There are far more dumb people in government since its almost imposible to get fired. The difference between the market and government used to be that when a company fucked up, they went out of business but when someone in government fucked up they just stay around for a while. There are no checks on government spending, because they can just print more money or raise taxes. Companies actually have to stick to a budget.

More recently this has changed as the fed continues to meddle with the market. For sure alot of that is from companies getting politicians on their payroll, but the thing is the effects of that abuse would be much less with a smaller government.

10/29/2009 10:26:43 PM

Quote :

"Congress doesn’t sit around micromanaging the entities it creates, they hire (generally) qualified people to run things once they lay out the groundwork. How those things run is entirely a product of who they hire, and how well the groundwork is laid out. You can sit around and nay-say and try to create the Republican’s self-fulfilling prophecy that gov. can’t work, or you can try and figure out how to make gov. work. Gov. is not inherently incompetent or dumb, it’s people that are dumb, and dumb people are everywhere, including the private sector."

And this ultimately is why the government is such a bad idea for solving problems. The people who set everything up and make the big decisions aren't the same people that control the money and funding and neither of those people are the ones who actually know what needs to be done and who's asses are on the line.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15178883

Do you know one of the big reasons why medicare is so easy to screw? Why medicare fraud is a $35 BILLION industry? Because it's decades behind the private industry. Medicare claims are filed on paper, not electronically. They have a mandatory payment within 30 days, and by the time the auditors get around to actually auditing, the fraudulent filers have closed up shop and opened up under a new name. And the reason its so far behind is because the people who control the money, the people who make the guiding decisions and people who's asses are on the line are so far removed from each other, they might as well be on different planets.

If any private insurance was losing $35 billion / year in fraud, they would be out of business.

10/29/2009 10:36:03 PM

Quote :

"Medicare’s problems can be fixed with proper healthcare reform."

But they won't be. Here is the deal, Medicare is a government program, nothing more and nothing less. Until President Obama described it as a "sacred trust" which must be passed on from one generation to the next in his healthcare speech to Congress. Now, I realize this was a politically motivated statement but it captures an essential quality of government programs. Once they're instituted, and once they benefit any remotely significant voting block, they're pretty much entrenched. So long as people are receiving money from the government, and so long as politicians are capable of spending other people's money to buy votes through constituent favors, they will. Inefficiencies will reign.

Quote :

"Congress doesn’t sit around micromanaging the entities it creates"

Kind of. Politicians will call in favors all the time and are exceptionally quick to follow up on any populist movement with a hearing and new legislation designed to "fix" the problem but they practically never (I can't think of an instance) review the effectiveness and performance of the legislation they passed. So long as it makes voters happy enough to get them reelected, they're golden. They could give a shit about how incompetent, redundant, inefficient, corrupt, or generally worthless a particular program is. Both parties are guilty of this.

Quote :

"they hire (generally) qualified people to run things once they lay out the groundwork."

You obviously have no concept of how government hiring works.

Quote :

"Gov. is not inherently incompetent or dumb, it’s people that are dumb, and dumb people are everywhere, including the private sector."

Government is one of the few places where stupidity becomes entrenched and institutionalized. Stupidity in the private sector tends to fail (when allowed). GM should be well out of business by now, it's equipment parted out to more innovative automotive companies and a slightly lamented chapter of US history. Instead, political favors owed by the Democratic Party and President Obama to the UAW and political contributors sustains this cancerous corporation upon the backs of consumers who have rejected their products as insufficient value for the money.

The only way anyone can justify this is due to the fact that the support structure is so convoluted, the sums of money so vast, and the specific impact on individuals so hard to pin down, that it just slips by.

10/29/2009 10:37:08 PM

Funny how conveniently the CBO numbers for this can be ignored when just back in February, we saw this

Quote :

" GINGRICH: In fact, the Congressional Budget Office said less than 25 percent of the bill related to stimulating the economy in the first year. ROVE: We now know that more money in both the House and Senate versions is going to be spent in the years 2011 and beyond than in 2009. Think about that. We’re going to be spending more of this so-called stimulus money in 2011 and to 2019 than we’re spending in 2009."

Of course, those numbers were updated in a more comprehensive report before gingrich and rove tried to use the old numbers, but...

10/30/2009 9:36:40 AM

So let me get this straight. The premiums for the "Public Option" will be higher than private premiums because . . . surprise surprise insuring everyone is more expensive. Ok, no shock there. But if this is designed to provide healthcare for those who can't afford it, and the premiums will be higher than current premiums, how will this not have to be taxpayer subsidized?

10/31/2009 11:13:23 AM

because these folks cost the system a lot of money anyway? their care is subsidized by the rest of us in some shape or form as it is.

10/31/2009 11:26:04 AM

You're missing my point. The claim is that the Public Option will be self sufficient. This is clearly impossible with only the most rudimentary understanding of arithmetic. If you want to argue there is an overall savings, that is possible, but the Public Option cannot capture this without pulling revenue streams from other sources within the government.

In other words, people will still be paying taxes to support a Public Option. If that is the goal, fine, but don't feed the American people this bullshit line about how it will be competitive on it's own.

10/31/2009 1:02:07 PM

the more the public option is weakened (ie the less people that qualify for it) the less self-sufficient it will be.

10/31/2009 2:31:07 PM

Flex spending accounts face hit in health overhaul
Posted: Nov. 1, 2009

http://www.wral.com/business/story/6324909/

Great.

11/2/2009 4:26:03 PM

Quote :

"Aides to the Senate Finance Committee, which proposed the cap, defend it by saying it would help curb overuse of medical care. Money deposited in the tax-free accounts must be used within 2 1/2 months of the end of the plan year. That may create an incentive for people to spend all the money even if they don't have pressing needs."

And here is another shining example of why I don't want the politicians anywhere near healthcare.

Problem: Medical care is "overused" because arbitrary restrictions on savings accounts require that the money in the account be completely used up by the end of the year, even though at the beginning of the year you don't know how much money you will need in the account to cover your expenses for the year. As a result of this, most people guess, and guess high to be safe, and then rush to spend their (own) money by the end of the year so they don't lose it.

What wonderful solution do our politicians come up with? Not the removal of the arbitrary and insane rule requiring the money to be spent. No, instead, we'll just limit how much you can have in the account.




I've said it before and I'll say it again. If any of our politicians were actually serious about reforming health care, we would be talking about how to make it cheaper for people to buy services from their doctors, and making all medical expenditures tax free. Not talking about how we can get more people on mandatory insurance.

[Edited on November 2, 2009 at 7:03 PM. Reason : asdf]

11/2/2009 7:01:31 PM

Dem split over abortion imperils health bill
Bloc could withhold support for legislation over fears of governmental role
updated 4:15 a.m. ET, Tues., Nov . 3, 2009

Quote :

"While House leaders are moving toward a vote on health-care legislation by the end of the week, enough Democrats are threatening to oppose the measure over the issue of abortion to create a question about its passage."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33597521/ns/politics-washington_post

Quote :

"REPUBLICANS DID IT!!!1"

11/3/2009 8:04:27 AM

Kang: Abortions for all!
Audience: BOO!
Kang: Okay... Abortions for none!
Audience: BOO!
Kang: Hmmnn... Abortions for some, tiny American flags for others!
Audience: YAAY!!!

11/3/2009 8:16:25 AM

Worst Bill Ever

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505423751140690.html

11/3/2009 10:30:51 AM

11/3/2009 6:51:45 PM

Quote :

" Backed by some of the most powerful members of the Senate, a little-noticed provision in the healthcare overhaul bill would require insurers to consider covering Christian Science prayer treatments as medical expenses. The provision was inserted by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) with the support of Democratic Sens. John F. Kerry and the late Edward M. Kennedy, both of Massachusetts, home to the headquarters of the Church of Christ, Scientist. "

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-health-religion3-2009nov03,0,6879249,full.story

Quote :

"Your benefits will be decided by a panel of politicians, who will determine what services are "necessary". If you are unable medically to have children, you will still pay for maternity care. No plans on doing drugs or becoming a junkie, no family history of alcoholism? Too bad, you will pay for substance abuse coverage."

I said it on page one.

11/3/2009 7:50:49 PM

Quote :

"Your benefits will be decided by a panel of politicians, who will determine what services are "necessary". If you are unable medically to have children, you will still pay for maternity care. No plans on doing drugs or becoming a junkie, no family history of alcoholism? Too bad, you will pay for substance abuse coverage."

this is the very essence of what insurance is.

[Edited on November 3, 2009 at 7:53 PM. Reason : only MAYBE with the elimination of the word politician. but not really.]

11/3/2009 7:53:18 PM

except that you can, in theory switch insurers. You can't switch governments.

11/3/2009 7:57:44 PM

^^ The difference is, I can choose what my insurance provider covers, or switch providers. Now, every provider will cover Prayer M.D., and I'll pay for it whether I want it or not. Huzzah!

11/3/2009 8:03:26 PM

Quote :

"WASHINGTON – In a blow to the White House, the Senate's top Democrat signaled Tuesday that Congress may fail to meet a year-end deadline for passing health care legislation, leaving the measure's fate to the uncertainties of the 2010 election season. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., spoke as Democratic officials said it could be December before Senate debate begins in earnest on the issue atop President Barack Obama's domestic agenda, months after senior lawmakers and the White House had hoped. The drive to pass legislation has been plagued for months by divisions within the party's rank and file."

The curtain may be falling on Obama-care. Moderate democrats may not be willing to sacrifice themselves for Obama's agenda.

11/3/2009 10:51:06 PM

I think it's pretty awesome that Speaker Pelosi, when queried about the constitutionality of forcing people to buy health insurance, responded "Are you serious? Are you serious?", then immediately fielded the next reporter's question.

Quote :

"I've said it before and I'll say it again. If any of our politicians were actually serious about reforming health care, we would be talking about how to make it cheaper for people to buy services from their doctors, and making all medical expenditures tax free. Not talking about how we can get more people on mandatory insurance."

I've posted something pretty similar at least once somewhere in these few dozen pages.

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 2:52 AM. Reason : ]

11/5/2009 2:50:09 AM

Quote :

"If any of our politicians were actually serious about reforming health care, we would be talking about how to make it cheaper for people to buy services from their doctors, and making all medical expenditures tax free. Not talking about how we can get more people on mandatory insurance."

Actually, tax subsidies on medical expenses are part of the problem. It drives up costs by shifting the tax burden from the person paying for the expense to all taxpayers. If anything, medical expenses should be taxed just like any other good/service. And really, the whole thing where your employer provides health benefits on a pre-tax basis is bad because you have everyone with the same group rate. If people were still buying individual insurance policies, maybe there'd be more incentive to be healthy.

As far as why buying services from doctors is so expensive, I have a theory on that. A doctor's services are very valuable because of how much of an investment getting an M.D. is. Medical school hasn't always required you to go into 300k of student loan debt. Guaranteed government student loans have driven up the price of college, which has translated to very expensive doctors. No one would be a doctor for a 30k salary, you'd never be able to pay off the loans.

When the cost of being trained in the medical field is astronomical, you can expect medical service costs to also go up.

11/5/2009 12:52:05 PM

Thousands rally to protest health care bill
updated 11 minutes ago



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33654086/ns/politics-health_care_reform

11/5/2009 2:41:18 PM

I hope these assholes leave by the time I get off work.

11/5/2009 3:02:11 PM

i know. how dare those assholes get involved. wait, isn't that what Obama told people to do?

11/5/2009 3:07:31 PM

That's great until it interferes with my commute and then politics is secondary.

11/5/2009 3:18:13 PM

haha. nice. people protesting something that might destroy the nation might mess up your commute time.

11/5/2009 3:23:03 PM

anything might destroy the nation.

11/5/2009 3:26:52 PM

11/5/2009 3:27:56 PM

you don't think something that could BANKRUPT THE NATION would destroy the nation?

11/5/2009 3:49:11 PM

We've been bankrupt for a decade at least.

11/5/2009 4:44:36 PM

true. so what's a couple trillion more gonna do. fuck it

11/5/2009 4:54:07 PM

As long as we have a strong military, bankruptcy can't destroy us, we'll just be very, very hated.

11/5/2009 4:56:21 PM

Please explain how it will bankrupt America when the plans that the Dems are putting forward will REDUCE the deficit by 2019?

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10688&type=1
(downloads a .pdf from the CBO)

11/5/2009 5:05:11 PM

because it only "reduces" the deficit by MATH GAMES. that's what EVERY FUCKING PERSON WITH A BRAIN has been saying since the CBO spouted its bullshit numbers. AND, all of that ONLY works if it's right. Like it was with medicare, right? Oh, right, that was off by an order of magnitude.

oh, and then the dems just reintroduced some of the "savings" back in to the budget in a different bill. so, it's NOT revenue neutral. it's already at least 250billion in the red

[Edited on November 5, 2009 at 5:11 PM. Reason : ]

11/5/2009 5:10:44 PM

And how, other than the use of numbers, do you suggest the calculation of budgetary effects of a bill?

Dem bill saves 104 Billion. Repub bill saves 68 billion. Those are the only analysis which I've seen come out of as close to an unbiased source as you're going to get in today's political environment.

11/5/2009 5:17:09 PM

that's part of the absurdity of our political process. We use an organization that has proven itself wrong about 95% of the time to try and judge the worth of bills. Is it any wonder that our government is so fucked up?

11/5/2009 5:22:39 PM

Who would you suggest we use? Actually, I'm rather surprised we don't already have a Heritage Foundation analysis of these plans, isn't that what the Repubs keep them around for?

11/5/2009 5:29:30 PM

it doesn't matter who we use. they will just favour their interests.

11/5/2009 5:48:42 PM

Quote :

"Please explain how it will bankrupt America when the plans that the Dems are putting forward will REDUCE the deficit by 2019?"

Easy, all the savings of the Democrat plan come by reducing medicare payouts to doctors. And, here is the important part, also in congress is a separate bill that puts the payments back where they were. The two bills are going to be passed in concert, moving all the costs from the healthcare reform bill to the medicare adjustment bill which no one is paying attention to. Therefore, the healthcare reform bill gets to be deficit favorable without actually being deficit favorable.

11/6/2009 10:25:33 AM

and that doesn't even take in to account the fact that the program pays out for only 5 years, while taxes and premiums are taken in for 10 years. AKA, it costs twice as much as we are bringing in. AKA, NOT revenue neutral

11/6/2009 12:41:15 PM

Here is a GOP Bill. I don't know if anyone has posted this yet.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2009/11/new_gop_health_bill_covers_fam.html

http://media.npr.org/assets/blogs/health/images/2009/11/GOPhealthbill.pdf

11/6/2009 1:04:19 PM

so, women, think that socialized medicine is a good thing? Note that this woman in England had to GET A REFERRAL to see her gynecologist. When was the last time you've had to do that?

http://www.iheartchaos.com/content/meet-lauren-williams-woman-two-vaginas-more-you-know

11/6/2009 3:23:12 PM

^Theres nothing in that article about needing a referral to see a gyno. You're full of shit.

11/6/2009 3:51:54 PM

well, then, why didn't she just go straight to the gynecologist, then? Why would the doctor even need to refer her to one, when she could just go to her regular one, right? Read between the lines here, man.

11/6/2009 3:54:16 PM

Likely she didn't happen to have one. Doesn't mean she couldn've have gotten one if she were inclined.

Maybe she did have one, and she needed a 2nd one for her 2nd vag.

11/6/2009 5:03:57 PM

Quote :

"Therefore, the healthcare reform bill gets to be deficit favorable without actually being deficit favorable."

Now that's just racist tea-party talk there. The democrats are gonna make this work by reducing waste and fraud...that's what they're known for!

And if anyone asks you where the Constitution grants the federal gov't the authority to force people to buy insurance...just answer how Nancy P. did: "Are you serious?"

Quote :

" PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail Friday, November 06, 2009 Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years. Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below: “H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1] - - - - - - - - - - “If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2] - - - - - - - - - - “Criminal penalties Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual: • Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year. • Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3] “The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016."

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583

[Edited on November 6, 2009 at 9:33 PM. Reason : .]

11/6/2009 9:19:31 PM

AMA's Endorsement of House Health Care Bill Sparks Internal Uprising
Some AMA members are outraged that the group's trustees made the endorsement without the formal approval of the organization's House of Delegates.
November 06, 2009

Quote :

"The American Medical Association's much-touted endorsement of the House health care reform bill has triggered a revolt among some members who want the endorsement withdrawn. Some members are outraged that the group's trustees made the endorsement without the formal approval of the organization's House of Delegates. On Monday, delegates will vote on a resolution offered by some members that, if approved, will withdraw the AMA’s endorsement of the bill. President Obama cited the endorsement of the influential AMA, along with AARP's, in a surprise appearance Thursday in the White House briefing room as he attempted to beat back criticism that the bill would gut Medicare. 'They're endorsing this bill because they know it will strengthen Medicare, not jeopardize it,' he told reporters. 'They know it will protect the benefits our seniors receive, not cut them.' 'So I want everyone to remember that the next time you hear the same tired arguments to the contrary from insurance companies and their lobbyists and remember this endorsement the next time you see a bunch of misleading ads on television,' he added."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/06/amas-endorsement-house-health-care-sparks-internal-uprising/

11/7/2009 3:51:37 AM

Quote :

"Likely she didn't happen to have one."

Really? She's HOW OLD and doesn't have a gyno? REALLY?

^ that sounds like some climate change bullshit, where scientific organizations make huge supports for the bullshit from the BOTs without even consulting their members. hilarious.

11/7/2009 4:52:49 PM

House Bill just passed.

11/7/2009 11:14:09 PM

yay for bigger government and more bureaucracy

11/7/2009 11:19:26 PM