I bet Perry will fold like a $.99 suitcase when his highway funds are revoked.

I'd be sympathetic if the states had viable alternative plans. It's not like there are competing state and federal interests.

This is just one state governor not liking what the federal gov't is doing, and wanting to stop it. AKA nullification. AKA pwned by Jackson a bazillion years ago.

[Edited on July 24, 2009 at 1:47 PM. Reason : ]

7/24/2009 1:37:56 PM

Breaking news! Faux secessionist Rick Perry grandstands on states' rights. More at 11.

7/24/2009 2:08:01 PM

Quote :

"Some of you on the left were howling about 'states' rights' in the "Guns" thread. I'll bet you fold like a two-dollar suitcase as it relates to this issue."

Yet, none of you has articulated how health-care insurance is a power delegated to the "United States by the Constitution" and is not "reserved to the States" or "to the people."

7/24/2009 3:52:41 PM

health care is not a right, unless someone wants to show me where

[Edited on July 24, 2009 at 3:56 PM. Reason : or is it only a right to people who do not pay taxes or do not have health insurance]

7/24/2009 3:54:20 PM

rights are made up by humans.

7/24/2009 4:04:26 PM

rights are made by those who are in power

7/24/2009 4:10:39 PM

so then whats the problem?

7/24/2009 4:30:28 PM

here's a great interview from Bill Moyers a couple weeks ago, with Wendell Potter. He worked in insurance for 20 years and for Cigna for 15, leaving his job last year as the "head of corporate communications." His resume includes items such as:
"With the chief medical officer and his staff, Potter developed rapid response mechanisms for handling media inquiries pertaining to complaints. ... This was highly successful in keeping most such inquiries from becoming news stories, at a time when managed care horror stories abounded."
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/transcript2.html

He quit after realizing how fucked up the insurance industry is and how insulated he and his colleagues were from what actually happens on the ground in healthcare, and now is speaking out against them. He makes a lot of the same points about how bad insurance is as do a lot of reform-proponents, but his points should carry some extra weight considering his vast amounts of insider experience.

Quote :

"WENDELL POTTER: The industry has always tried to make Americans think that government-run systems are the worst thing that could possibly happen to them, that if you even consider that, you're heading down on the slippery slope towards socialism. So they have used scare tactics for years and years and years, to keep that from happening. If there were a broader program like our Medicare program, it could potentially reduce the profits of these big companies. So that is their biggest concern."

Quote :

"WENDELL POTTER: The film [Sicko] was blunted. It-- BILL MOYERS: Was it true? Did you think it contained a great truth? WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely did. BILL MOYERS: What was it? WENDELL POTTER: That we shouldn't fear government involvement in our health care system. That there is an appropriate role for government, and it's been proven in the countries that were in that movie. You know, we have more people who are uninsured in this country than the entire population of Canada. And that if you include the people who are underinsured, more people than in the United Kingdom. We have huge numbers of people who are also just a lay-off away from joining the ranks of the uninsured, or being purged by their insurance company, and winding up there. And another thing is that the advocates of reform or the opponents of reform are those who are saying that we need to be careful about what we do here, because we don't want the government to take away your choice of a health plan. It's more likely that your employer and your insurer is going to switch you from a plan that you're in now to one that you don't want. You might be in the plan you like now. But chances are, pretty soon, you're going to be enrolled in one of these high deductible plans in which you're going to find that much more of the cost is being shifted to you than you ever imagined."

Quote :

"BILL MOYERS: I have a memo, from Frank Luntz. I have a memo written by Frank Luntz. He's the Republican strategist who we discovered, in the spring, has written the script for opponents of health care reform. "First," he says, "you have to pretend to support it. Then use phrases like, "government takeover," "delayed care is denied care," "consequences of rationing," "bureaucrats, not doctors prescribing medicine." That was a memo, by Frank Luntz, to the opponents of health care reform in this debate. Now watch this clip. REP. JOHN BOEHNER: The forthcoming plan from Democratic leaders will make health care more expensive, limit treatments, ration care, and put bureaucrats in charge of medical decisions rather than patients and doctors. SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL: Americans need to realize that when someone says "government option," what could really occur is a government takeover that soon could lead to government bureaucrats denying and delaying care, and telling Americans what kind of care they can have. SEN. JON KYL: Washington run healthcare would diminish access to quality care, leading to denials, shortages and long delays for treatment. REP. JOE WILSON: How will a government run health plan not lead to the same rationing of care that we have seen in other countries? REP. TOM PRICE: We don't want to put the government, we don't want to put bureaucrats between a doctor and a patient."

Quote :

"BILL MOYERS: Why is public insurance, a public option, so fiercely opposed by the industry? WENDELL POTTER: The industry doesn't want to have any competitor. In fact, over the course of the last few years, has been shrinking the number of competitors through a lot of acquisitions and mergers. So first of all, they don't want any more competition period. They certainly don't want it from a government plan that might be operating more efficiently than they are, that they operate. The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so. BILL MOYERS: Compared to the industry's-- WENDELL POTTER: They spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor."

Quote :

"WENDELL POTTER: Well, there's a measure of profitability that investors look to, and it's called a medical loss ratio. And it's unique to the health insurance industry. And by medical loss ratio, I mean that it's a measure that tells investors or anyone else how much of a premium dollar is used by the insurance company to actually pay medical claims. And that has been shrinking, over the years, since the industry's been dominated by, or become dominated by for-profit insurance companies. Back in the early '90s, or back during the time that the Clinton plan was being debated, 95 cents out of every dollar was sent, you know, on average was used by the insurance companies to pay claims. Last year, it was down to just slightly above 80 percent. So, investors want that to keep shrinking. And if they see that an insurance company has not done what they think meets their expectations with the medical loss ratio, they'll punish them. Investors will start leaving in droves."

Quote :

"WENDELL POTTER: Rescission is one thing. Denying claims is another. Being, you know, really careful as they review claims, particularly for things like liver transplants, to make sure, from their point of view, that it really is medically necessary and not experimental. That's one thing. And that was that issue in the Nataline Sarkisyan case. But another way is to purge employer accounts, that-- if a small business has an employee, for example, who suddenly has have a lot of treatment, or is in an accident. And medical bills are piling up, and this employee is filing claims with the insurance company. That'll be noticed by the insurance company. And when that business is up for renewal, and it typically is up, once a year, up for renewal, the underwriters will look at that. And they'll say, "We need to jack up the rates here, because the experience was," when I say experience, the claim experience, the number of claims filed was more than we anticipated. So we need to jack up the price. Jack up the premiums. Often they'll do this, knowing that the employer will have no alternative but to leave. And that happens all the time. They'll resort to things like the rescissions that we saw earlier. Or dumping, actually dumping employer groups from the rolls. So the more of my premium that goes to my health claims, pays for my medical coverage, the less money the company makes."

Quote :

"BILL MOYERS: This is the key question for me. Can health reform that includes a public plan actually rid our system of the financial incentive on the part of the insurance industry to provide less for more? WENDELL POTTER: It will help. It would help. Would it rid it? No, I don't think it would, because of the for-profit structure that is now dominant in this country. But the public plan would do a lot to keep them honest, because it would have to offer a standard benefit plan. It would have to operate more efficiently, as does the Medicare program. It would be structured, I'm certain on a level playing field, so that it wouldn't be unfair advantage to the private insurance companies. But because it could be administered more efficiently, then the private insurers, they would have to operate more efficiently. And that 20 cents in that medical loss ratio we talked about earlier might get narrower. And they don't want that."

Quote :

"WP: But now, they do say, they are in favor of an individual mandate. They want us all to be insured. BILL MOYERS: For the government to require every one of us to have some policy. WENDELL POTTER: Exactly. And that sounds great. It is an important thing that everyone be enrolled in some kind of a benefit plan. They don't want a public plan. They want all the uninsured to have to be enrolled in a private insurance plan. They want-- they see those 50 million people as potentially 50 million new customers. So they're in favor of that. They see this as a way to essentially lock them into the system, and ensure their profitability in the future. The strategy is as it was in 1993 and '94, to conduct this charm offensive on the surface. But behind the scenes, to use front groups and third-party advocates and ideological allies. And those on Capitol Hill who are aligned with them, philosophically, to do the dirty work. To demean and scare people about a government-run plan, try to make people not even remember that Medicare, their Medicare program, is a government-run plan that has operated a lot more efficiently."

7/25/2009 3:35:15 PM

count down until some "scandal" surrounds him about how he is socialist or whatever they can find/make up on him.

7/25/2009 5:04:31 PM

Quote :

" we have more people who are uninsured in this country than the entire population of Canada"

The 47mm figure too-often floated around is a vastly inflated proxy for those without health insurance. It is a red herring when someone cites this given everything we know about the breakdown of the census bureau's findings.

Quote :

"The industry doesn't want to have any competitor"

This is a government-induced problem. It is ironic that some see the solution to this as more government involvment. Giving individuals the same tax benefits as employers and allowing inter-state purchases of insurance plans will go much further in keeping the industry honest than a public option will (especially given the new government program will eventually become a tool for public policy like the GSEs.)

Quote :

"The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so. "

This, too, is wrong. The admin costs reported by Medicare are misleading for two main reasons. 1) They include only narrowly-defined administrative expenses (e.g. they do not include expenditures for agencies like CMS) and 2) expenses are reported as a percentage of claims. When comparing private plans with Medicare, you are not comparing apples with apples. Given Medicare spends more per claim due to older beneficiaries (who obviously have higher claims than the under-65 crowd), admin ratios are lower (e.g. a private plan may spend $150-per-claim on an average claim of $2,500. Medicare may spend $200-per-claim on an average claim of $6000. In this example, the private admin ratio is much higher at 6% than Medicare’s 3% ratio, yet private companies are spending less on a per claim basis. Thus, Medicare isn’t more efficient. It just appears so as a percentage of average claims given the inflated denominator)

Quote :

"They spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor." "

Using average admin ratios for the entire industry is misleading as well as it is skewed by smaller plans. Most larger plans have 6-7% admin rations, if I am not mistaken. Additionally, Medicare simply writes checks and spends little on fraud prevention. It would not be likely that a public option takes the same route, so we should not expect similar levels of admin costs (i.e. not all admin costs are wasteful)

Regarding profits – with margins at 5-6%, profits are relatively paltry. Additionally, there are a host of non-profit plans. Their inability to outcompete for-profit plans demonstrates profits are not a key factor to lower premiums. (also keep in mind that profits have not been growing exponentially – thus they are not a factor in exponentially-rising health-care expenditures)

Quote :

"It would be structured, I'm certain on a level playing field, so that it wouldn't be unfair advantage to the private insurance companies. "

Its implicit cost-of-capital advantage already puts it on an uneven playing field – the same advantage the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shared.

[Edited on July 25, 2009 at 5:14 PM. Reason : .]

7/25/2009 5:05:39 PM

Anyone else think Perry is gearing up for a presidential run? /irony

7/25/2009 10:15:57 PM

The article is too long to post the whole thing, but here is the gist of it:

Quote :

" 5 Freedoms You'd Lose in Health Care Reform If you read the fine print in the Congressional plans, you'll find that a lot of cherished aspects of the current system would disappear. In promoting his health-care agenda, President Obama has repeatedly reassured Americans that they can keep their existing health plans -- and that the benefits and access they prize will be enhanced through reform. A close reading of the two main bills, one backed by Democrats in the House and the other issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy's Health committee, contradict the President's assurances. To be sure, it isn't easy to comb through their 2,000 pages of tortured legal language. But page by page, the bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage. If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two bills that herald a health-care revolution. In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction. "

http://finance.yahoo.com/insurance/article/107408/5-freedoms-you-would-lose-in-health-care-reform.html?mod=insurance-health

[Edited on July 28, 2009 at 7:19 AM. Reason : /]

7/28/2009 7:18:42 AM

Quote :

"During his speech at a National Press Club luncheon, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), questioned the point of lawmakers reading the health care bill. “I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers. “What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?” "

You can't make this stuff up.

[Edited on July 28, 2009 at 10:48 AM. Reason : .]

7/28/2009 10:47:23 AM

What he's clearly saying, if anyone bothered to use their brains and not just copy and paste, is that there's no time to sit around reading the bill NOW, since The House legislation was unveiled in early June,
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-dems-show-caucus-first-draft-of-health-reform-bill-2009-06-09.html
was circulated on June 9, and released in full on June 19.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-dems-unveil-healthcare-reform-bill-2009-06-19.html

By now, anyone who wanted to would have read the bill. I'm sure Conyers / his staffers have done so.

7/28/2009 11:57:17 AM

don't think anyone can argue with this.....

http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/07/28/the-health-care-bill-dies/

Quote :

"It’s the same with this health care bill. Who among us did not know this would happen? It’s been clear from the start that the Democrats would make a great show of doing something real, then they would fold prematurely, ram through some piece-of-shit bill with some incremental/worthless change in it, and then in the end blame everything on Max Baucus and Bill Nelson, saying, “By golly, we tried our best!” Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with Max Baucus, Bill Nelson, or anyone else. If the Obama administration wanted to pass a real health care bill, they would do what George Bush and Tom DeLay did in the first six-odd years of this decade whenever they wanted to pass some nightmare piece of legislation (ie the Prescription Drug Bill or CAFTA): they would take the recalcitrant legislators blocking their path into a back room at the Capitol, and beat them with rubber hoses until they changed their minds. The reason a real health-care bill is not going to get passed is simple: because nobody in Washington really wants it. There is insufficient political will to get it done. It doesn’t matter that it’s an urgent national calamity, that it is plainly obvious to anyone with an IQ over 8 that our system could not possibly be worse and needs to be fixed very soon, and that, moreover, the only people opposing a real reform bill are a pitifully small number of executives in the insurance industry who stand to lose the chance for a fifth summer house if this thing passes. It won’t get done, because that’s not the way our government works. Our government doesn’t exist to protect voters from interests, it exists to protect interests from voters. The situation we have here is an angry and desperate population that at long last has voted in a majority that it believes should be able to pass a health care bill. It expects something to be done. The task of the lawmakers on the Hill, at least as they see things, is to create the appearance of having done something. And that’s what they’re doing. Personally, I think they’re doing a lousy job even of that. I lauded Roddick for playing out the string with heart, and giving a good show. But these Democrats aren’t even pretending to give a shit, not really. I mean, they’re not even willing to give up their vacations."

7/28/2009 12:13:48 PM

I don't want to agree with that. Maybe I do, but I don't want to.

7/28/2009 12:19:36 PM

Quote :

" that it is plainly obvious to anyone with an IQ over 8 that our system could not possibly be worse"

obviously hes wrong here since govcare can only be at best the same as what we have now, but the rest is correct. This is why its always pointless to look to government for a solution. The only way we can fix the problem is by reducing the size of the federal government to a point where special interests cant do as much wide ranging damage.

7/28/2009 12:28:43 PM

Quote :

"that it is plainly obvious to anyone with an IQ over 8 that our system could not possibly be worse"

Yeah, I think it would be real hard to argue with this.

7/28/2009 12:39:24 PM

i think it's stupid to assume that our health care system could not get worse. obviously it could.

but this. . .

Quote :

"obviously hes wrong here since govcare can only be at best the same as what we have now"

where in the world do you get that idea from?

7/28/2009 3:09:19 PM

I have read little to none of this thread, but I would like to make this addition.

A friend of my father emailed Rep. Etheridge concerning the Healthcare Reform Bill. I do not have a copy of the original email, but here is the response and his response to the response. Enjoy.

Quote :

"Dear Mr. B******: Thank you for contacting me regarding health care reform. It was good to hear from you, and I appreciate your taking the time to share your views with me. I understand your concerns about changes to the health care system, and I am pleased to learn that your health insurance and providers are working for you. We want a system that guarantees patients their choice of insurance coverage and their choice of doctors, and reduces costs for all Americans. As the only North Carolina member on the House Ways and Means Committee, which shares jurisdiction over this issue, I am committed to preserving health care choices for those it works for now, while expanding coverage in a way that contains costs, protects patient choice, and assures quality, affordable care for all Americans. I want to build upon the current system of employer-sponsored insurance, so that people who like what they have now can keep their current policies and doctors. Let me tell you why I think it is important to enact health care reform legislation now. As you may know, nearly 50 million Americans face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities are getting worse. Reforming the health care system is essential to restoring America's overall economy and the financial security of our working families. The United States is the only developed country that does not guarantee health care coverage for all its citizens, with 46 million uninsured and another 25 million underinsured. As a result, families are struggling to keep up with out-of-pocket costs for medical care. American businesses are straining to absorb rising health care costs while staying competitive at home and around the world. Even families who are fortunate enough to have coverage often find themselves in a situation in which they cannot get coverage for treatment they need, or they just do no t understand the coverage they have. Crushing health care costs can take away the very security and stability that comes from having health insurance; medical bills account for more than 60 percent of personal bankruptcy. We need a system that makes sure every North Carolinian has access to affordable, high quality health care, and that individuals are not put in the poorhouse by an injury or illness. There is no question that our health care system is complicated and solutions will not come overnight, but I believe that our nation, and our economy, cannot afford to wait for action. Our goal will be to strengthen what works and fix what does not, reducing skyrocketing health care costs, and providing affordable, high-quality health insurance choices for all. Although reform may require investments now, it has the potential for long-term savings. I really appreciate your input and your thoughts and I will keep them in mind as we move forward on health reform in the 111th Congress, even though we may not see eye-to-eye on this issue. I am working with my colleagues in Congress and the Administration to respond to the challenges that face our nation. Together, we will build a stronger economy, find common sense solutions to our energy needs, make sure every child gets a quality education, and expand access to health care for all Americans. It is an honor to represent you in Congress, and I welcome your continued input. Sincerely, Bob Etheridge Member of Congress"

7/28/2009 3:42:57 PM

Part II

Quote :

"Rep. Etheridge, I felt it necessary to respond to your response to my email requesting that you vote NO on the Health Care Reform Bill. Why is there such a rush to pass this bill? Could it be so "we the people" along with the majority of people in the House, will not have an opportunity to know what is in it? Would it not be better to take a little more time and have a bill that would actually work? You are taking our freedoms away a few at a time so "we the people" will not realize it until they are all gone. Government involvement is not the answer to all problems. Given a chance, our capitalistic society will always prevail. If government is so determined to take over health care, why not simply put limits on the amounts insurance companies can charge? It doesn't take over a thousand pages to do that. Another thing, why aren't bills written so the average American can understand them? I guess it's pretty obvious to you that I, as a taxpaying American is fed up with government attempting to control every aspect of our lives. It appears to me that we are right back to the time this country was formed. That being, "taxation without representation". We absolutely do not have anybody representing the taxpaying people of this country. Oh sure, we have people representing the people who do not pay taxes very well. I have listed below a few of the things contained in the bill you are supporting. I can't believe that you actually support such a bill. • Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure! • Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed! • Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process) • Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None. • Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services. • Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcare. • Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for=2 0electronic funds transfer. • Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN) • Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange. • Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans) • Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens • Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan. • Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter. • Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is per mitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed. • Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages. • Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives. • Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families. • Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll • Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll • Page 167: Any individual who doesn’t' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income. • Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them). • Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records. • Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section s hall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that. • Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected." • Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!) • Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc. • Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries. • Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs. • Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing! • Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions. • Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government. • Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies! • Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval. • Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN. • Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing. • Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc. • Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals. • Page 379: More bur eaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone). • Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia? • Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time. • Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death. • Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends. • Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT. • Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life. • Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN. • Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN. • Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage. • Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services. I will be forwarding your response to everyone I know and hope they will do the same. It's time to stop the madness in Washington. Thank you again for your time. Ritchie B****** Siler City, NC"

7/28/2009 3:43:22 PM

Quote :

"Given a chance, our capitalistic society will always prevail. If government is so determined to take over health care, why not simply put limits on the amounts insurance companies can charge? It doesn't take over a thousand pages to do that. Another thing, why aren't bills written so the average American can understand them? I guess it's pretty obvious to you that I, as a taxpaying American is fed up with government attempting to control every aspect of our lives."

your friend's father sounds like a real winner. I thought you wrote "your friend", and it made sense when I read the letter - sounds about right for a know-it-all 20-something. Then I just laughed when I saw his father wrote it.

[Edited on July 28, 2009 at 3:50 PM. Reason : .]

7/28/2009 3:48:01 PM

Quote :

"where in the world do you get that idea from?"

Where did you get the idea that its different? Its insurance, paid for with tax dollars. The only difference is that they can force prices down once they're the only game in town (and force out people who cant afford to take the cuts in the process)

7/28/2009 5:34:14 PM

Quote :

"What he's clearly saying, if anyone bothered to use their brains and not just copy and paste, is that there's no time to sit around reading the bill NOW, since The House legislation was unveiled in early June, "

OK I took the challenge and listened to his god-awful talk. And you're wrong also.

He wasn't referring to the idea that there isn't time to read the bill NOW..as you say.

He was commenting on how complicated the fine print is in the health-plans that people try to read through today. He was comparing the complexity of these plans to the complexity of the current health bill.

Then he goes on to say that health care is a constitutional right.

7/28/2009 9:33:56 PM

It's painful to watch how little testicular fortitude the congressional dems possess.

7/29/2009 12:04:24 PM

where can I find the bill as it stands?

some of these claims are disturbing, but I'm not going to trust references to it without verifying it for myself. especially given the number of hits I get from google on the exact text. It's more like a chain email than anything else.

7/29/2009 1:52:41 PM

Some late breaking good news, the Dems in the House have come to an agreement on a bill that keeps the public option, but also throws in the ability for states to setup their own health care co-ops. Basically, this means the Blue Dogs are on board with the bill now and there should be enough votes to get it through the House, although the actual vote won't take place until after the recess.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/house-retains-public-option-in-compromise.php?ref=fpa

7/29/2009 2:16:20 PM

mdozer73 your friend's dad made some pretty good points, minus that typo that everyone on here is going to jump all over. at least he took the time to stay informed and participate in government.

7/29/2009 2:58:42 PM

^ uhhh... none of those points were from his friend's dad, he simply copy and pasted a form letter.

The seemingly original parts don't make sense either. The bill isn't written to be confusing, it's written to be explicit. The health care plan doesn't bypass our "capitalistic system," and under what conditions our capitalistic system will prevail is not clear either, because there are clearly numerous situations throughout our history where capitalism would have failed without government help.

Overall it's a pretty generic complaint that might as well read "we hate the democrats" that is just going to be glossed over by Ethridges's staffers.

^^^ http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf Here's a supposed link to the bill

I scanned a few of the pages, and not a single one describes a process different than the current health insurance system. The point claiming it mandates an ID card for everyone is blatantly wrong, as is the point claiming that a gov. panel will determine what care you receive.

Health care isn't "rationed" either, as they are asserting. The government isn't setting wages either, as the document asserts, there is just going to be standardized pricing structures, which already exist with existing insurance plans, as well as medicare/medicaid.

I'm sure there are some shady things in the bill, but we'll never find them if idiots on the right regurgitate some of the disingenuous "analysis" like the post list.

[Edited on July 29, 2009 at 3:26 PM. Reason : ]

7/29/2009 3:18:00 PM

this is pretty good

http://www.indecisionforever.com/2009/07/28/jon-stewarts-extended-bill-kristol-interview/

7/29/2009 3:31:33 PM

Quote :

"our capitalistic system will prevail is not clear either, because there are clearly numerous situations throughout our history where capitalism would have failed without government help"

This is probably a discussion for another thread, but there is little in history to even suggest this. The '20-'21 recession and the Great Depression (where fiscal policy in the former was almost non-existent and ineffective in the latter per Christina Romer's research) are clear examples that severely depressed economies to not deter people from eventually resuming trade.

Quote :

"The government isn't setting wages either, as the document asserts, there is just going to be standardized pricing structures, which already exist with existing insurance plans, as well as medicare/medicaid"

When you hold monopsony power, "standardized pricing structures" is analogous to price fixing. Insurance companies must base their rates on going market rates. A government monopsony, however, dictates its rates. This is true today of Medicare where doctors have some leverage negotiating with insurance companies, but have none with Medicare.

7/30/2009 7:03:26 AM

^They are not proposing a single payer system, so its not a monopsony. If you have a private plan you already like, you can stay there. You will just now have a public option along with today's private ones (are there private ones? you just get what your employer offers).

7/30/2009 8:45:48 AM

Quote :

"If you have a private plan you already like, you can stay there."

It is amazing how literal everyone is being with that. Yes, if you already have a private plan you like, you can legally keep it as long as the private provider chooses to allow you. But if you do not already have a private plan you like, you will not be allowed to get one.

7/30/2009 9:28:17 AM

Quote :

"^They are not proposing a single payer system, so its not a monopsony. If you have a private plan you already like, you can stay there. You will just now have a public option along with today's private ones (are there private ones? you just get what your employer offers). "

It will become a single payer system as soon as its cheaper for businesses to offload their healthcare to the gov instead of through private insturance. Since the gov can print all the money it wants or increases taxes to pay for its plan, private insurance is at a pretty big disadvantage. Not that the private insurance system is a good system, but a single government provider wouldn't be any better.

7/30/2009 9:35:05 AM

If I hear another politician lawyer complaining about our healthcare numbers to the rest of the world I just might break.

The US has about 5% of the world's population. But we hold over 70% of the worlds lawyers and 94% of all lawsuits in the world are filed in the US.

We have excellent medical care in this country, we also have very poor diets and an increasingly lazy society. Our medicaid population has free health insurance and free meds, fee food, etc... So why is obesity growing in this group? SHouldnt they be getting "healthier?

7/30/2009 9:44:03 AM

^ I've been noticing that right-wing pundits have been offering tort-reform as the cure-all for our healthcare woes. As if it's anything near a complete solution.

Which of course it isn't, but hey.

Maybe you all can also propose that doctors no longer give out lollipops to kids. I've sure that'd save us like 25% on healthcare costs, too.

7/30/2009 10:00:22 AM

Quote :

"It will become a single payer system as soon as its cheaper for businesses to offload their healthcare to the gov instead of through private insturance. Since the gov can print all the money it wants or increases taxes to pay for its plan, private insurance is at a pretty big disadvantage. Not that the private insurance system is a good system, but a single government provider wouldn't be any better."

You're presupposing that no one will want extra coverage that the government doesn't provide, which is a pretty dumb assumption. The health reform going through congress now is very similar to the Swiss system, and they have one of the better systems in the world.

It would be like someone else presuming that if we DON'T institute the health reform, the corporations burdened by fraud and increases in payouts will just to raise prices and cut procedures so that only the super-wealthy will be able to afford healthcare.

And then there's the argument that the Post Office hasn't put Fed Ex, DHL, Mailboxes Etc., out of business. The National Parks system hasn't put Disney World out of business. Freddie/Fannie didn't put all the other private lenders out of business either (though they were very weakly government controlled).

7/30/2009 10:20:46 AM

Let's have the gov't fix one program first... just one.

How about the Veteran's Administration? That is basically a gov't-run health care system which is not doing that great. Show us you can reform and make that system work efficiently and then we'll think about handing over the whole U.S. health care system to you politicians.

7/30/2009 10:43:52 AM

^ I kinda agree with this.

those places are gross

7/30/2009 10:50:16 AM

Quote :

"You're presupposing that no one will want extra coverage that the government doesn't provide, which is a pretty dumb assumption. The health reform going through congress now is very similar to the Swiss system, and they have one of the better systems in the world. "

So you're saying the government system will be so inadequate that everyone will need to buy additional coverage? Or are you just talking about the small percentage of people who buy coverage on top of their employers plan? Because those people aren't the ones this legislation targets. As for comparing us with the rest of the world, the swiss are a homogenious people where one size actually does fit all pretty well. Thats never worked here.

Quote :

"And then there's the argument that the Post Office hasn't put Fed Ex, DHL, Mailboxes Etc., out of business."

The post office has fixed costs. When someone wants to mail a letter, they pay for the letter to be mailed. When someone wants to go to the doctor, they pay a 20 copay and their insurance pays the rest.

In the health insurance system there is a disconnect between the money someone puts into the system and the value in services that they take out.

Quote :

"The National Parks system hasn't put Disney World out of business"

Obviosuly these are much different markets. The goal of the national parks system is to preserve natural and historic parts of our country. The national park system also has fixed costs that are easy to anticipate and control. Whereas Disney is a way to get direct profits, the national park system's only source of revenue is taxes and maybe income from tourism.

Quote :

"Freddie/Fannie didn't put all the other private lenders out of business either (though they were very weakly government controlled). "

No but they helped push down mortgage rates so private banks had to lower theirs to compete. While not the only cause of our current housing crisis they were definitely a factor. Add to that that they would have gone out of business without tax dollars to back them. Not a great example if you're looking for a sustainable government business model.

The problem with our system (and what would affect gov care) is that people pay $x into the system and get $10x out. They see this and think nothing of it. If someone gets diabeetus they just get the fed to fork out their testing supplies. If they get fat, so what they'll just get a bypass. They dont have to pay for it. The system rewards poor habits.

Insurance is supposed to be a gamble. The insurance companies are betting you wont get sick, but thats just not the case these days. In a better world we might all strive to keep ourselves healthy. In which case a governement insurnace company or a private insurance company would work well thanks to the low risk of sickness.

7/30/2009 10:52:59 AM

Ive seen a republican plan boone, you gotta search for it bc its a lot easier to say the repubs are not offering an alternative. They dont want a mandate on businesses and they want individuals to buy thier own health ins. one includes a tax credit for doing just that.

As far as tort reform, it will no doubt lower costs. I take it you were being sarcastic in your response, but do you doubt it would? Thats very naive if so.

7/30/2009 11:10:42 AM

I hope this law enforcement public option doesn't make it difficult for the private crime sector.

7/30/2009 11:38:38 AM

Quote :

"^They are not proposing a single payer system, so its not a monopsony."

There is a good chance they would negotiate rates alongside Medicare.

Also not mentioned thus far is the fact that the public option would have an implicit cost-of-capital advantage the likes of Fannie/Freddie. This, alone, would give it a significant advantage - allowing it to undercut private insurers.

Quote :

"And then there's the argument that the Post Office hasn't put Fed Ex, DHL, Mailboxes Etc., out of business. The National Parks system hasn't put Disney World out of business. Freddie/Fannie didn't put all the other private lenders out of business either"

Fannie/Freddie, with their above-mentioned cost-of-capital advantage, crowded out the private sector in the prime-mortgage market.

[Edited on July 30, 2009 at 12:44 PM. Reason : .]

7/30/2009 12:43:52 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/07/how_to_think_about_the_cbo.html

Quote :

"You probably want to pay for a new approach conservatively, emphasizing sure costs over likely savings. That's good budgeting. But when deciding whether to pursue a new approach, you don't want to make that judgment conservatively. You want to ask whether this is worth a try. That's a question the CBO can't ask. But it is the question that their numbers are being used -- by both sides -- to answer."

Something to think about for those of you who pointing to the CBO's assessment as the final word on the viability of this plan.

7/30/2009 1:36:15 PM

All the more reason to avoid policies that erode economic and personal freedom given the benefits are highly dubious and costs are unknown and likely irreversible.

[Edited on July 30, 2009 at 2:27 PM. Reason : ,]

7/30/2009 2:26:45 PM

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/Weiner_introduces_bill_to_kill_Medicare.html

Quote :

"Weiner introduces bill to kill Medicare Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) says he plans to introduce a politically-targeted amendment forcing Republicans to vote "yes" or "no" on continuing Medicare, the government-run health care program for seniors, on the 44th anniversary of its enactment. Weiner [who plans to vote yes, obviously] said he wants to tack the amendment onto the health care bill being marked up today -- to call bluff on Republicans who say federal intervention into health care has been a failure. "It’s put-up or shut-up time for the phonies who deride the so-called ‘public option’," Weiner said."

Since government-run health care is such a failure, republicans should jump on this.

7/30/2009 9:17:51 PM

Quote :

"I hope this law enforcement public option doesn't make it difficult for the private crime sector."

LAWLZ BECAUSE LAW ENFORCEMENT IS JUST LIKE PROVIDING HEALTHCARE!

Next up in the bad analogies game, DirtyGreek treats us to a comparison of apples and oranges. Take it away!

7/30/2009 10:10:02 PM

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government plans to suspend its popular "cash for clunkers" program amid concerns it could quickly use up the $1 billion in rebates for new car purchases, congressional officials said Thursday. The Transportation Department called lawmakers' offices to alert them to the decision to suspend the program at midnight Thursday. The program offers owners of old cars and trucks $3,500 or $4,500 toward a new, more fuel-efficient vehicle. The congressional officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. A White House official said later that officials were assessing the situation facing the popular program but auto dealers and consumers should have confidence that transactions under the program that already have taken place would be honored. Rae Tyson, a spokesman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which administers the program, declined comment. A survey of 2,000 dealers by the National Automobile Dealers Association found about 25,000 deals had not yet been approved by NHTSA, or nearly 13 trades per store. It raised concerns that with about 23,000 dealers taking part in the program, auto dealers may already have surpassed the 250,000 vehicle sales funded by the $1 billion program. "There's a significant backlog of 'cash for clunkers' deals that make us question how much funding is still available in the program," said Bailey Wood, a spokesman for the dealers association. "

The gov't can't even run a auto rebate program efficiently..but by all means let's hand over the health-care system to it.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AP-sources-Govt-to-suspend-apf-3529110957.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=

7/30/2009 10:25:02 PM

^Well said! That will be yet another underfunded program.

Quote :

"How about the Veteran's Administration? That is basically a gov't-run health care system which is not doing that great. Show us you can reform and make that system work efficiently and then we'll think about handing over the whole U.S. health care system to you politicians."

I agree. I have talked to 3 different guys who have been in the military and they all told me that the VA hospitals suck.

7/30/2009 11:19:36 PM

Quote :

"David Scheiner, a Chicago, Illinois-based doctor, has taken a hard look at the president's prescription for health care reform and sees bad medicine. "This isn't that kind of health care program that I think is going to work," he said. So what makes Scheiner so special? He was Obama's personal physician for 22 years, and voted for the former Illinois senator in the 2008 presidential election. Scheiner thinks the president's plan doesn't go far enough. In his mind, the worst part of the proposal is that "private insurers continue to be a part of the health scheme "Everybody keeps saying we don't want the government involved in health care," Scheiner said in an interview. "But the government is involved in Medicare, and it works." Scheiner would rather see the nation adopt a single-payer system like the ones in Canada and Europe. The financing system relies on one "payer" -- which could be a government-run agency -- to fund all health care costs billed by doctors, hospitals and other health professionals. The benefits, advocates say, is that pricey administrative costs are cut, resulting in large savings to patients. Scheiner finally had a chance to have his say Thursday. He and other doctors who support a single-payer system gathered in Washington to meet with lawmakers and rally supporters. He may not be the president's doctor anymore, but Scheiner says he's trying to save the patient before it's too late. "

7/31/2009 9:37:16 AM