, leading to runaway premiums. This has to be addressed. I've pointed out in the linked thread the way I'd like to see states address it (the Maryland all-payer rate setting model). Do you have another preference? Or do you not even agree with the article you brought into the discussion?


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 25, 2010)

boedicca said:


> He's already told us in his own words:
> 
> _*"The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80% of the total health care bill out there. There is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open."*_



That's can't be! I thought health care resources existed in infinite abundance.

Anyway, let us know how that statement affects his administration of CMS.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 25, 2010)

The only way to address it is free market forces.  Price controls always end up lessening supply.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 25, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > He's already told us in his own words:
> ...




He's already telegraphed his intent.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 25, 2010)

boedicca said:


> The only way to address it is free market forces.  Price controls always end up lessening supply.



Meaning what? Translate that into a specific policy.



boedicca said:


> He's already telegraphed his intent.



And when that intent (whatever you think it is) manifests itself in CMS policy, let us know. Thanks.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 25, 2010)

Free market reforms:

- Interstate competition among insurance companies.
- Tort reform to get rid of tort blackmail.
- Tax reform to enable individuals to purchase individual policies with an equivalent tax deduction as businesses receive.
- Education reform which gets rid of restrictions on the the supply of doctors.

For a start.

These would be far more effective than a Big Government One Size Fits All Mandatory Participation Program.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 25, 2010)

Someone else brought up similar proposals in another thread today. If you actually want to discuss those in detail, start another thread specifically on this and we can. There's a lot to be said there.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 25, 2010)

We went through all of them during the ObamaCare discussions.  They are the ones the GOP delegates put forth during the phony bipartisan summit hosted by Obama.  The Dems ignored them and proceeded with the mess we now have.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 25, 2010)

So you're not open to discussing them in another thread?


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 25, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty soon you won't be...because the fine for not having coverage is much lower then the costs. Soon companies will be dropping coverage for their employees in favor of just paying the fines.
> ...



Please explain to me how companies dropping their group plans for employees is a good thing? I can't wait to hear this BS.



By the way; It's kind of hard to make use of it unless they post it first. But by the time they post it..it's already law or they wait so late that you only have a few hours to read it before it's voted on. Reading it after the fact is counterproductive for the debate and not what they said would happen...not to mention highly suspect. Also, Harry Reid and company are as we speak adding new provisions to it...and many of those are subject to change without prior notice. I've read parts of it and read a few of the summaries of what it contains.

Remember......"We have to pass it before we can see what's in it". Remember that? What that means is until it goes into effect nobody can really tell what it's gonna do. That's Nancy Pelosi's own words. Because of this I seriously doubt you really have an accurate grasp on what it will do...because you have to understand 100% of it to know for sure what it will do. You have to know every single exception in coverage, every single facet of the 2500 plus pages. Even if you have a photographic memory you'll never really completely understand it. 

The problem with this bill and every bill they write is that it is too complex...intentionally. Entries that don't belong in a Health Care bill have been hidden in it. Exclusionary language is all over the place. People that were told they would be covered really aren't because of loopholes all over the bill. One of them is children that live with their parents to age 26 were advertised to have been covered immediately upon signing but instead aren't until the program kicks in somewhere down the road. Insurance companies are taking full advantage of this loophole. Loopholes maybe the writers didn't even know were in there. How can these incompetents be trusted with something this complex?

Then there is the corruption element you refuse to take into account. That is the kicker. I trust nothing these people do....and nether should you. If you trust them you're only setting yourself and the rest of us up for a serious ass-reaming. They've done it before and they'll do it again. Trust me.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 25, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty soon you won't be...because the fine for not having coverage is much lower then the costs. Soon companies will be dropping coverage for their employees in favor of just paying the fines.
> ...



It would not be a nice outcome.  It would be disaster.
The preference is not strengthened.  It is weakened by the existence of cheaper alternatives.  As health insurance costs have gone up companies have looked harder and harder at ways to control those costs.  The ultimate way is to drop it completely.  Normally that would leave employees out in the cold.  But with Obamacare insurance companies must issue coverage and it must be affordable.  So companies really don't lose much by opting out.  The fine is simply a matter of math as to which is cheaper.
I predict it will not be long before a Fortune 500 company announces they are the first to drop coverage.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 25, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > He's already told us in his own words:
> ...



They do, with proper incentives.  Just like every other commodity exists in virtual abundance, at the right price.  But control the price, you control the supply as well.
It will affect policy by dictating rationing of health care, complete with panels that will decide what is acceptable protocol for different patients and what isn't.  This is what Britain has already done.  They have already declared that people have basically 18 months of life if they are chronically ill.
Do we want that here as well?  No, I don't think so.


----------



## Meister (Jul 25, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



*Greenbeard seems to be a planted tool from the dems on this board*. He seems to know a lot on the bill...more than most, but does not respond to the obvious flaws that the bill presents.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 25, 2010)

> Greenbeard seems to be a planted tool from the dems on this board. He seems to know a lot on the bill...more than most, but does not respond to the obvious flaws that the bill presents.



He has been kicking your ass with facts you can't refute too


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 25, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> > Greenbeard seems to be a planted tool from the dems on this board. He seems to know a lot on the bill...more than most, but does not respond to the obvious flaws that the bill presents.
> 
> 
> 
> He has been kicking your ass with facts you can't refute too



He usually leaves when I or anyone else presents something he cannot or won't answer.

And the "FACTS" aren't as straight forward as he claims they are.

We've already established that regardless of what's in the bill...the Democrats have proved to be untrustworthy. He cannot argue that. How are we supposed to assume that they'll ever fulfill their end of the bargain. The bargain is we give them our money and they spend it wisely as Greenbeard claims they have laid out in the bill. Not to mention the fact that he gave himself away when he said it was satisfactory that companies would rather pay fines then cover their employees. That was very telling.

Only a Progressive thinks that extorting money from Corporations while forcing workers in private group plans into public plans is a GOOD THING.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 25, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> > Greenbeard seems to be a planted tool from the dems on this board. He seems to know a lot on the bill...more than most, but does not respond to the obvious flaws that the bill presents.
> 
> 
> 
> He has been kicking your ass with facts you can't refute too



Bwahahahaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Meister (Jul 25, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> > Greenbeard seems to be a planted tool from the dems on this board. He seems to know a lot on the bill...more than most, but does not respond to the obvious flaws that the bill presents.
> 
> 
> 
> He has been kicking your ass with facts you can't refute too



Yes he has facts, but why won't he answer the obvious flaws?
Like I said....he seems to be a tool from the dems.  I noticed you wouldn't refute that, leftwinger.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 25, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> > Greenbeard seems to be a planted tool from the dems on this board. He seems to know a lot on the bill...more than most, but does not respond to the obvious flaws that the bill presents.
> 
> 
> 
> He has been kicking your ass with facts you can't refute too




He's been kicking his own ass as the facts he has been presenting undermine his own case when properly illuminated.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 25, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> Please explain to me how companies dropping their group plans for employees is a good thing? I can't wait to hear this BS.



You're a conservative who hasn't read any Milton Friedman? I'd recommend starting with _Capitalism and Freedom_, it's pretty seminal.

Employer-sponsorship of health insurance is distortionary. It only came about through an accident of history, World War II-era policies that the public demanded be enshrined in law after the war ended. As it happens now, people like me are stuck in a given plan because our employer doesn't offer any choice (people with larger employers may have more choice but still not the full menu of options that will be available in the exchanges). Decision-making about that particular choice isn't done by me or my co-workers, it's done at the top of the organizational chart. That severely hampers my ability to shop for something I like. And by "severely hampers," I mean "virtually eliminates." Which is why it's so distortionary.

And that's why a number of thinkers--of all ideological persuasions--support getting rid of it. See boedicca's post above arguing that the tax exemption on employer-sponsored plans should be extended to all plans. The intent of that policy change is to eliminate the tax preference for employer-provided insurance and thus to ultimately end that system. And when you do that, everyone goes into the same marketplace and everyone gets to choose a plan from the full array of choices available in that marketplace (which, as I said, people like myself can't currently do). That's what "portability" means--decoupling health insurance from job status.

And I'm all for that. I have a soft spot for the Wyden-Bennett bill that would've transitioned everyone into the same marketplace. Wyden himself actually aggressively attempted to get a variation of that proposal placed into the law the ultimately passed--he favored including free choice vouchers in which an employee could, if he so chose, take his employer's contribution to his health insurance and go into the new health insurance exchanges by himself to put it toward any plan he wanted (and not specifically one of his employer's choosing). A weak version of that proposal was ultimately included, but the free choice vouchers are only available to people who are paying between 8 and 9.8 percent of their income on the premiums for their employer-sponsored plan.

The problem is that people want stability--abrupt change is generally not favored. Thus politicians have to promise "if you like your plan you can keep it" and contort themselves into all sorts of odd shapes as they attempt to preserve the existing system. That's part of the reason there's an quasi-employer mandate. But ultimately I hope we can transition away from the employer-based system and more toward one in which everyone exists as an individual making his own choices in the health insurance exchanges. That would be a good thing.




> By the way; It's kind of hard to make use of it unless they post it first. But by the time they post it..it's already law or they wait so late that you only have a few hours to read it before it's voted on. Reading it after the fact is counterproductive for the debate and not what they said would happen...not to mention highly suspect.



A few hours to read it? The health care bill that became law is H.R. 3590, released with Reid's manager's amendment on November 19, 2009. It passed the Senate in a vote on Christmas Eve and the House--unaltered--on March 21.

It was accompanied by a relatively short reconciliation bill making certain changes, noted in the section-by-section summary posted above. That bill was publicly available on March 17. It passed the Senate on March 25 and the House later that day.

However, even this is misleading because these are the final products of a process that started evolving in July of 2009. When H.R. 3590 came out, it was a synthesis of the two Senate bills that had been marked up in committee, the Senate Finance Committee's bill and the Senate HELP Committee's bill. The provisions in the final combined bill didn't emerge out of the blue, they were debated extensively in those two committees starting in the summer of 2009. Thus if you'd followed the process from the start, the final bill (which you had over a month to read through before the first Senate vote and four months to read through before it was voted on in the House) would've contained little that was new to you. The same goes for the reconciliation bill, since its contents were revealed before the actual text of the bill was released.



> Also, Harry Reid and company are as we speak adding new provisions to it...and many of those are subject to change without prior notice. I've read parts of it and read a few of the summaries of what it contains.



What provisions are being added? Are you talking about the administrative rulemaking process that's going on in the Department of Health and Human Services? Rulemaking is required by the text of the legislation and doesn't have much to do with Congress at this point.



The Rabbi said:


> It would not be a nice outcome.  It would be disaster.



See above.



> The preference is not strengthened.  It is weakened by the existence of cheaper alternatives.



I love how "the existence of cheaper alternatives" has a derogatory connotation in your posts. What sort of conservative are you, I wonder?



> As health insurance costs have gone up companies have looked harder and harder at ways to control those costs.  The ultimate way is to drop it completely.  Normally that would leave employees out in the cold.  But with Obamacare insurance companies must issue coverage and it must be affordable.  So companies really don't lose much by opting out.  The fine is simply a matter of math as to which is cheaper.
> I predict it will not be long before a Fortune 500 company announces they are the first to drop coverage.



I agree the moral component of employer-sponsored insurance will be removed, as employees will no longer have bad options in a shitty, largely unregulated individual market as the only alternative to a plan through their employer. You seem to agree, as well, that an employer shouldn't lose any sleep about sending his employees on their own merry way to buy insurance through the exchanges (which I hope you realize is a tacit admission that the individual market is going to be a significantly better place to buy insurance due to reform).

But the financial reasons are still there. Employees now face an individual mandate to have coverage, meaning they'll be demanding coverage as much as (if not more than) ever. The tax preference for health care premium dollars over actual dollars still exists, though it will no longer be limitless thanks to the excise tax on high-cost plans. And ultimately employers are going to be compensating their employees some amount--if some of that is in wages and some is in the form of health benefits, okay. But if an employer decides to terminate coverage, he can't simply delete that part of his employee's compensation package, he'll have to compensate with increased wages (a guy making $40,000 a year with a health package worth $5,000 a year isn't being compensated $40,000 for his position, he's being compensated $45,000--if you want to alter the allocation of the components of his package, that's one thing but lowering his compensation by an amount equal to his health benefit is a different beast entirely). To suggest otherwise is to suggest that all employees are currently greatly overcompensated for the work they do, which is somewhat of an odd market failure.



The Rabbi said:


> Just like every other commodity exists in virtual abundance, *at the right price*.  But control the price, you control the supply as well.



That's (the bolded bit) kind of my point. Price rations goods. Price rations health care goods. We _do_ ration now, that statement shouldn't be controversial to anyone who has taken an introductory economics course and recognizes that health care is not an unlimited resource.



Meister said:


> *Greenbeard seems to be a planted tool from the dems on this board*. He seems to know a lot on the bill...more than most, but does not respond to the obvious flaws that the bill presents.



Yes, The Powers That Be care very much about the opinions of posters on this board. Busted!

Anyway, what is it you want me to respond to? Of course the law has flaws. As I just spent some time saying, I wish it would make an aggressive push to transition away from employer-sponsored coverage. It does some rooting around the edges (i.e. giving employers the options of taking employees into the exchanges), which pacifies me a bit, but I think they missed an opportunity here. But that's the nature of the political process. I was very pleased, however, that the primary funding mechanism they went with turned out to be the excise tax instead of the income tax favored by liberals. The excise tax is a much better policy tool here.

I also think I've made it pretty clear in this thread I think something needs to be done to address provider consolidation and their role in skyrocketing costs. Most of the cost control options in the bill are aimed at the consumer (e.g. the excise tax on high-cost plans, designed in part to put a drag on rising costs) and at improving the delivery system so that it operates more effectively and more efficiently. While I'm fairly confident some of the many delivery system reforms that will be tested under this law will lower costs through quality and efficiency gains, that doesn't necessarily mean _prices_ will go down since in the current system prices don't necessarily reflect costs due to the power of providers. That's a huge weakness that's going to need to be addressed by someone down the line.



mudwhistle said:


> He usually leaves when I or anyone else presents something he cannot or won't answer.



I went to see Inception again, apologies. Very enjoyable, I highly recommend it.



> We've already established that regardless of what's in the bill...the Democrats have proved to be untrustworthy. He cannot argue that. How are we supposed to assume that they'll ever fulfill their end of the bargain. The bargain is we give them our money and they spend it wisely as Greenbeard claims they have laid out in the bill.



I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The bulk of the money spent here goes to consumers, who use it to choose an insurance plan that's to their liking. These are means-tested premium tax credits that give support to shoppers in the exchanges (i.e. the new individual market).



> Not to mention the fact that he gave himself away when he said it was satisfactory that companies would rather pay fines then cover their employees. That was very telling.



I'm discovering that I'm apparently a bit more conservative and pro-competition than some of you. I suppose that is telling.



> Only a Progressive thinks that extorting money from Corporations while forcing workers in private group plans into public plans is a GOOD THING.



*The exchanges do not contain public plans*. I've argued in this thread that they _should_ include one but in the law as it stands now they do not. If your employer drops coverage, you go buy your own individual *private* plan. 



Meister said:


> Yes he has facts, but why won't he answer the obvious flaws?



What do you want to talk about? If it isn't obvious by now that I'm willing to engage in an actual discussion with you, I don't know how to make that any more clear.



boedicca said:


> He's been kicking his own ass as the facts he has been presenting undermine his own case when properly illuminated.



Can you elaborate?


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 25, 2010)

Meister said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > > Greenbeard seems to be a planted tool from the dems on this board. He seems to know a lot on the bill...more than most, but does not respond to the obvious flaws that the bill presents.
> ...



Yes people who are educated and make valid logical posts are most definitely dems


----------



## clevergirl (Jul 25, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > You're a conservative who hasn't read any Milton Friedman? I'd recommend starting with _Capitalism and Freedom_, it's pretty seminal.
> ...


----------



## boedicca (Jul 25, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > He's been kicking his own ass as the facts he has been presenting undermine his own case when properly illuminated.
> ...




Your solution to the distortion of employer provided health insurance being a taxpayer funded public option is a pretty good example of how you are kicking your own ass.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 25, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> That's (the bolded bit) kind of my point. Price rations goods. Price rations health care goods. We _do_ ration now, that statement shouldn't be controversial to anyone who has taken an introductory economics course and recognizes that health care is not an unlimited resource.



And a public option ,as you have admitted, will lower the price reimbursement on health care, which in turn lowers the amount available.  Which in turn will result in rationing health care because the normal price mechanism will be unavailable due to government fiat.
QED.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 25, 2010)

What Greenbeard either doesn't understand or refuses to acknowledge is that an individual making his own decisions about how much he is willing to spend on health care is a far different model of rationing than is a faceless government bureaucrat deciding how much that individual's life is worth.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 25, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Wow you must not be a Dem then!


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 25, 2010)

Charles_Main said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I have been a registered Republican for 20 years

I voted for Reagan and Daddy Bush 4 times


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 25, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Please explain to me how companies dropping their group plans for employees is a good thing? I can't wait to hear this BS.
> ...



My suggestion is try saying things in layman's terms rather then by the book. You could get your point across better.

I'm not a Conservative....I'm a Moderate....but why is it every one of you folks think Conservatives are stupid or never take the time to read Friedman. To be honest I don't have any desire to read his thoughts because his type doesn't interest me. I think he's dead wrong by the way. Keynesian Economics is crap. Seems every time a Progressive gets going he starts spouting Friedman. Friedman believed in Keynesian Economics till he found out that it never works. He discovered the disadvantages of government intervention. 

Yes....you're a Progressive and to be honest what you have to say needs to be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## Meister (Jul 25, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



It's a shame that you aren't one of them, huh?


----------



## clevergirl (Jul 25, 2010)

boedicca said:


> What Greenbeard either doesn't understand or refuses to acknowledge is that an individual making his own decisions about how much he is willing to spend on health care is a far different model of rationing than is a faceless government bureaucrat deciding how much that individual's life is worth.



The difference is a glaring shock to liberty; a mandate!


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 25, 2010)

clevergirl said:


> I think we should just jump right into Friedman's position on medical care....and since you are such a fan I am sure you'll concur with not only his analysis, but his conclusion as well



I agree with him and I disagree with him. I wish we could all spend our own money on health services (through things like HSAs) but unfortunately it's quite expensive, which leads to the necessary redistribution (i.e. insurance). My sister-in-law had a very difficult pregnancy last year that didn't end in a child. Ended up costing $160,000. I'm sorry as hell for my brother and his wife but glad they won't be in debt for the rest of the decade (or their lives) because of this event--they have good insurance.

Friedman mentions ending Medicaid and Medicare in that article and, believe it or not, I don't disagree in principle. Medicaid isn't expanded in the reform law simply on principle alone. I (and many others) would love to see those below 133% of the poverty line get the same privileges in the exchanges as anyone else--pay some means-tested portion of your income in premiums and the government will cover the rest with a premium subsidy. That _does not_ mean we should embrace Paul Ryan's approach, in which these services are "voucherized" but with vouchers that grow much more slowly than medical costs, effectively (as some here would put it) rationing care by saying you get less as time goes on. But putting the poor and elderly on the same program as everyone else  (under reform) is significantly more expensive than just expanding Medicaid. And since it was arbitrarily decided that health care from should have less than a $1 trillion price tag in the 10-year budget window, we got a Medicaid expansion.

With Medicare (and, to some degree, with Medicaid as well) you face a problem that some don't seem to recognize: simply making insurance cheaper doesn't guarantee access. Medicare isn't expensive because it's poorly run (it's not), it's expensive because it specifically caters to the most expensive demographic there is, the elderly. Give these people a voucher and send them into private insurance and they face serious discrimination in the absence of consumer protections (i.e. modified community rating laws and guaranteed issue). Many folks on Medicaid have similar problems because--as Berwick has notoriously noted--health status is inversely correlated with income.

A world of catastrophic insurance (however that's defined) with high deductibles paid out of HSAs is fine if everyone has money to decide how to allocate. Friedman and I agree on how to approach employer-sponsored coverage but we have different approaches to equity and, frankly, he doesn't pay any attention to quality and the delivery system. He suggested abandoning the licensing of physicians, which is something I wouldn't be comfortable with. It would certainly be cheaper if I could have an unqualified, poorly trained physician. But cheaper ain't everything.

And with that note, I would suggest that, above all, let's retain perspective.




boedicca said:


> Your solution to the distortion of employer provided health insurance being a taxpayer funded public option is a pretty good example of how you are kicking your own ass.



The public option isn't a solution to employer-sponsored coverage, it's a solution to provider market clout driving prices up. And, as I already indicated, I think solutions like all-payer rate setting would probably be more effective at dealing with that. But in the absence of those solutions, a public option is a good shot. 

And since some of you seem to think I believe the reform law if perfect let me be clear: it doesn't address provider clout, which I consider to be one of the most important (and threatening) issues in health care today. This is a _serious_ deficiency.



The Rabbi said:


> And a public option ,as you have admitted, will lower the price reimbursement on health care, which in turn lowers the amount available.  Which in turn will result in rationing health care because the normal price mechanism will be unavailable due to government fiat.
> QED.



The "normal price mechanism" is a 182% provider markup beyond costs. Defend that as much as you like, I'll continue pressing for provider efficiency.



boedicca said:


> What Greenbeard either doesn't understand or refuses to acknowledge is that an individual making his own decisions about how much he is willing to spend on health care is a far different model of rationing than is a faceless government bureaucrat deciding how much that individual's life is worth.



What do you think is the relevance of this allegation here?



mudwhistle said:


> My suggestion is try saying things in layman's terms rather then by the book. You could get your point across better.



I swear I'm trying. I don't know how else to say what I'm saying but if you have questions, ask. I honestly don't bite. I know certain things and want you to know them, too. That's it.



> I'm not a Conservative....I'm a Moderate....but why is it every one of you folks think Conservatives are stupid or never take the time to read Friedman. To be honest I don't have any desire to read his thoughts because his type doesn't interest me. I think he's dead wrong by the way. Keynesian Economics is crap. Seems every time a Progressive gets going he starts spouting Friedman. Friedman believed in Keynesian Economics till he found out that it never works. He discovered the disadvantages of government intervention.
> 
> Yes....you're a Progressive and to be honest what you have to say needs to be taken with a grain of salt.



By all means, _take what I say with a grain of salt_. If you have doubts about things I said, I encourage you to look the subject up, read about it, challenge me. I try and present ideas/arguments and sources that an interested reader can follow and absorb so they know where I'm coming from. I don't know that I'm right but I certainly have some thoughts on these issues that I (arrogantly) think are worth sharing. If you don't agree, you don't agree. All I ask is that you understand what I'm arguing (don't distort it) and evaluate it yourself. If you disregard it without reading it or understanding it, I can't promise I'll respect you. Honestly, I'll probably be annoyed. But if you understand it, interact with it, and don't come away convinced, that's fine.

I like politics. But for a lot of people that means arguing whether "lipstick on a pig" is an offensive phrase. I don't care about the minutia or the flavor the week, I really don't. I like talking about how government works, I like discussing policy ideas that might make things better. Because there's scarcely a person alive who doesn't think, generically, that things just plain suck. Most of the threads on here don't concern themselves with policy. I'm attracted to those that do. What Embarrassing Congressperson X said this week isn't nearly as interesting to me as Interesting Idea X. The intriguing part of politics, to me at least, lies in the latter and not the former. So kudos for sticking around this long. And double kudos if your primary objective in life isn't to score some kind of cheap points.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 25, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> clevergirl said:
> 
> 
> > I think we should just jump right into Friedman's position on medical care....and since you are such a fan I am sure you'll concur with not only his analysis, but his conclusion as well
> ...


How is insurance "redistribution"??  Insurance is a voluntary agreement between two parties.  Unless of course it is Obamacare in which case it really is redistribution.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 25, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> How is insurance "redistribution"??  Insurance is a voluntary agreement between two parties.  Unless of course it is Obamacare in which case it really is redistribution.



Insurance is always redistribution. If you intended to pay for Event X yourself, you wouldn't buy insurance. Instead you draw from the pool when your time comes. Members of the pool who, thankfully, don't experience Event X subsidize you when you do.

It has nothing to do with what is or isn't voluntary.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 25, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > How is insurance "redistribution"??  Insurance is a voluntary agreement between two parties.  Unless of course it is Obamacare in which case it really is redistribution.
> ...




It has EVERYTHING to do with being voluntary.

Insurance is pooled risk.  One value the purchaser receives is the limitation of financial exposure and piece of mind knowing that he will have such a limitation in the event of a disaster.     It is not redistribution in the sense of taking value away from one to give to another. 

This rhetorical trick of making completely different concepts morally equivalent is just that:  a trick, and a cheap and disingenuous one that.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 25, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Insurance is pooled risk.  One value the purchaser receives is the limitation of financial exposure and piece of mind knowing that he will have such a limitation in the event of a disaster.     It is not redistribution in the sense of taking value away from one to give to another.



The "limitation of financial exposure" differs from "taking value from one to give to another" in your mind?


----------



## boedicca (Jul 25, 2010)

Yes, it does.

If I purchase insurance in order to limit my financial exposure, I am acquiring something of value.  Other people in the insurance program who VOLUNTARILY purchase such insurance are also acquiring that value.   If I make a claim, it doesn't mean that they are not able to make claims for their particular covered situations.  We take nothing away from one another.

That is far different from a politician or government bureaucrat seizing my income or property against my will to give to another.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 25, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



If insurance were truly redistribution then every voluntary business transaction is redistribution as well.  If a company floats an IPO, that is redistribution.  If someone sells futures, that is redistribution.  Under such a scenario the term redistribution means nothing.
I am rapidly getting sick of Greenbeard's trolling, for that is what it is beginning to feel like.


----------



## boedicca (Jul 25, 2010)

Voluntary Exchange =/= Redistribution

The first is an exchange of One Value For Another Value.  The latter is the transfer of One Value from one person to another person.

Greenbeard is just another philosophically and economically semi or completely illiterate brainwashed progressive.  They are a dime a dozen, if one cared to actually buy them.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 25, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Voluntary Exchange =/= Redistribution
> 
> The first is an exchange of One Value For Another Value.  The latter is the transfer of One Value from one person to another person.
> 
> Greenbeard is just another philosophically and economically semi or completely illiterate brainwashed progressive.  They are a dime a dozen, if one cared to actually buy them.



I'd prefer to see them "redistributed", preferably to someplace like North Korea, where they appreciate that kind of thing.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 25, 2010)

boedicca said:


> If I purchase insurance in order to limit my financial exposure, I am acquiring something of value.  Other people in the insurance program who VOLUNTARILY purchase such insurance are also acquiring that value.   If I make a claim, it doesn't mean that they are not able to make claims for their particular covered situations.  We take nothing away from one another.



"Value transfer" doesn't imply that someone else can't receive treatment for which a claims draws from your health insurance pool. It means that _you_ don't expect to pay the full cost of health events that may (and, extending the time horizon through age 64, likely _will_) occur. You pay for the expenses of others, eventually someone else pays for yours. In isolation, neither could afford their expenses but when resources are made communal both can. That's why health insurance exists. Not because you expect never to have a health event but rather because you _do_ expect to have a health event. And because when you do, you know you'll likely need assistance paying for it. It's a time-sensitive value transfer that you know you'll one day be on the other side of. If you disagree, I encourage you to drop coverage for a few years. You've got 4 years before the mandate is operational, why pay in the mean time?

Now suppose someone draws from that pool without ever paying into it. What would you call that?

Or better yet, suppose someone wishes to voluntarily pay into that pool but is denied access due to age or an event in their medical history. What do we call that?


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 25, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > If I purchase insurance in order to limit my financial exposure, I am acquiring something of value.  Other people in the insurance program who VOLUNTARILY purchase such insurance are also acquiring that value.   If I make a claim, it doesn't mean that they are not able to make claims for their particular covered situations.  We take nothing away from one another.
> ...



That's called Obamanism.

It's also exactly the same thing that was set up by people that are trying to use Congress to get rid of it.....at a nominal expense to taxpayers.

Companies will drop coverage for that very reason, the 2014 mandate. You seem to see the flaws in they bill yet you continue to support it....I don't understand this...unless you're in on it.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 25, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > If I purchase insurance in order to limit my financial exposure, I am acquiring something of value.  Other people in the insurance program who VOLUNTARILY purchase such insurance are also acquiring that value.   If I make a claim, it doesn't mean that they are not able to make claims for their particular covered situations.  We take nothing away from one another.
> ...



The first part of this post is gibberish.
As to the questions: What do you call it?  You call it socialism and Obamacare.
What do we call the second question?  We call it freedom. Insurance companies have the freedom to transact business with anyone they wish.  Or not to.  Of course all that is in the past with Obamacare, which forces transactions, even when they are not advantages to both parties.


----------



## clevergirl (Jul 25, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> clevergirl said:
> 
> 
> > I think we should just jump right into Friedman's position on medical care....and since you are such a fan I am sure you'll concur with not only his analysis, but his conclusion as well
> ...



Look, my point was to highlight that just cuz someone does not know who Freidman is does not make them less conservative than you (whether you meant it to be or not that comment was pretty smart assed). 

You know who Freidman is and yet you in no way agree with the linear logic of his thinking on the issue of healthcare. In fact I submit that the same formula he uses in Health Care he uses in all of his policy positions...Freidman was a Free Market thinker period. Friedman was not only against employer thrid party insurance brokering, but all third party brokering, including government.

Peace~~~


----------



## ConHog (Jul 25, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



What an odd and totally inaccurate statement. I daresay no one on this board has MORE education that I , yet I am most definitely not a Dem, couple that with the absolute fact that some of the most ignorant, uneducated hacks on this board are dems, or at least espouse democratic views and I would have to say that you just made an ass out yourself with that post my brother. In fact, I will name 4 dumb ass lefties who I challenge you to match with 4 dumb ass righties

Ravi
CurvedLight
BIkerSailor
Zona


----------



## jeffrockit (Jul 25, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Wow, you just don't get it and I am through explaining.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 26, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Rarely if ever has a government program been more efficient and provided a better product at a lower cost then a free market program. I've worked for the government for most of my adult life and I know this is total crap. 

It's pretty simple....government doesn't have to compete for your money so there is no incentive to provide good service. The reason is that the government doesn't make a profit and it doesn't have to answer to stockholders. Usually you're stuck having to put up with less then competitive workers who really don't have the desire nor the incentive to do their best because their job doesn't depend on it....so service to the customer suffers. Customer isn't really a good name for those who use government benefits. Slave would be a bit more accurate. 

Governments don't have to compete by cutting costs and provide better services because they'll always have people lined up to take advantage of their programs. Many times programs are run by people who aren't the best and politics tends to be more important then production and skill. Quotas are used to replace lost workers rather then skill levels and experience because government is purely political in nature rather then using a common-sense approach in everything. What looks good matters more then what is the best. It's like in the Army where a fresh coat of paint is more desirable then something that actually works when needed.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 26, 2010)

There is a major fight in Congress. Many Democrats are admitting to themselves that jobs are being lost all over America because of fears of what Congress and the White House will do next. The Dems won't admit to it but raising taxes will only make a bad economy worse. Many Democrats want to keep the Bush tax-cuts in place. However the Treasury Sec. wants to let them expire for the highest 2%....the very people that provide more then 90% of our jobs. 

I believe this is all rhetoric intended to keep the left happy. Who knows what these people will do. Seriously nobody does....and uncertainty is the number one barrier to growth.

The Progressives and their Keynesian economics is what is hurting this economy more then anything.


----------



## topspin (Jul 26, 2010)

I'll take public option and higher taxes on the rich if it's accompanied by declairing victory in the two wars and victory parades followed by accross the board spending cuts.


----------



## topspin (Jul 26, 2010)

Conhog wants AA who want thier own National Anthem to go back to Africa.
  That sounds like what educated people say. LOFL

 A history major


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 26, 2010)

topspin said:


> I'll take public option and higher taxes on the rich if it's accompanied by declairing victory in the two wars and victory parades followed by accross the board spending cuts.



Figure the odds on that ever happening.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 26, 2010)

topspin said:


> Conhog wants AA who want thier own National Anthem to go back to Africa.
> That sounds like what educated people say. LOFL
> 
> A history major




Not sure what your point is....and whatever it is I think you're on the wrong thread.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 26, 2010)

ConHog said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...




I would not claim to be more educated than anyone else on the board. You will leave yourself open for attacks

I, myself, am but a lowly sewer worker


----------



## topspin (Jul 26, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> topspin said:
> 
> 
> > I'll take public option and higher taxes on the rich if it's accompanied by declairing victory in the two wars and victory parades followed by accross the board spending cuts.
> ...



 between 0 and .0001%  chance


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 26, 2010)

jeffrockit said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



Who ever said anything about fairly competing?  Government executives make less tha $200K while Insurance execs pull $20 mil+. The government doesn't spend money on lobbyists or political contributions or expensive junkets for medical proffessionals.

No question, the government is at an advantage


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 26, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




That Dems are smart or that you're a dumb-ass?


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 26, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



If you are so convinced that the Government cannot produce a service that would cost less and provide better service than the private sector why are you terrified of them competing with the private sector.
If private insurance offers a better product at a lower cost.....nobody will select the Government Option

So why are you so afraid to allow other Americans the choice?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jul 26, 2010)

I've never seen more people absolutely demolished in debate by one person then what has happened in this thread. Greenbeard actually posted facts and reasoning instead of name calling that 2 people actually thought he's a "plant" because he knows the bill "too well". Amazing!


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 26, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> I've never seen more people absolutely demolished in debate by one person *then *what has happened in this thread. Greenbeard actually posted facts and reasoning instead of name calling that 2 people actually thought he's a "plant" because he knows the bill "too well". Amazing!



Maybe if you were literate you wouldn't be so impressed with Greenbeard's lack of logic and sense.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jul 26, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > I've never seen more people absolutely demolished in debate by one person *then *what has happened in this thread. Greenbeard actually posted facts and reasoning instead of name calling that 2 people actually thought he's a "plant" because he knows the bill "too well". Amazing!
> ...



Good one.


----------



## topspin (Jul 26, 2010)

conhog history degrees are not the most respected by a long shot. I'm guessing your others are equally unimpressive.
 Using a comic book bible as your reference for debate is the sign of a simpleton not and educated person. LOFL


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 26, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Because folks like Obama don't want that. They want us to have one choice.

Plus any program the government gets into law always ends up costing more then was promised and ends up being an Albatross around our necks. Social Security, Medicare, now Health Care. Half our earnings will be deducted from our check just to pay for all of this shit....shit that I'll never be able to collect.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jul 27, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...




For a guy who already admitted not understanding or even reading the healthcare bill you sure do have a lot of uninformed opinions. You conduct your entire life like that?


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 27, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


No they don't...thats why single payer was not proposed

They wanted you to be able to CHOOSE a private or government insurer

It was the REPUBLICANS who only wanted you to have one choice


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 27, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Do you ever get tired of spinning? Are you unable to recognize truth?  How is proposing legislation that increases choice of providers across state lines giving people one choice?


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 27, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



More of the same. Each state has different requirements for insurers. 

The Republicans want you to have but one CHOICE....the private insurance industry that pays their way. Same with the Drug companies...they don't want international competition, generic drugs, advertised prices or internet distribution


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 27, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



So the answer to my question is "no", you never get tired of spinning and "yes" you are unable to recognize the truth.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 27, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Once again the Republicans show they are the Party of Fuck-you

You want an alternative to high cost private insurance?  Fuck-you
You want to be able to shop and buy low cost drugs?  Fuck- you
You have a pre-existing condition?   Fuck-you
Your employer doesn't offer Health Insurance?  Fuck-you


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 27, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Yup.  There you go again spinning and lying.  Will it ever stop?


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 27, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Your inability to respond speaks volumes


----------



## Douger (Jul 27, 2010)

These guys ?


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 27, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Hard to know where to begin. And once I did, I couldn't stop.  And once I finished you would still find something to spin and lie about.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 27, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> How is proposing legislation that increases choice of providers across state lines giving people one choice?



There are three ways to do what you describe. Two are done in the health reform law. The other way is pretty widely panned as a destructive idea.

If you want to walk through alternate proposals like those posted by boedicca in post #144, I'm all for it. Start a thread in the health care forum.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 27, 2010)

There's another way:

Invoke the rightful federal authority and declare medical insurance a free field of interstate commerce, making all in-state quasi-monopoly laws null and void, ab initio.

But that would take courage and wouldn't involve further centralization and cartelization of the industry.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 27, 2010)

Dude said:


> There's another way:
> 
> Invoke the rightful federal authority and declare medical insurance a free field of interstate commerce, making all in-state quasi-monopoly laws null and void, ab initio.
> 
> But that would take courage and wouldn't involve further centralization and cartelization of the industry.



Nor would it allow for patronage jobs and more government union workers.  So it'll never work.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 27, 2010)

RDD_1210 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Have you read the thing? If not STFU.

If you can name one government program that hasn't cost more then promised or grown over the years to be something unrecognizable to it's original intent it'll be a miracle. I never admitted not understanding it....and I never said I never read any of it. I just haven't taken the time to read all 2800 pages. I've read Goblet of Fire and that's over 700 pages and it took me a couple of weeks. That piece of shit isn't worth reading from front to back because we have to pass it before we can see what's in it.

As it is I just have to say STFU.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 27, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Once again...if the Government is so incompetent why do you fear their ability to compete with private insurance companies? 
By your claim....Private insurance companies should be able to provide a better product at lower cost. They should put the Government program out of business in two years

What are you afraid of?


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 27, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Your inability to respond speaks volumes


----------



## Oddball (Jul 27, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Once again...if the Government is so incompetent why do you fear their ability to compete with private insurance companies?
> By your claim....Private insurance companies should be able to provide a better product at lower cost. They should put the Government program out of business in two years
> 
> What are you afraid of?


Because  gubmint is about force, not competition.

Private companies are at a distinct disadvantage, in that they can't just print up money and divert tax dollars from other areas to make it look like they're "competitive".

While we're at it here, can you name the last...no, the _*FIRST*_ totally failed gubmint program that "went out of business", like any normal business operation would?


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 27, 2010)

Dude said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Once again...if the Government is so incompetent why do you fear their ability to compete with private insurance companies?
> ...



Since government does not need to turn a profit to stay in business, unlike private companies, there is no necessity to do so.  SO they will not, as there is no pressure to address waste, fraud abuse or cost control.
So there can be no legitimate competition between private business and government.
I guess Nutwinger knows this and is bluffing us.  Or he really believes it and it batshit crazy.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 27, 2010)

Dude said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Once again...if the Government is so incompetent why do you fear their ability to compete with private insurance companies?
> ...



The Army
NASA
TVA
Interstate Highway Authority
Weather Service


----------



## Oddball (Jul 27, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


My money is on "batshit crazy".


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 27, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



None of those has failed.  None of them has gone out of business.
So much for reading comprehension.
Fannie/Freddie have failed and continue on with an unlimited lifeline from the taxpayer.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 27, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Norton, you are a mental case.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 27, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Wrong again Rabbi...Don't you ever grow tired?

The Government Option would run off of premiums of the insured, not taxes. If the private company does a better job of offering insurance than the Government, the government plan would fail

But we both know the priate insurers are so wrapped up in obscene profits that they could not compete with the lean Government plan with low overhead

The winners ....the US taxpayer

The loser...The Party of Fuck-you Republicans who are afraid to let private insurers compete


----------



## Oddball (Jul 27, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...


Actually, the TVA was a towering environmental disaster...But they never went out of business like any other for profit operation with a similar track record would have.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 27, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



You noticed?

I thought the Government failed at everything they run?


----------



## Oddball (Jul 27, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


That isn't what I asked, numbnuts.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 27, 2010)

Dude said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Who gives a shit?

I made my point numbnuts


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 27, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



That you don't understand what you read, can't respond appropriately, and generally get it wrong every single time?
Yes, you have made those points abundantly clear.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 27, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



As in the US Government has proven to be the most effective managerial engine when it puts its mind to it.

WWII- we transitioned from a depressed economy to economic superpower in 4 years

Apollo Program- Made it to the moon in 10 years

Manhattan Project- A bomb from blackboard to blast in three years


----------



## Oddball (Jul 27, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


You made no point, other than to make a list of entirely arguable "successes" of the federal gubmint, one of which (the Army) is actually their proper role.

Still the question remains; name the failed gubmint program that has gone out of existence like a failed business would...Just one.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 27, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Making it to the moon and creating a bomb are tangible end results, that even all but the most horribly inept management could achieve, if they had an inexhaustible supply of OPM to throw at the project.

At the same time, they've taken 45 years and over 7 _*trillion*_ dollars to throw at poverty, and the problem is no closer to being solved today than it was back in '65.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 27, 2010)

Dude said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



It's actually worse.  In 1965 a young black man was more likely to be married than a white man the same age.  The out of wedlock birthrate was a tenth what it is now.  There was more progress made to closing the gap between white and black wages between 1949 and 1965 than between 1968 and 1980.
The War on Poverty is a gross failure.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 28, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Notice in every case it's ancient history.....and long before the left took everything over and screwed it up with a PC mentality.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 28, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



It's next to impossible to put the government out of business because they ether borrow money increasing the debt, print more money causing inflation, or they raise taxes causing job losses. 

A Private insurance company has problems competing with public programs when the government controls what they can legally do. And if the government is full of corrupt bureaucrats they have a tendency to abuse their power when they are in competition with private companies. And the sneaky SOBs in this congress are about as abusive as I've ever seen.

A prime example is the law in the Health Care bill that bans pre-existing conditions. This and other mandates will put private companies out of business. It sounds good on the stump but it is insane. The Dems insist on painting various facets of our economy into a corner limiting their options while demonizing them for doing what they have to in order to stay afloat.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 28, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The Army failed???

The TVA...Tennessee Valley Authority????? 

I think Tenncare would be a good example....and it's still in place....because they had to remove 400,000 beneficiaries to stay afloat.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 28, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



The government is defending Health Care in court as a right for Congress to levy taxes. So whatever you call it...it's a new tax. Also when they eventually institute single-payer everyone will have to pay it out of their check to the tune of about 25% or more.

The loser....the US taxpayer.

The winner...Progressives.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 28, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Far from it...

If you look at the extent of poverty in pre-1960 United States you had some Americans living in third world country conditions. No running water, no electricity, no access to medical care. The war on poverty made tremendous strides in providing access to education and jobs programs, medical clinics, rural electrification.
Are people still poor? Yes...but the bar has been raised
Are they significantly better off than before?  Hell Yes


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 28, 2010)

> A prime example is the law in the Health Care bill that bans pre-existing conditions. This and other mandates will put private companies out of business. It sounds good on the stump but it is insane. The Dems insist on painting various facets of our economy into a corner limiting their options while demonizing them for doing what they have to in order to stay afloat.



Tell it to someone who has cancer and can't find anyone to cover them. Insurance Companies whined about unfair competition if there was a Government Option. In return for it being removed from the bill, they gave nothing up.  As usual, the Goverment caved to the insurance lobby

If they can't cover ALL Americans then they shouldn't be allowed to operate in our country


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 28, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> A prime example is the law in the Health Care bill that bans pre-existing conditions. This and other mandates will put private companies out of business. It sounds good on the stump but it is insane.



Over a dozen states already have some form of guaranteed issue laws (6 completely unrestricted). Do you think no private insurers exist in those states, just public payers?


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 28, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> > A prime example is the law in the Health Care bill that bans pre-existing conditions. This and other mandates will put private companies out of business. It sounds good on the stump but it is insane. The Dems insist on painting various facets of our economy into a corner limiting their options while demonizing them for doing what they have to in order to stay afloat.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Your point is confusing...you fret about those with pre-conditions while saying we all need to be covered under the same program. They need to have a smaller program covering those who don't qualify for private insurance...but instead Obama wants everyone to be in the same program. He's said as much. 

If you want to cover all Americans this Health Care bill doesn't do it. As reported at least 30 million Americans still slipped through the cracks.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 28, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > > A prime example is the law in the Health Care bill that bans pre-existing conditions. This and other mandates will put private companies out of business. It sounds good on the stump but it is insane. The Dems insist on painting various facets of our economy into a corner limiting their options while demonizing them for doing what they have to in order to stay afloat.
> ...



Tell the Insurance Companies that if they want to insure one American....they have to insure all

If not.......get the hell out


----------



## Meister (Jul 28, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Why won't you tell that to the government???????


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 28, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > A prime example is the law in the Health Care bill that bans pre-existing conditions. This and other mandates will put private companies out of business. It sounds good on the stump but it is insane.
> ...



I wonder what the rates are relative to states that don't have such laws.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 28, 2010)

Meister said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



The Government has already said that they would cover any American who needed health insurance

Why should insurance companies be able to cherry pick so they only get healthy people to insure?

If you want to sell health insurance in this country, you should be obligated to insure every American or none


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 28, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Why?  What other business is regulated like that?  If you want to write a mortgage, you ought to be prepared to write a mortgage ot every AMerican or none.  If you want to issue a credit card, you ought to issue one to every American or none.
That is socialist claptrap nonsense from a socialist claptrap.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 28, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Every American does not have a right to live in a house...they do have a right to live

People have control over their credit history. They cannot control congenital birth defects and cancer. If health insurance companies want to insure Americans let them insure everyone regardless of what hand they have been dealt regarding their health.

If they are not willing to do so, it makes a pressing reason for Government Single payer


----------



## Meister (Jul 28, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Not every American will hve health insurance no matter what you say, leftwinger.  But carry on with your yarn


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 28, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Every American does not have a right to a weekly paycheck.  They do not have a right to receive unlimited benefits from the government or from private companies.  They do not have a right to health insurance.  Or car insurance.  Or life insurance.
They certainly have control over their own obesity and smoking and drinking habits.  And those are the largest causes of health conditions in this country.
And companies certainly have the right to do business on whatever basis they want, subject to very limited guidelines.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 28, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



We are the wealthiest nation on earth. Americans have the right to expect coverage on a par with other modern democracies

Telling an American with cancer that he is shit out of luck because his company went bankrupt, or telling someone with a child who is dying that they don't have a right to insurance coverage is not the country I grew up in

But I forgot we are dealing with the Party of Fuck-you.... The Republicans


----------



## Meister (Jul 28, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Yet we are up to our neck in debt, and rising....go figure.
You seem to forget that there are other solutuions to the problem of insurance in America, I don't know if that is by your design or not.  Same results....just less government intrusion.  But of course, you would be a person that would say "NO!"


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 28, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Usual liberal line: Take it all because they're wealthy. They'll never miss it."
The Democratic Party: You want to be wealthy?  Fuck you.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 28, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Republican Party to every American but the wealthy? Fuck You


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 28, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Which is why Wall St and big business supported McCain.
Oh, wait. They didn't.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 28, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Yet every Japanese has basic insurance, as does the citizens of every other industrial nation.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 28, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



And who is protecting Wall Street today from having to clean up their act?

Why the party that says Fuck-you if you are not rich...the Republicans


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 28, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Have anything to substantiate that other than the usual class warfare nonsense?  No, clips from Rachel Maddow just don't count.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 28, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Maybe you could move there and they will cover your mental health treatments, obviously needed.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 28, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



If you want to insure a child you have to include them in your insurance policy before they are conceived. After a spouse becomes prego the unborn child is not covered until born and then if they have birth defects they most likely won't be covered. The safest bet is to make sure before you become pregnant that anyone who comes into your family is covered. That means you have to pay extra but then at least you're covered.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 28, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Your lack of response is nauseatingly typical.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 29, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



More reason for eliminating pre-existing conditions. The current policy of gotcha from the insurers to disallow coverage on sick Americans. If the child is born with birth defects and the parent loses his job they are excluded
Can't believe Republicans voted against this
Thats why the Republicans are the Party of Fuck-you


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 29, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



And forcing insurers to take unprofitable business will cause fewer insurers and higher rates for everyone else.
That's why Democrats are The Party of Fuck You.

and of course there is no substantiation for any of your posts.  Typical.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 29, 2010)

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



That "unprofitable business" is human beings with significant illnesses. To ignore those "unprofitable business" shows why the Republicans are the Party of Fuck-you to anyone who is not wealthy or have the misfortune of being sick


----------



## The Rabbi (Jul 29, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



And Democrats are the Party of Fuck You both to everyone else, who is forced to subsidize people who have eaten, smoked, and drunk their way to great health, as well as to those same people who eventually will run out of other people's money.


----------

