»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
SO how's Health Care Going?
| The Alley |
|
SO how's Health Care Going? |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
Drug companies threatening to oppose health bill AP WASHINGTON – The drug industry is threatening to end its support for President Barack Obama's health overhaul effort because of a rift with the administration over protecting brand-name biotech drugs from low-cost generic competitors. In an e-mail obtained Friday by The Associated Press, the president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America told the trade group's board members that "we could not support the bill" if the industry is given less than 12 years of competitive protection for the expensive products. Obama and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., are leading the drive to shorten that period, which proponents argue would be a boon to consumers. The pharmaceutical industry has been a crucial supporter of Obama's health effort, having spent many tens of millions of dollars on advertising and lobbying in support. Drug companies should profit from the millions of additional people who would be able to afford health coverage under the legislation. The threat comes with White House officials and Democratic congressional leaders nearing an agreement on compromise legislation reshaping the nation's health care system. Among groups whose members are calling the White House and congressional leaders in support of the 12 years was the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, representing about 350 biotech firms. Massachusetts is where a Republican is threatening to capture the Senate seat long held by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., in next Tuesday's special election. That could make Obama reluctant to support a policy that could anger employees of one of that state's most important industries. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100115/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_overhaul_biotech_drugs_5 'Very angry' Democrat sounds alarm By JOHN BRESNAHAN & PATRICK O'CONNOR | 1/15/10 4:41 AM EST Democrats moved closer to a final deal on health care reform Thursday — and for some vulnerable members, the end can’t come soon enough. In an emotional talk with other Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee this week, North Dakota Rep. Earl Pomeroy said the protracted debate is hurting him so badly back home that he might as well retire if it drags on much longer. A Democrat who attended the Ways and Means session said Pomeroy was “very angry” as he spoke about the delay. “Other folks were upset, but he was the maddest by far.” “I believe Congress needs to resolve fairly quickly this protracted health care debate,” Pomeroy told POLITICO on Thursday. “We have a number of other issues that haven’t been able to get enough attention, because health care is taking up all the floor time, all of the attention. We need to move on.” “I would prefer to take this vote soon,” added first-year Rep. John Boccieri (D-Ohio). “We’ve got to get our focus back to creating jobs, especially back in Ohio, where I feel we’ve suffered disproportionately. So I would prefer to see this come very quickly.” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31530.html Frank: Health reform dead if Coakley loses Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said Friday that if Republicans prevail the Massachusetts Senate seat, health care reform is dead. "If Scott Brown wins, it'll kill the health bill," Frank told reporters, although he added that he thought Democrat Martha Coakley would defeat Brown. Losing the Massachusetts race presents a nightmare scenario for Democrats, many of whom would want to pass the legislation before Brown is seated. But Democrats would face an onslaught of criticism from Republicans, as well as cold feet from rank and file. And the party isn't united on what exactly would happen following a defeat. http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0110/Frank_Health_reform_dead_if_Coakley_loses.html Good thing government takeover of health insurance is more important than employment, isn't it? |
||
| © Copyright 2010 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Oh, I forgot about the references to the unions screaming about the cadillac tax plans. Oh, well...you get the idea. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
WASHINGTON — President Obama agreed Thursday to soften a proposed tax on high-cost insurance plans, but work continues on several remaining sticking points in the health care legislation — including the thorny issue of abortion. The agreement on the controversial tax, reached with the nation's largest labor unions after marathon negotiating sessions at the White House, partly answered how lawmakers will pay for billions of dollars in subsidies that will help millions of uninsured Americans afford coverage. Days after Obama stepped up his involvement in the talks, the White House announced it had struck a deal with labor leaders who had been opposed to a 40% tax on high-priced plans included in the Senate's bill. Labor had fought the tax because many union workers have bargained for high-end benefit packages in recent years instead of pay raises. Under the agreement, health care plans negotiated under collective bargaining would be exempt until 2018, five years after non-union health plans, said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, who held a conference call with reporters. Also, the cap for what defines a high-cost plan would increase by $1,000 to $24,000 a year for a family, Trumka said. The tax was originally projected by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office to raise $149 billion over 10 years. Labor leaders said the new concessions would decrease that number by $60 billion. The White House did not say how it would make up the difference. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-01-15-health-care-bill-compromise-democrats_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomWashingt on-TopStories+%28News+-+Washington+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
You missed one Mike. Grinch opposes the crippled health care bill The original bill I read was imperfect but workable. The current version is flawed and unworkable and, far from improving the US health care system is more likely hasten its collapse. The ironic thing is that both Republicans and Democrats will claim victory if it is passed, the Republicans for managing to force as many fundamental changes as they have and the Democrats for getting some kind of “health care reform” passed. The reality is that both should be allocated an equal amount of blame for allowing the enactment of what is possibly the worst and most damaging piece of legislation in American history. When presented with the final Bill Obama should throw it back to the idiots that have eviscerated it and say “Sorry – that’s not good enough, America deserves better”. Unfortunately he won’t, he’ll claim victory along with the rest, content in the knowledge that when health care collapses it’ll be another Presidents problem. Ron has said several times in this forum that people ultimately get what they deserve, there was a time when I thought he was completely wrong but watching the health care reform debacle play out I think that I’m beginning to understand what he means. My congratulations to both the Republicans and the Democrats of America – you deserve it. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
What changes did the Republicans force? Most if not all of the amendments that they did introduce in committee were voted down. These bills have been amended and held up by bickering Democrats, not the Republicans. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Health overhaul leaves gap for disabled workers WASHINGTON – Disabled by chronic back pain and unable to afford medical insurance, Lea Walker hoped President Barack Obama's health care overhaul would close a coverage gap that has trapped her and millions of other workers. It won't. Although disabled workers can expect improvements, the legislation moving toward final passage in Congress doesn't deliver the clean fix that advocates for people with serious medical conditions hoped for. Some of the neediest could find themselves still in limbo. At any given time, an estimated 1.8 million disabled workers languish in the Medicare coverage gap, a cost saver instituted nearly 40 years ago. Many, like Walker, are uninsured. Lawmakers had hoped to eliminate the gap as part of health care overhaul, but concluded it would be too expensive. The alternatives now in the legislation aren't exactly seamless. For example, a new insurance pool for high-risk cases that Obama asked Congress for could run out of money within a year or two of its inception. The failure to repeal the Medicare waiting period illustrates the difficult trade-offs Democratic lawmakers faced to keep the costs of the legislation from ballooning. Indeed, if the bill passes Congress and is signed by Obama, an estimated 18 million eligible Americans would remain uninsured, many still unable to afford coverage, even when it's fully in place in 2019. Denise, we'll have to ask the Republicans that are in those closed door negotiations....oh, wait! There aren't any... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Dems look at bypassing Senate health care vote AP Associated Press BOSTON – A panicky White House and Democratic allies scrambled Sunday for a plan to salvage their hard-fought health care package in case a Republican wins Tuesday's Senate race in Massachusetts, which would enable the GOP to block further Senate action. The likeliest scenario would require persuading House Democrats to accept a bill the Senate passed last month, despite their objections to several parts. House Democrats, especially liberals, viewed those compromises as vital because they view the Senate-passed version as doing too little to help working families. Under the Senate-passed bill, 94 percent of Americans would be covered, compared to 96 percent in the version passed last year by the House. The House plan would increase taxes on millionaires while the Senate plan would tax so-called Cadillac, high-cost health insurance plans enjoyed by many corporate executives as well as some union members. The plan is highly problematic. House liberals already are bristling over changes the Senate forced upon them earlier, and some may conclude that no bill is better than the Senate bill. Meanwhile, some moderate Democrats may abandon the health bill altogether after seeing a Republican win Kennedy's seat in strongly Democratic Massachusetts. Republican activists openly scoffed at the notion of Democrats passing the highly contentious health package after a GOP takeover of Kennedy's Senate seat. But some Democrats said failure to pass a health bill will cripple their ability to tell voters this November that they accomplished anything with their control of the House, Senate and White House. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100118/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_massachusetts_senate |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
WASHINGTON – Democratic congressional leaders are uniting around their last, best hope for salvaging President Barack Obama's sweeping health care overhaul. Their plan is to pass the Senate bill with some changes to accommodate House Democrats, senior Democratic aides said Monday. Leaders will present the idea to the rank and file this week, but it's unclear that they will have the votes to move forward. Last week's victory by Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts cost Democrats the 60th vote they need to maintain undisputed control of the Senate, jeopardizing the outcome of the health care bill just when Obama had brokered a final deal on most of the major issues. "We've put so much effort into this, so much hard work, and we were so close to doing some significant things. Now we have to find the political path that brings us out. And it's not easy," the No. 2 Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, said Monday. The new strategy is as politically risky as it is bold. There is widespread support for Obama's goals of expanding coverage to nearly all Americans while trying to slow costs. But polls show the public is deeply skeptical of the Democratic bills, and Republicans would certainly accuse Democrats of ignoring voters' wishes. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100126/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul Yep, that's what it is. The Dems could care less what the people think or want. The only thing important to them is that they get their way. This is just another example.... |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
One of several things I enjoy about Politics, are the great Sherlock Holmes-type puzzles that arise. Take for instance, the ‘As-Of-1-25-10’ Health Care Plan: There appears to be a no-win scenario for the Democrats. IF THEY PASS THE BILL IN SENATE 1. Obama Will Look good to the Moderate-Dem’s, and bad to the Progressive Dems. 2. Nancy Pelosi will be out of bullets in her political guns, and will be wildly blamed for the bare-bones bill that passes 3. Every fence-sitter Dem will demand a piece of the Bribery Pie that benefited Louisiana, Nebraska 4. Independents will vote Against Dems, saying that they didn’t listen to complaints. 5. Republicans will wait until they obtain power again, and further neuter the existing bill. IF THEY DON’T PASS THE BILL IN SENATE 1. Far Left Dem’s will further eat their own; in other words, Leftists Dem’s won’t be happy with ANY passable bill version that is watered down 2. Independents will see the Liberals as push-overs, and in-fighters, which HAS to have some effect in 2010 on incumbents 3. Republicans will ride the Tea Party successes, calling it their own, and further missing the point entirely of the Tea Partiers. 4. Any further MAJOR legislation will largely be dead, UNLESS the Dem’s get ahold of a universally liked program that Independents also support. 5. Obama will HAVE to go Centrist, toward the middle ground, to keep any semblance of Higher Control. The problem is, he’s NOT a Centrist at all. What Bill Clinton could pull off, Obama can't. Flash back to October, 1993. Bill and Hillary join hands and announce the Health Security Act. It advocates both Universal Health Care and single-payer government-run systems, exactly as Bill stated in his election campaigns. The architect of the 1,342 page bill was Hillary. There was no consensus then either, on the urgency of passing such a sweeping bill. The Republicans regained the Senate and amended it to death. Some say that the bill's failure cost Hillary the 2008 Presidential bid, citing how ineffective she might be if put in charge of ANOTHER go-round as President. Bottom line: It cost her. and it will cost Obama. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
WASHINGTON – Democrats retreated Tuesday from a quick push to pass President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, lacking a workable strategy to salvage the sweeping legislation that has consumed Congress for more than a year. "There is no rush," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said after a meeting of Senate Democrats. His comments came as two centrists said they would oppose the plan Democratic leaders were considering to reconcile differences between the House and Senate bills and put comprehensive legislation on Obama's desk. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100127/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul Talk about the Potomac Two-Step! Obama declares he wants health care before the congressional break. Obama wants health care before Christmas. Pelosi delares there WILL be health care by Christmas. Massachusetts enema given by voters. Pelosi decares there is "no rush". Obama declares he will focus on jobs instead. Democrats claim they will go ahead with health care, Reid declares "there is no rush". I'm reminded of the book by Casey Stengel about the New York Mets, "Can't Anybody Here Play This Game?" Difference is...this isn't a game. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Backroom health care deals fuel voter anger AP WASHINGTON – Special legislative favors, especially one designed to secure a Nebraska senator's vote for the embattled health care package, ignited so much public outrage that President Barack Obama is calling them a mistake and House leaders say the bill can't be resurrected unless such sweetheart deals are scrapped. Obama says Americans were understandably upset by the backroom dealmaking that he called ugly. In a cruel twist, the reaction helped elect a Republican senator in Massachusetts last week, putting the health legislation in peril. (so why did he make them?) Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the No. 3 House Democrat, said Tuesday the House may be able to pass the Senate health bill — and salvage Obama's top domestic priority — if the offending items are deleted. (another day, another direction...and I thought jobs was supposed to be Obama's top domestic priority) "We've got to get rid of that Nebraska stuff, we've got to get rid of the Louisiana stuff," Clyburn said, referring to provisions inserted to help secure the votes of holdout Democratic senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Obama, speaking to ABC News this week, said, "I didn't make a bunch of deals." But he acknowledged making "a legitimate mistake" by letting White House and congressional negotiators include the items during last month's closed-door negotiations. . (so how many constitute a bunch? Looks like buck passing time. Obama only LET the negotiators include the deals....I'm sure they appreciate that comment) . Asked about the condemnation of the Nebraska deal, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Tuesday, "All senators, Democrats and Republicans, work hard to represent the states and the needs of their states." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100127/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_dealmaking He said he has kept "the promises we made about increased transparency" at the White House, even though he once had advocated televising health care negotiations on C-SPAN. Really?? Show us where, Mr. President..... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Near as I can tell, any actual health care reform is dead and has been dead for several months. It was dead before the Massachusetts election. I think it died because President Obama is probably further to the Right in real terms than Dwight D. Eisenhower, and lacked the political will to push for and actual single payer health plan. It died because the Democrats in the Senate have a substantial number of members in their caucus who are Democrats in name only and were in the pockets of the health insurance industry. I think the Republicans played the politics very well indeed, and threw every delaying tactic they could think of and a few that they had to manufacture into the hopper, hoping that something would cause the sausage making machine to jam. This included Abortion, and, if they could have found a way, would have included the Communist Threat. The delight of the Republicans is instructive. Maybe they can find a way of keeping the system unchanged or keeping the costs of health care from rising beyond one sixth of gnp. The fact that they have created a situation where it requires 60% of the senate to disagree with them instead of 50% seems uncomfortable to me, and that they have tried to make so many of the day to day issues of government issues that require a supermajority rather than a majority seems to me to represent an attempt to subvert the electoral process. Clearly they either don't see things this way or don't care. In real terms it is a distinction without a difference. None of this lets the Current administration off the hook for its pallid failure in leadership. Their backbone has all the steely springlike strength of a wet frosted flake. President Obama, for all the complaints levied against him by the right, may be a fair centrist Republican leader, but he is not acting in the way the country asked him to act when he was elected, as a more solidly liberal leader. Health care is doing badly, and I believe the country could be doing better as well at this particular point in time. Perhaps this may be a somewhat broader reply to the question asked, but it is all that a somewhat soured mood allows me to offer at this particular time. I trust that the rest of you are feeling better than I am. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
WASHINGTON – Hoping to rescue his prized health care overhaul and revive his presidency as well, Barack Obama appealed in his State of the Union address for support for the plan that is in severe danger in Congress, urging dispirited Democrats not to abandon the effort. So now it's back on. It's gone from on to off to on to off to on half a dozen times in a week. Acknowledging frustration at the government's habit of spending more than it has, he is seeking a three-year freeze on some domestic spending (while proposing a 6.2 percent, or $4 billion, increase in the popular arena of education and supporting the debt-financed jobs bill) and is announcing he is creating a bipartisan deficit-reduction task force. "Let's try common sense," Obama said in the speech excerpts. "Let's invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt." I just don't understand. Doesn't Obama realize what he is saying? He talks about the public being tired of back door deals....while he is the one holding them. He speaks about the frustration of the government spending more money than it has....while he's doing the spending. He talks about not leaving us with a mountain of debt....while he's the one doing it. Everything he is criticizing....he is doing! Does he really think the public is so blind they don't see that? Polls indicate they aren't. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
From TIME.... Liberals (in the blogosphere, at the grassroots, and in Congress) complain that the President is a spineless, incompetent quitter. Conservatives (on Fox News Channel and talk radio, at Tea Party confabs, and in Congress) insist he is a panicky, on-the-run liberal. The Old Media sputters that he is a flailing, directionless Jimmy Carter redux. (See pictures of President Obama's first year in office.) In just over a year, Obama has gone from a hopemonger destined to change America and revitalize the Democratic Party to a foundering President - from a man determined to bring America's best values to a capital gone bad to a man who has reinforced everything the country hates about government and politics. http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100127/us_time/08599195710900 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
WASHINGTON – No, maybe he can't. President Barack Obama, who insisted he would succeed where other presidents had failed to fix the nation's health care system, now concedes the effort may die in Congress. The president's newly conflicting signals could frustrate Democratic lawmakers who are hungry for guidance from the White House as they try to salvage the effort to extend coverage to millions of uninsured Americans and hold down spiraling medical costs. Obama's comments Thursday night came hours after Republican Scott Brown was sworn in to replace the late Edward M. Kennedy, leaving Democrats without their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and Obama's signature health legislation with no clear path forward. It appeared to be a shift in tone for the issue the "Yes we can" candidate campaigned on and made the centerpiece of his domestic agenda last year. In a speech to a joint session of Congress in September, Obama declared: "I am not the first president to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. ... Here and now we will meet history's test." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100206/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul Bingo! There you have it. It's all Obama. |
||
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Copy and paste, copy and paste. Doesn’t your pointy finger get awfully tired, Balladeer? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Wouldn't it be more productive to stop the ad hominem attacks, the mockery, sarcasm, nit picking and stick to discussing facts and the real issues? - Jennifer |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"Everything you post MUST belong to you. Copyright infringements will be removed!" As I recall, regarding copyrighted material, Ron said posting a few lines was ok. But article after article, isn't that a bit much? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Hey Mike, I'd find it useful if you'd make a statement about what you think about the status of the health care Bill itself. I've gotten the fact that you're in love with President Obama and that you love the Democratic congress — both houses — with a deep and abiding passion. But a clear discussion about what you think and feel about the current state of the health care bill would be helpful. You have been letting magazines do a lot of your talking for you here, and I appreciate the extra depth they provide, and the way they can help to bolster a case and add facts when needed. But a bit your what you think about the situation would add a bit of information that I've gotten out of touch with. I know you're against it now, as usual, but I've gotten out of touch with the where's and whys of the deatils of your objections, and I don't want to get too far away from talking about those as well as presenting my own point of view as well. Please? Mr. Bob |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Jennifer, surely you can post an objection without the "the mockery, sarcasm, nit picking and not stick to discussing facts and the real issues" that you feel we shouldn't be doing, right? You may issue a formal complaint or not bother reading it...but that wouldn't be as much fun as getting little zingers in there, would it?  |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Zingers? You mean like the one-liners you sometimes post at the bottom of copy and paste articles or in response to what someone else has said? Anyway, would be a shame if, instead of being a discussion forum. the Alley deteriorates into a battleground for dueling with articles. [This message has been edited by JenniferMaxwell (02-06-2010 09:33 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
and a worse shame if it is nothing more than a place to use the mockery, sarcasm and nit-picking you claim doesn't belong here....but seems to keep appearing. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, I really didn't initiate this thread to point out anything I think about health care. It is simply a running record of what is actually happening with it. The headlines seem to change daily. Pelosi says she will get it through. Pelosi says there is no rush. Pelosi says she will overcome all barriers to get it passed as soon as possible. Obama follows along the same lines. As I said, this is just a running record of what is actually happening with the health care bill. What do I think about it? I think it's dead...RIP. My hope is that it will have generated enough interest in health care reform that the powers that be will go after the things they can change....like insurance companies, lawyers and pharmaceutical companies, which can be done without a government takeover. I don't see it happening, however, because I don't believe Obama wants to go that route. Time will tell.... |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
After being away from the site for months, I popped back in just out of curiosity and found that mockery, sarcasm, nit-picking and ad hominem attacks were still being used in the Alley to belittle those who don't share your conservative views, Balladeer. Perhaps in an attempt to discourage them from posting? Also, some of the threads looked like more like billboards than discussion boxes, papered layer over layer with your copy and paste articles presenting one, often very narrow, point of view. The constraints most of us have on our time would make it nearly impossible to respond in a thoughtful manner, using our own words, even to the articles posted in just this thread. Seemed to me like the forum was being spammed, used in a way I feel pretty sure was never intended. A few lines quoted from an article to start off a discussion seems reasonable, but not article after article. Anyway, since in your 3 minute poem you invited me to add my two cents, there’s a ha’penny’s worth. I’ll reserve the rest for later. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
mockery, sarcasm, nit-picking and ad hominem attacks were still being used in the Alley to belittle those who don't share your conservative views, Balladeer. Jenn, really, don't bother. You seem intent on conducting some personal conflict with sarcasm, mockery and now latest accusation but I'm really not interested in participating. If that was your only reason for coming back, you wasted the trip. Have a nice evening. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Honestly, it's not a bother at all. Glad to help out any way I can. You have a nice one, too! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Well, Mike, Since you didn't say what you intended when you started the thread, that leaves a lot open to interpretation. What you did was offer snippets of two articles to offer points of view and made a statement that depended on agreement with the presuppositions (that democrats were not interested in job growth and were interested in government takeover of the health care system) for answering. That particular kind of reasoning is fallacious from the beginning. It's basic form is often stated as in the question, "How many times have you beaten your wife this week, Mr. Mack?" And it is called "Begging the question." I admire that you are looking to more or less neutral sources for you quotations. I appreciate that a great deal. I too think that health care may well be dead. I do not agree with the presuppositions that you made in your starting statement, and would invite you to prove them, because I believe that you are stating opinion as though it might pass for fact. And you haven't proved your assertions. Even the articles that you are quoting are essentially opinion pieces which you use to generate criticism whose reality remains to be proven. You may be accurate about the order of some of the events you describe; the interpretation is not as cut and dried as you present it to be. I want to know, for example, exactly how you came to the conclusion that the Insurance bill was an attempt to make a government take over of the insurance industry, and what proof you have to offer that this assertion is true. You have made this assertion several times, and I haven't noticed anybody call you on it yet. I am doing so now. Where is your data, and where is your proof? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Bob, what can you expect from a person whose reasoning is fallacious?" I'm going to bed. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: You mean, you support the current Senate bill? The one that's very nearly identical to Massachusetts' system (by Mitt Romney supported by Cosmo Boy) that doesn't take over any part of the health-care system? If that's what you (and the Republicans) want -- then -- you've got it! quote: Okay -- you get the gold star for inattention to reality! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Nice of you to join in on the insult throwing, reb. It was incomplete without you. Obama invites Republicans to health care talks WASHINGTON (AP) — In the first major step to revive his health care agenda after his party's loss of a filibuster-proof Senate majority, President Obama on Sunday invited Republican and Democratic leaders to discuss possible compromises in a televised gathering later this month. Obama's move came amid widespread complaints that efforts so far by him and his Democratic allies in Congress have been too partisan and secretive http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-07-obama-health-care_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomWashington-TopStories+%28New s+-+Washington+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo a good move....better late than never. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I want a ringside seat if that actually takes place. Should be interesting to see who from both sides is willing to participate. I agree with rebel, no way Obama’s gonna walk away any time soon, and also with Balladeer that it sounds like it might be a good move, if a bit late. The Dems really need to take control of the debate in the media. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
 You're welcome Mike -- I,er, complete you! ?  From your article Mike: quote: You see -- it's just impossible to get anywhere if the only play made be the Republicans is to lie, lie some more, keep lying, and then fail to be honest: quote: |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, quote: I can expect you show dataf rom sources as solid and neutral as those that you've recently proved yourself capable of both finding and using with such good effect that proves you're not talking through your hat, say that you dont have such data, reatreat in some sort of pose of hurt feeling and sulking silence as if I had made some untoward request of you, deluge me with personal attacks, attempt to change the subject to get yourself off the hot seat or refuse to talk to me for several months on end. Any of these are things that I can expect from you in response to a question to show your facts. From somebody in general whose reasoning was fallacious and was confronted about it, I might get any of those things, though in the vast majority of cases I would get a bit of consternation, perhaps some dismay and anger, and then, if the discussion was friendly, as this is supposed to be, I'd get something on the order of a "whoops, my mistake, I didn't see that, let me try it from [i]this[i] direction, if they still held that opinion. That way we reduce the number of times we use pastterns of mistaken thinking in our own thinking, we don't get taken in by them when other people try to pass them off on us so often, and it becomes an alltogether more difficult world as we learn to have a look at our own problems putting thinging together as well as other people's because we have a standard of sorts to measure things against. It stuck me with a lot fewer answers and a lot more questions on the whole, the older I get, which is not so comfortable. IThis has been certainly not the only set of answers to the question you posed above and it may not even be the right set of answers, but it's the set of answers that come from taking your question seriously. You may not have wanted me to do that, but I did. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
reatreat in some sort of pose of hurt feeling and sulking silence as if I had made some untoward request of you, deluge me with personal attacks, attempt to change the subject to get yourself off the hot seat or refuse to talk to me for several months on end. Any of these are things that I can expect from you in response to a question to show your facts. Still more personal insults. As someone recently said to Obama, "You're a slow learner". |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
WASHINGTON – In the first major step to revive his health care agenda after his party's loss of a filibuster-proof Senate majority, President Barack Obama on Sunday invited Republican and Democratic leaders to discuss possible compromises in a televised gathering later this month. Obama also is trying to address criticism of Democrats' closed-door negotiations that led to special accommodations for Nebraska and Louisiana senators when their votes on health care were in question. Some Republicans taunted Obama for suggesting earlier that health care negotiations should be aired on C-SPAN, and one GOP senator said health care would be the president's Waterloo. Obama said the closed-door deal-cutting was not helpful to the process. (the closed door deal-cutting HE initiated and conducted) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Sunday she was hopeful "that the Republican leadership will work in a bipartisan fashion on the great challenges the American people face." (quite a change from the "We won the election and we run things now" rhetoric she used to trumpet) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, "we have promoted the pursuit of a bipartisan approach to health reform from day one." (Harry's lithium supply must be running low) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100208/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_health_care One has to smile at this turn-around and retreat all because of one election and loss of complete power. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
My pointy finger got a little carried away, sorry. But since I’ve missed several copy and paste turns, seems only fair I should be allowed to post a long article. Plus, Balladeer and Denise are going to be so pleased to see I’m quoting from RIGHT WING NEWS. (Not to worry, I have smelling salts and oxygen close at hand should they need them.) Cue the banjo music! Stupid Debating Tricks -- 9 Of My Least Favorite Debate Tactics As you'd expect, I've spent a lot of time arguing with left-wingers. As a result of those discussions, I've learned a lot of the little tricks the left -- and yes, sometimes those on the right -- like to use when arguments are going against them. Here are some of those techniques... 1) Attack The Messenger: Instead of addressing the argument that has been made, people using this method attack the person making it instead. This is particularly easy for many delusional people on the left who believe that almost everyone on the right is a racist, sexist, homophobic, Fascist who longs for the return of the Confederacy and is planning to start throwing leftists in prison camps if they let their guard down for five minutes. The charge made doesn't even have to be accurate, in fact it's better in some ways if it's off target. That's because the more whacked out the charge is, the more compelled your opponent will feel to spend his time defending himself while you continue to make your points. 2) The Bait & Switch: When a claim is made and your opponent refutes it, don't try to respond, simply change the subject. Example, Lefty Debater: I think we all know what kind of job George Bush has done with the economy. Right off the bat, he got the economy into a recession. Conservative Debater: Excuse me, but you're incorrect. The recession started under Bill Clinton, not George Bush. Lefty Debater: Well what about his tax cuts? They're for the rich, the rich I tell you! Conservative Debater: What about getting rid of the marriage penalty and increasing the child tax credit? Are you arguing that only rich people get married and have kids? Lefty Debater: Haliburton, did I mention Haliburton? What about that, huh? I guess you want to dodge that issue. The best part about this from the left-wing debater's perspective is that since they never acknowledged they were wrong, they can feel free to make the exact same incorrect claim in future debates. 3) The Blitzkrieg: The goal here is blast your opponent with so many accusations that they can't possibly respond. Example, Lefty Debater: George Bush? Who would defend someone who was AWOL from the National Guard, used coke, lied about weapons of mass destruction, raised taxes on the poor, wants to cut Social Security, is the worst environmental President we've ever had, and who has destroyed the US economy? Moderator: That's great, but the question was, "Should the Israelis kick Arafat out of the "Disputed Territories"? It doesn't matter if all -- or even any -- of the accusations are true, relevant, or make any sense. The goal is just to get them out there. Making an accusation takes a few seconds, refuting one takes much longer. So an opponent confronted with these accusations will never actually have time to respond. 4) Enter The Strawman: Tremendously exaggerating your opponent's position and then claiming to fight against a position they don't hold is always a great way to dodge the issues. In all fairness, this is a technique often used by the left & right. But still, the right can't hold a candle to the left in this area. I mean how many times have you heard, "Republicans are going to take your Social Security away," "The GOP wants to poison the water and the air," "Republicans want to take away your Civil Rights" etc, etc? This whole concept has gotten so out of hand on the left that we now even have some people on the left comparing the Israelis to Nazis. Look, when you're claiming that a bunch a Jews defending themselves from people who want to kill them are like Nazis, you've gone so far past irony that you almost need a new word to describe it like -- "Idiorony" or "outofyourmindony". But that's what happens when people wink at all these strawmen that are tossed out in debates. Eventually some people start to take them seriously and build on them. 5) History Will Be Kind To Me For I Intend To Write It: The technique is similar to using strawmen in some respects. What you try to do is to rewrite history, to claim that a debate in a previous time was different than it actually was. Here's an example of how this is done, Mother: I told you to be back by 11 PM and you're just getting in at 1:30 AM! Teenage Daughter: I don't think I remember you mentioning that... Mother: I told you 3 times to be in by 11, I left a note reminding you on the dinner table and snuck one into your purse, I called you on your cellular phone at 10:30 and reminded you to make it home by 11 and I even told your boyfriend he'd better have you back in time. Teenage Daughter: Oh, oh, oh wait...I remember now -- you meant 11 PM? I thought you meant 11 AM. I thought that by getting in at 1:30 AM I was here 9 and 1/2 hours early. Silly me! Mother: Nice try, you're still grounded! The build-up to Iraq war has been treated in a similar fashion by the anti-war crowd. Before the war there were complaints that Bush wouldn't stick to one reason for invading, now there are claims that it was only about WMD. There was almost no debate on Capitol Hill between Dems & the GOP about whether Iraq actually had WMD until after the war when it became apparent that none were going to be quickly be found. Throwaway lines that were hardly noticed before the war (like the controversial yet true 16 words in the State of the Union speech) have been treated as if they were core arguments made by the Bush administration after the fact. It's all just a way to rewrite history. 6) I'm Not Hearing You -- La La La: Just totally ignoring what your opponent has to say and going on to something else is another technique often used by politicians of all stripes, but no one, and I mean no one, can hang with Yasser Arafat and company when it comes to totally blowing off any uncomfortable questions that are asked. For example... Moderator: So Mr. Arafat, are you willing to disarm Hamas & Islamic Jihad? Arafat: The Israelis want to kill me! They are causing all the problems! We want peace, but the Israelis don't! Moderator: That's fine Mr. Arafat, but are you willing to disarm Hamas & Islamic Jihad? Arafat: Why don't you ask the Israelis if they will stop their terrorism against our people? Why don't you ask them that? Moderator: Mr. Arafat you seem to be ignoring my question. Arafat: Are you questioning me? Do you know who I am? I am general Arafat! This interview is over! When they duck the question, it's a pretty good indication that they don't have an answer anyone wants to hear. 7) Motives Matter, Results Don't: Oftentimes when people on the left are losing an argument or can't explain why they seem to be so inconsistent on certain issues, they start questioning the motives of their opponents. For example, if you favored going to war with Serbia based on nothing more than humanitarian grounds, then logically you should also be in favor of invading Iraq for exactly the same reason. But of course, that's not how it works for a lot of people. So to get around that, they just claim that there are impure motives afoot. The Bush administration may have claimed to care about stopping terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, humanitarian causes, or UN Resolutions, but it was really all about stealing oil, getting payoffs for business buddies, getting revenge for an attack on "daddy", because Bush needed Iraqi sand for his garden, Bush was jealous of Saddam's rugged good looks, etc, etc, who cares -- they're all equally ridiculous. When the real issues are too tough to deal with, it's all too easy to just pretend something else is what you're really upset about. 8) That Context Is On A Need To Know Basis: Stripping away the context of a situation is a favored technique of people who hate the United States. They talk about something the United States has done without discussing the reasoning behind it, the actions that provoked it, or other things that the United States might have also done that would place us in a more favorable light. It's very easy to make someone look like a bad guy if you simply don't include every detail that doesn't support your case. For example, Lawyer: Your honor, I intend to prove that my client is innocent of all charges and that the police shot him maliciously, recklessly, and without cause as he was minding his own business at the park. Judge: He was minding his own business? According to the police report I have in front of me, your client had shot 3 drug dealers who were standing in "his spot" and was firing off rounds from an Uzi at a passing school bus, two nuns on a nearby park bench, and at the officers as they arrived. That doesn't sound like he was "minding his own business" to me. Lawyer: It does if his business is being a drug dealing thug -- ha, ha, ha! Hey, that's just a little joke. It was getting a little tense in here....you're not laughing. OK, just checking -- is that plea bargain still available? 9) That's Mean, Mean, Mean! When it comes to certain subjects, ordinarily rational people turn into complete bubbleheads. For example, you could probably put together a bill that called for nuclear waste to be dumped in every Walmart in America and as long as you called it the, "Feed The Children For A New Tomorrow Bill" about a 1/3rd of the American population would support it. So naturally, some people take advantage of this and claim that certain policy proposals are "mean". Once you say that, results, logic, how expensive the project is, etc, etc, goes out the window and the argument becomes over whether someone is "mean" or not. http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/stupiddebate.php |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
For those interested: The Modern Health Care Maze-- Development and Effects of the Four-Party System CHARLES KRONCKE AND RONALD F. WHITE A comprehensive article upon the subject of Health Care found on The Independent Institute. The file is in pdf format on that site, but can be found at various .edu sites. The article offers some interesting facts that may help one to more effectively understand what’s taking place on the Hill and how we got there. Maybe not? But it’s certainly worth a go, as I think it’s well written & easily read, and it addresses many/most of the posts here, including Massachusetts, & a particularly interesting conclusion that may spur a whole new debate! Be adventuresome |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Your response fit into the catagory of changing the subject and insult. I notice that you still haven't addressed your lapse, and are still apparently pretending the Federal Government is trying to take over the Heal;th Care System instead of trying to provide a plan to escalating health care costs. You have still pretending that your claims should be taken as true without substantiation. Where is your substantiation from neutral and objective sources, Mike? The number of swings to take at me or at Grinch or at Jennifer or at any other person who disputes you doesn't lift your obligation to substantiate things that you assert to be true. Where is the substantiation from which objective sources? Or have you been looking frantically and been unable to find any? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Geez, Bob, do you have to attach insults and innuendos to everything you say? Is that some kind of obsession with you or what?? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear R wood, I googled The Independant Institute. This is the first report that I found: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Independent_Institute This doesn't mean that the report is bogus, fo course, but it does mean that I need to bear in mind the slant I expect. That will be that anything other than free market is trash. If I find that in the conclusion, there really needs to be some very fancy and innovative footwork in between for the essay to be of much interest, doesn't there? If I know the conclusion from reading a bit of background? But let me not not get ahead of myself. I'll have a look and see. Regards, and thanks for going to the effort of doing the research into the field. I respect that a lot. Yours, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Mike, This is getting funny. Directed at me, and still unable to address the emptyness of your assertion. Unable to find any objective references yet? This is usually the point where you say something about not being obliged to answer the questions of others and that this is a free discussion, isn't it? You can choose what to say and what not to say! It would be simpler to offer your best answer, if you can in fact find one from an objective source, in context, that actually says the government is doing what you assert the goverment is trying to do. That way I could check it out. If it were solid, II'd shut up about the issue. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually, Bob, it's not that funny. You can't seem to direct a comment my way any more without tossing in a little ridicule, innuendo or sarcasm. I stopped finding it funny a while back. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
that actually says the government is doing what you assert the goverment is trying to do. Obviously, the government is not doing what they are trying to do because they are still trying to do it....and not being allowed. Their plan was to set up a government-run insurance company to compete with private ones. There would be no competition. Since they can do it much cheaper and are not hampered by doing it for profit (which the government doesn't seem to be able to do with anything it runs), employers would certainly be going with the government insurance. The employees really would have no voice in the matter. Once the millions of employees would be beholding to the gov't program, private insurance would not be able to survive. Once they go out of business, then it will be a complete government takeover. The government will dictate what doctors you see, what tests and treatment you get, and everything connected with your health issues. I call that a takeover of the system. Those are my thoughts. That's my opinion based on what I consider to be logically sound. Take them for what you will. It really doesn't matter to me. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Even my own preferences don't go that far, and my preferences are considerably to the left of what I consider to be the tepidly centrist Obama administration. There is no such plan in the legislation on offer. If you can find it, point it out. If the government can do the same or a better job without turning a profit, then it seems to me that the insurance companies have failed in the marketplace. This is the test, isn't it? They certainly have no problem putting other people out of business for any reason or using any tactics they can, including the use of new technologies. If in fact the insurance companies want to compete with the government, then they should do so. Perhaps they might come up with a leveling technology of some sort. They certainly have no compunction about excluding or trying to exclude the government from various places to make a profit from various enterprises to the detriment of the public coffers and occasionally public safety. I have offered the example of centralizing mess halls in Iraq when the mess services were privatized in Iraq. Mess halls were centralized as a cost cutting measure, saving money, yes, but encouraging mortar attacking on the large new mess halls. The military had known better. You need to show that this particular government planned to set up a government-run insurance company. I am in favor of such a thing, by the way. I think it's a great idea. Even if such a thing had managed to get through congress, and it hasn't even gotten full support of the democratic party by a long shot, all that does is throw a monkey wrench in the plans for the insurance companies for making still higher percentages from the public's health care dollars and returning fewer dollars in services. It doesn't regulate the health care industry. It doesn't suggest rates or fees for doctors or hospitals. It doesn't say which doctors you can see or when. In fact the current system does all these things. The system that you are fighting to support. The current system gets in the way of doctors relationships with their patients, which services may be prescribed and which services may not be prescribed. Some degree of this is probably necessary, since there is some medical abuse of service provision. Some services or overprovided to some sorts of patients and underprovided to others. Regular physician visits are much more regularly available to people with higher incomes, for example. This often breaks down along diagnostic lines. Schizophrenics, whose class and economic status tends to decline over the years, tend to have less stable and regular physician availability as they age. (Or they used to when I was doing my EdM and I had to research this stuff, back in 1980.) The current system, with it's emphasis on capitation and cost custting for hospitals and physicians, has drastically cut the availability of care for many people. In some cases this has been great, and I will acknowledge this. It's led to some terrific inovations in care, including lots of very short term hospital stays for operations that used to require very long term in-patient care. A gall bladder operation used to require a three week hospital stay; now people are frequently out in a matter of a few days because of lapriscopic surgical techniques. Wonderful and in many cases, driven by the insurance limitations. On the other hand, the time for inpatient hospitalizations for depression has often been cut down to three days when the time it takes to evaluate the effectiveness of many anti-depressant medications is often at least ten days and often as much as three weeks. There is only about a 66% chance that any single antidepressant will work for a single patient, and even if it does, it will quite possibly not be the best of the group for that patient. This has not been a happy turn for many psychiatric patients. The current bill on proposal suggests one government plan on choice among the regular insurance plans. It will not be a choice for anybody with a current plan or with current coverage. Anybody who wishes to keep their current plan is welcome to do so. If any of the current insurance plans wishes to compete with the government ibnsurance plan, they have only to cut their rates modestly instead of pushing for the increase they they have been requesting in the top possible profits they are allowed to make. Their current maximum profit rates are in the vicinity of 15% per year. It is a fortunate year indeed that I can make a 15% return on one of my investments. It seems to be insuficient for the health care industry as a whole. They seem to wish to increase that margin to the range of 30-35%. They also seem to wish to cut the benefits they provide at the same time. Is this how you would suggest a market economy should work? Where is the competition? Without government intervention, these folks are behaving as though they have a monopoly, not competing with each other but colluding with each other. I would suggest to you that if private insurance wishes to survive, they are doing the right things. They are maximizing profits by raising rates and minimizing outlay. They are also making sure that the people who make the rules are running things to favor them and not the people that need the protection, which, in this case, would be the consumers. It seems in the long run, a cheaper strategy to buy the regulators than to convince the consumers. The would and could conditions that you describe as possible things to fear in the future as outcomes if the government gets its way describe the current state of affairs under the present system run by the insurance companies, now made worse by the possible imposition of an actual requirement for everybody to buy insurance at rates inflated by the excess profits trhat the insurance companies are pressing legislators to allow them to take. What you have provided is a chain of speculation unsupported by evidence, Mike. The speculation is understandable if you start off with the presupposition that everything that government does is bad for you. I am only willing to go along that path so far. I do go along that path, mind you. The founders tell us to be suspicious of attempts to take away our civil liberties, and I am. Many of the founders were very nervous about slavery, and they were right. And I'm frankly concerned about rapacity in whatever form it presents itself. I get nervous when folks seem to leave the word "enlightened" out of the phrase "enlightened self interest." They're the kind of folks who'll cut their own feet of to get the money for a stylish new pair of boots, and blow up the road they use to walk on with them too, to get at the coins underneath it. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"WILLING TO TALK -- WITH PRECONDITIONS.... Leading House Republicans raised the prospect Monday night that they may decline to participate in President Obama's proposed health-care summit if the White House chooses not to scrap the existing reform bills and start over. ... Republicans are effectively arguing that the only way to talk about the health care reform proposal is to ensure that there is no health care reform proposal." http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_02/022312.php |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Dear Mr. Bob, Kroncke & White’s article is permeated with many “neutral & objective” non-partisan sources, extensively listed at the end of the article. Most of those sources are equally searchable on the sourcewatch.org site you posted. Health care objective: As far as “anything other than free-market is trash,” the article provides a past-to-present day objective upon the current status of policy: quote:(Page 23, end p~. Kroncke & White) So, if a free-market “policy has in effect [already been] disabled,” there’s really nothing there to sustain an argument that supports a “maintaining” of such. Which pretty much disables the platform of each party “poised to fix the problem” on the Hill, as the article builds, point by point, page by page, and certainly all points are up for debate But I’m out of time to expand on that notion. ciao for now and have a wonderful Tuesday all. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
THE PARTIES ARE SUPPOSED TO DISAGREE.... I've never held House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) in high regard. But I couldn't agree more with something he said this morning. Despite White House overtures for congressional Republicans to work with Democrats, the top GOP official in the House said Sunday that such opportunities are limited. "There aren't that many places where we can come together," House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio said on the NBC program "Meet the Press." Republicans were elected to stand by their principles, and those principles are different than the "leftist proposals" offered by President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats, Boehner said. "Leadership is about standing on your principles and opposing those policies that we believe are bad for the country," Boehner said. What's wrong with that? Absolutely nothing (except the part about President Obama pushing "leftist proposals," which is a silly assessment). While I didn't see the exchange, if this report is accurate, Boehner argued that Republicans intend to push their ideas, and oppose the policies they find offensive. The goal for congressional Republicans isn't to find "common ground" or "bipartisan solutions" with those they completely disagree with; their goal is to fight for what they believe in, opposing the majority's agenda. The remarks should make it pretty clear that Republicans have no interest in working with Democrats on finding solutions to pressing policy challenges. But here's the thing that so often gets lost in the discourse: Republicans are the minority party, which means it's their job to oppose the majority's agenda. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/monthly/2010_01.php |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Thanks for the link, Balladeer. Here's an article that made me stop and think. It's a quick read so please give the link a click. “We are free to treat health care for the poor as an ideological football instead of a test of our human compassion.” http://www.indystar.com/article/20100208/OPINION12/2080310/1002/OPINIO N/Falling-out-of-health-safety-net |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
A heart-wrenching story indeed and I'm sure there are many like her out there. One thing I'm not clear about, however.... njuries severe enough that she was quickly declared fully disabled by the Social Security Administration. But, like many other Hoosiers with devastating illnesses and injuries, Alice has been told by the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration that she does not meet our state's standard for being disabled, and thus does not qualify for Medicaid health insurance coverage. Social Security considers here fully disabled and the Indiana Social Services Admin does not. That sounds like the problem lies with state and federal organizations not being on the same page. The Medicaid help is there and the state won't give it to here, even though the federal gov't declares she is entitled. Sounds to me like someone needs to review Indiana's requirements. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “When Republicans take President Obama up on his invitation to hash out their differences over health care this month, they will carry with them a fairly well-developed set of ideas intended to make health insurance more widely available and affordable, by emphasizing tax incentives and state innovations, with no new federal mandates and only a modest expansion of the federal safety net.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/health/policy/09health.html?hp . |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Thanks, that's a really good article, Huan Yi. Don't have much time right now but will be back, hopefully tonight, to post something about. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Republicans got what they whined about wanting, and now that they have, like a pouty, spoiled child, they don’t want that anymore. They call what they wanted a dog and pony show and stomp off in a huff whining that they now want something else. So there! Show up on the 25th you whining Republicans or it’s off to the naughty chair for a time out! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Wouldn't it be more productive to stop the ad hominem attacks, the mockery, sarcasm, nit picking and stick to discussing facts and the real issues? Show up on the 25th you whining Republicans or it’s off to the naughty chair for a time out! Interesting that those two comments come from the same person... |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Good to know I was soooooo right about the whining part. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear rwood, I've done a first read-through of the article. It is interesting, but it presupposes that everything will function on a libertarian model. The "starve the beast" rhetoric raises my hackles for reasons too complicated to go into here but go back to the economics of a man named Strauss. I don't think there should be a private health insurance business, truth be told. You should be betting on your health, not your illness, and the cost of the other person losing the bet should not be them trying to find a way of letting you have marginal care or letting you have the least possible care that they can get away with supplying. The nature of the contract however seems to be set up that way, ancd the insurance company is rewarded for the most behavior in that direction they can get away with. The foundation of the business is, for that reason, essentially a corrupt bargain. Profit should be taken out of it on the insurance end, and there should be fees for service for the professional services offered, with some bonuses added in for especially good services. Heaven knows how we'd determine that! This is a place where a government can actually do a better job than an insurance company in terms of payments. A single payer system would be good. The VA system has been given good ratings for years, though I for one feel that it could be much improved. It certainly does do some things very well, and drug supply is probably one of those. We can learn a lot from the VA, and we can learn a lot from the current system of private hospitals. We can probably design a better system than what we have now and we can probably model it on the best of several functioning medical systems throughout the world. It could probably cost less and be more efficent, and put our industry back on a more competitive cost basis with much of the rest of the world. That might be too bad an idea. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You should be betting on your health, not your illness Bob, don't ever become a professional gambler. Illness is always going to win out, unless one is fortunate enough to be killed in a car or plane accident, or some such other occurance. Pick out 10 people and I'll bet on their getting sick eventually and you can bet on their staying healthy. I think I'll win. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Bob, need I remind you and other Obama health care plan advocates, that the original reason for DEMANDING HEALTH CARE NOW was the cost ramifications, and how it would bankrupt the country in X amount of years. Problem is: there's nothing in the bills that actually address this. I didn't see anything in the bills that would actually LOWER health costs. It's a fraud, and Obama shifted direction in his original intent of the bill because he knew he was lying that the purpose was cost containment. In my opinion, it's the biggest lie of the Obama admin so far, and nobody is calling him on it. In this case, the huge government costs have a fair more catastrophic effect, than the current way of paying for health. I just want to make sure I have this straight: to save the country from bankrupty due to healthcare, we are going to implement plans to bankrupt our treasury. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You hit the nail on the head, bare one. If he represents all the people, Obama should remember that for 85% of Americans, the greatest health care crisis is about cost. For about 15%, it is about extending coverage. Yet his plan does little about the first and focuses mostly on the second. It promotes too little of the real discipline that would force costs down, and instead throws in a few ideas, experiments and pilot programs that could, over time and if rigorously expanded, do so. It is a bill written by legislators to insure that they never have to do anything unpopular. The Senate health care bill is particularly sausage-like. It has special exemptions on future costs for five states, exemptions for unions, concessions of various kinds to almost every special interest in the industry, and of course no reform at all of the crazy legal system because the trial-lawyers bar remains untouchable for the Democratic party. NEWSWEEK February 1, 2010 by Fareed Zakaria |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Health Insurers Break Profit Records As 2.7 Million Americans Lose Coverage "Executives and shareholders of the five biggest for-profit health insurers, UnitedHealth Group Inc., WellPoint Inc., Aetna Inc., Humana Inc., and Cigna Corp., enjoyed combined profit of $12.2 billion in 2009, up 56 percent from the previous year. It was the best year ever for Big Insurance." http://www.pnhp.org/news/2010/february/profits-for-largest-insurers-now-30 ------------------------------------------- Kind of reminds me of Big Oil profits during the Bush Administration. Perhaps the government should claim a piece of the insurance profit pie and use it to reduce the deficit. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I'm not in basic disagreement with anybody at this point. There is no essential insurance refore, there is no essential health care reform and the insurance industry looks like it will be handed a gift wrrapped package. Thank uou, everybody. Thank you, Bob. Thank you, Democratic Party. Thank you, Republican Party. Full stop and press the restart button. I don't care who you want to blame, I want to know how do we make sure that the people in the country get health care coverage without private insurange making a percentage, as much as thirty percent peer year, off the process. There ought to be a cheaper way of running the system than giving it to insurange companies to run, who have an interest in making sure that some people do not get covered so they can keep up their profits and keep their profits growing. If folks need to make a profit on the system and if it's a useful way to build quality into the system, I can understand and apprecuiate that. Proifits are fine with me as long as they aren't made on an increase in lives lost. This isomething it requires a moral brick head to incentivize — call this a quirk in my opinion, if you will. If you believe that the current insurance reform plans won't work or that the current health care legislation doesn't provide care for everyone, pressure you congress persons for a plan that does, one that actually forces everyone to the table to negotiate a plan that covers everyone and knocks the un-needed profit out of the currently bloated system. Does anybody disagree that the system is bloated? No? Well, where is the available profit most useful to grow the system in the way that's best for the needs of the country? You know, it's not just companies that have policies and plans about growth that need to be tested in thge market place, folks. It's not simply individual entrepreneurs! If a country doesn't make some policy about this sort of thing, it end up on the scrapeyard of history. There's an a marketplace of sorts for global position and power and influence. If the United States is to be a player in that marketplace, it needs to have plans and policies the same as every other player in the global arena. That includes for major expenses like health care, and for how to deasl with those expenses so that it has the healthiest and most educated voters and workforce in the world, so that the basic decisions it makes are the best decisions it can possibly make. We can't afford to be left behind on thsi stuff. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
Two good posts by both Jennifer on the huge profits of SOME insurance companies, but not all; and Bob's right on comment about full stop then analysis for cost savings/measures. NEED Y'ALLS HELP ON THIS ONE: does anybody here know WHAT exactly would happen, from an insurance's companies standpoint, IF interstate restriction laws were rescinded? Currently, each state or region controls what and which insurance CAN supply that area. National Insurance cannot be sold in the same way, so I believe they get around it by having an affiliate, local insurance salesman, do it for them in the name of the company (like Geico, i.e.). I'm just looking at the feasibility of the two common talking points of conservatives to help insurance costs: - interstate insurance restrictions, lifted - tort reform. One or the other of the above bullets will have to be in a health care bill for the Repub's to seriously look at it, i can almost guarantee. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Here’s one possibility. Initially the big insurance companies would concentrate on cherry picking the healthiest (and more profitable) customers, undercutting non-national companies by using savings based on centralisation of administration services and the consequently lower overheads to squeeze out the competition. The services offered would probably be reduced too so that the lowest premium could be offered. Eventually the non-profitable folk, the old or those with pre-existing conditions, would be the only market in which non-nationals would be able to compete but without the balance of high profit, non-claiming participants, they’d be forced to raise premiums or face bankruptcy. Any State running a high risk scheme as a safety net wouldn’t fare much better than the smaller insurers. In the meantime Medicaid and Medicare would run out of money and would either have to be scrapped or tax rates would need to be substantially raised to bail them out. Once all the high profit customers have gravitated to the top 3 or 4 companies, and without any viable competition, the 30% profit limit would be sacrificed in exchange for a promise to supply health care for the masses, all premiums would obviously rise exponentially. Fewer people would be able to afford insurance and the additional pressure on emergency care and Medicare etc (if they still exist) would mean that the government was paying for 60 or 70% of total health care costs instead of the current 48%. You could avoid all that of course, if there was a major insurer who guaranteed to hold the price at a reasonable level, a level that was slightly above the best price a non-national could live with. That would protect the smaller insurers, at the same time if you passed a law to set a national minimum standard of cover and a standard rate for all regardless of any pre-existing conditions that would avoid the cherry picking. In fact I'm amazed nobody has thought of it. Tort reform? It certainly needs to be done but the money it would save is such a small amount it’s not going to make a heck of a difference. Current estimates are savings in the region of 1 or 2% - there are far bigger fish to fry. Medicare and Medicaid for instance – that leviathan will be swallowing 25% of GDP within ten years if you’re not careful - work out how to fix that particular money pit and you’re halfway there. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I agree with grinch on the tort reform business. If the tort reform did in fact make a 10% or larger difference, in the situation, I'd be for it I guess, but as is, I believe it's an attack on a source of Democratic party funding rather than a means of actually trying to solve a money problem within the insurance boondoggle. My research tends to support Grinches in this, and I'm open to seeing well supported research that says otherwise. The flip side of the tort reform issue is that it keeps the insurance companies and the physicians on their toes and offers something of a support for consumers against those situations where insurance companies and health care providers can go off the deep end. There needs to be a recourse for the consumer for not only individual situations, for which smaller awards may be sufficient (or may not, depending on the situation) but on those situations where repeat offenses have shown that the insurance companies in particular have accepted the regular payment of small suits as being a perfectly acceptable cost of doing business because it may allow them to make a larger profit by cutting corners at the cost of what may be to them an acceptable number of injuries and lives. The example of the Pinto gas tank comes to mind as a non-health care situation. It took a very large judgement to get Ford to make the required changes. They had been willing to pay out smaller judgements as a cost of doing business because they still came out ahead. A similar case was the judgement against MacDonalds for serving very very hot coffee that was likely to cause burns if precise precautions were not taken by people going through their drive in windows. Because of the nature of the drive-through experience, it was difficult for drivers to make those adjustments, and a predictable number of serious burns resulted. MacDonalds was able to absorb those suits as a cost of doing business until punative damages were added to one judgement and these forced a change in the procedure in the take-out line, lowering the temperature of the coffee to a safer level. The utility of these sorts of legal suits is important in the health services as it is in other industries, and the need for aggressive use of this avenue is something that the industry and the industries representative in the Congress have understandably been upset about for years. The level of the upset, however, is something that is directed at removing consumer protections and attacking a Democratic party economic support base, and not cutting insurance costs. I'd need to look at Grinch's other comments at greater length. I think that the costs of medicare and medicaid may be difficult because in some cases they involve a duplication of services, and in other cases they involve the purchase of supplies that are in effect direct support of drug company full retail prices with all the trimmings. A revision of that pricing policy may well bring the costs of that program way down, and an examination of where the government has constructed a situation where it has programs that compete with each other may bring down some other costs, if the competition has only to do with competition in parallel administrative structures. TYhe notion of the government paying private insurance companies to do things at inflated prices that the government could contract out to do by private contractors to do themselves more cheaply seems wasteful as well. There are some services that private insurers should not be involved in. They function only as parasites and serve only as folks who compete for the money that should be going to the people who are in need of the services. Artificial poor people, if you will, who take care of themselves first, and do so very well indeed, before disbursing what's left to some lesser proportion of the folks who it was supposed to go to in the first place. And spend a lot of that time and money destroying potential rivals who might be able to do a better, cheaper job had there actually beena free marketplace in which free competition might have prevailed, rather than a monopoly-driven marketplace where a small number of players colluded to set the rules. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Premiums, Profits, and the Need for Health Reform http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNwkWEBNNfU |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I believe the article I posted addresses what you’re talking about, Grinch. The “cherry picking” aspect seems to be in accord, and I think your projected model of application could roll health insurance over into a more attainable product, but you didn’t address the millions who depend on their employer to provide, unless I missed that somewhere. How would employers/unions/big businesses handle such a model? And should it not be provided, how would that be reflected salary wise? It’s always good to read your input. Bob, thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts. As for betting on health vs illness? I dunno. I’ve always bet on worst case scenario because that’s been my luck at times and it’s helped me to avoid such in the present, like not having any insurance due to my employer becoming bankrupt or the abandonment of an Ex-husband. During both occurrences my health was at its worst. Stress will kill ya! and I do feel the cost of health care needs dire focus. Close examination of itemized content of bills might reveal to some what it revealed to me: My employer insisted I go to the hospital when I cut my hand at work. Ok. I cooperated. I was charged $50.00 for a cotton ball! $85.00 for the doc to peer at my hand for 2 seconds and then he told the nurse to stitch me up. She gave me 4 stitches. $175.00. A service fee of $25.00 (for the records dept.) $30.00 for a local analgesic & $12.00 for antiseptic. My employer was “footin’” the bill for my hand and I had to pry an itemization from the billing dept for my employer’s records. I wasn’t out a dime. But after seeing that folly? I contacted the hospital, raised questions, and they adjusted my bill, stating the expensive nature was due to “a new girl” in billing. Imagine the itemization for major surgery or extended care. Does anyone really look at those bills? And if someone else is footin’ the bill should people even care?? Maybe this is what health care has been banking on??? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The 1995 session (with George W. Bush was Governor) Limited punitive damages Reformed joint and several liability Restricted venue shopping Restored the Deceptive Trade Practices Act to its original purpose of protecting consumers in ordinary consumer transactions Enacted a half dozen other reforms to curtail specific lawsuit abuses The 2003 session (with George W. Bush was Governor) Enacted comprehensive reforms governing medical liability litigation, including a $750,000 limit on non-economic damages Initiated product liability reforms Made the burden of proving punitive damages similar to criminal law, requiring a unanimous jury verdict Comprehensively reformed the statutes governing joint and several liability and class action lawsuits Imposed limits on appeal bonds, enabling defendants to appeal their lawsuits and not be forced into settlements (this is what pushed Texaco into bankruptcy in its famous lawsuit against Pennzoil) Further limited the filing of lawsuits that should have been brought in other states or countries The changes to medical liability in 2003 were extraordinary, and had a very substantial impact, including: 1. In August 2004, the Texas Hospital Association reported a 70% reduction in the number of lawsuits filed against the state’s hospitals. 2. Medical liability insurance rates declined. Many doctors saw average rate reductions of over 21%, with some doctors seeing almost 50% decreases. (Recent information provided to The Perryman Group during the course of this study suggests that premiums are declining even further in 2008.) 3. Beginning in 2003, physicians started returning to Texas. The Texas Medical Board reports licensing 10,878 new physicians since 2003, up from 8,391 in the prior four years. Perryman has determined that at least 1,887 of those physicians are specifically the result of lawsuit reform. 4. In May 2006, the American Medical Association removed Texas from its list of states experiencing a liability crisis, marking the first time it has removed any state from the list. A recent survey by the Texas Medical Association also found a dramatic increase in physicians’ willingness to resume certain procedures they had stopped performing, including obstetrics, neurosurgical, radiation and oncological procedures. Last year, TLR commissioned a study by The Perryman Group to figure out the impact of these reforms (the above are excerpted from that report). Here are the economic impact findings of that study: $112.5 billion increase in annual spending $51.2 billion increase in annual output – goods and services produced in Texas $2.6 billion increase in annual state tax revenue $468.9 million in annual benefits from safer products $15.2 billion in annual net benefits of enhanced innovation 499,000 permanent jobs 430,000 additional Texans have health insurance today as a result of the medical liability reforms The complete Perryman Group report is here. As these numbers show, tort reform can have a substantial impact on economic growth and wealth creation, and a huge impact on the healthcare system in particular. Any serious national healthcare reform must include comprehensive tort reform to reduce the practice of defensive medicine and other perverse incentives. http://docisinblog.com/index.php/2009/07/27/texas-tort-reform/ |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
President Barack Obama has often argued that health insurance companies need more competition, and he's proposed a public option for health insurance to provide it. "There have been reports just over the last couple of days of insurance companies making record profits, right now," Obama said during a prime-time news conference. "At a time when everybody's getting hammered, they're making record profits, and premiums are going up. What's the constraint on that? ... Well, part of the way is to make sure that there's some competition out there." We wanted to know if he was correct that insurance companies are making record profits during one of the worst economic recessions on record. Shubitz added that the stock prices for health insurance companies are not as high as one might expect, because of impending efforts at health reform. "There are so many different possibilities of what can happen," said Shubitz, who also follows WellPoint and Aetna and has "hold" recommendations on all three. "A lot of this uncertainty is already priced into these stocks." Getting back to our ruling, we wonder if Obama was simply remembering a story he'd read in the paper that day and puffed it up a bit. One health insurance company did report unexpected profits. But it's not clear yet whether others will. And the profits UnitedHealth reported were not "record profits." We find his statement False. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/23/barack-obama/health-insurance-company-turned-profit-not-rec/ |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
THE CLAIMS -”I’m very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who also welcomed the attention being drawn to insurers’ “obscene profits.” -”Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed.” Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership. -”Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe.” A MoveOn.org ad. THE NUMBERS: Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better – drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10. The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent. HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That’s a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers. The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin. UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue. Van Hollen is right that premiums have more than doubled in a decade, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found a 131 percent increase. But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers? Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry’s overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent. The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent. http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/2359 |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Mike can you name one state that’s introduced tort reform with regard to health care and seen a reduction in health care costs? How about a single insurance company that’s reduced premiums as a result of tort reform? The possible savings from tort reform are miniscule compared with the overall cost of health care and any savings that are made aren’t passed on. http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=36768 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Harvard Medical School surgeon Atul Gawande got a candid answer to this question from a general surgeon in McAllen, Texas: “Come on,” the general surgeon finally said. “We all know these arguments are [BS]. There is overutilization here, pure and simple.” Doctors, he said, were racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures. The surgeon came to McAllen in the mid-nineties, and since then, he said, “the way to practice medicine has changed completely. Before, it was about how to do a good job. Now it is about ‘How much will you benefit?’ ” –Atul Gawande, The NewYorker While tort reform like Texas' won't improve the cost of our health care, changing our charge-per-service structure just might. Apparently, there are more things that off-set the benefits of tort reform. On my other point.... Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. Does a 2.2% profit margin qualify the health insurance industry as being Obama's whipping boy? Shall we go after all industries that post that kind of profit...or more? Obama need a whipping boy? Health insurance is his. There are other areas to look...tort reform is one. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
WASHINGTON – Starting over on health care, President Barack Obama knows his chances aren't looking much more promising. A year after he called for a far-reaching overhaul, Obama unveiled his most detailed plan yet on Monday. Realistically, he's just hoping to win a big enough slice to silence the talk of a failing presidency. If Obama ultimately settles for a pared-down plan, the final bill could look a lot like what Republicans have been calling for over many years. It would include federal funding for high-risk pools that would extend coverage to people denied because of medical problems, a new insurance marketplace for small employers and individuals buying their own policies, as well as tax credits for small businesses. White House senior adviser David Axelrod said the president had no intention of scaling back his vision — unless forced. "His goal is to make as much of a good-faith effort as we can possibly muster" for a broad remake, Axelrod said. In the new political order, Obama's plan builds on the legislation passed by Senate Democrats on Christmas Eve, while making several changes designed to make it more acceptable to House Democrats. It would dramatically roll back a Senate tax on high-cost health insurance plans objected to by the House — and by labor unions. Instead of raising $150 billion over 10 years, the tax would bring in just $30 billion, the administration said. To plug the revenue gap, Obama would raise Medicare payroll taxes on upper-income earners. For the first time, Medicare taxes would be assessed on investment income, not just wages. In other concessions to the House, the president's proposal would gradually close the coverage gap in Medicare prescription benefits, eliminate a universally scorned Medicaid deal for Nebraska and improve federal subsidies to help many middle-class households afford their insurance premiums under a revamped system. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100222/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul Like the Senate bill, the Obama plan would create competitive insurance markets in each state for small businesses and people buying their own coverage. But it would strip out special Medicaid deals the Senate bill granted to certain states, including Louisiana and Nebraska, that have drawn public scorn. It also would gradually close the Medicare prescription coverage gap, make newly available coverage for working families more affordable. Those changes move in the direction of the House bill. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-22-health-care-obama_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomWashington-TopStories+%28New s+-+Washington+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo It also will roll back the 10 year compromise on high-priced insurance plans that were supposed to benefit union members only and now must include everyone. Obama wrote "The Audacity of Hope". The book should have been titled, "The Audacity". That describes him perfectly. He sets up the sweetheart deals for some just to see if he can get away with it. When the screams get loud enough, he backs off and takes them away. Sorry, Nebraska. Sorry, Louisiana. Sorry, labor unions. The scams didn't fly. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Are you saying, Balladeer, that you think insurance companies SHOULD be making higher profits than Coors or Taco Bell? Wouldn’t shooting for higher profits also mean bumping more of those with chronic illnesses or those needing expensive life saving care out of the pool and raising already astronomical premiums even higher? Changing the charge-per-service structure sounds sort of like a sneaky way rationing care. Hmmm, I’ll have to look that up. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Axtually, I said nothing of the kind. What I did say is that the insurance companies didn't even make the profit margin of Taco Bell...or an awful lot of other companies and do not warrant being used as the "evil abomination" Obama is trying to make them out to be to push his proposals. He needs a common villain, a tactic used by many leaders to rally the troops. Maybe we SHOULD go after Taco Bell! They make more profits and just think of how many bodies they damage with their "El Scorcho" sauce which wind up as hospital visits with all of the medical costs, doctor care, procedures they incur, not to mention obesity. That's the answer.....chill the Chihuahua! |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
“He needs a common villain, a tactic used by many leaders to rally the troops” Thanks Balladeer, now I get it, sort of like Bush used Saddam and his non-existent WMD’s to rally the troops. Anyway, as the many instances of denying coverage, putting profits over patient care prove, this time the “villain” does indeed have weapons of mass destruction...so to speak. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
DOn't forget Hitler using the Jews and Osama Bin Laden using the United States. I didn't use those examples because the next charge would have been that I was comparing Obama to Hitler, which I'm not. That particular tactic is the same, however. Profit over care? Definitely. As I quoted above.. “Come on,” the general surgeon finally said. “We all know these arguments are [BS]. There is overutilization here, pure and simple.” Doctors, he said, were racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures. The surgeon came to McAllen in the mid-nineties, and since then, he said, “the way to practice medicine has changed completely. Before, it was about how to do a good job. Now it is about ‘How much will you benefit?’ ” –Atul Gawande, The NewYorker Apparently insurance companies do not have exculsive rights to that tactic. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Just curious, Balladeer, did you actually read the entire article by Atul Gawande you’ve quoted from in the post above? If you haven’t, perhaps you should. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
yes, I read it. Just curious...did you read the politifact truth-o-meter link? I know that politifact is regarded highly here. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Yes I did, Balladeer. I love the pants on fire parts of the truth-o-meter that exposes how right wing pundits, Limbaugh and Fox “entertainers” like Beck and have made up so much stuff re HCR. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/st atements/2010/jan/28/nancy-pfotenhauer/health-care-reform-does-not-increase-premiums-and-/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statement s/2009/nov/12/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-health-care-bill-includes-insura/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/10 /sarah-palin/sarah-palin-barack-obama-death-panel/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/sta tements/2009/nov/03/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-claims-page-92-prohibits-private-/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statement s/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/ Anyway, nite, nite. Good to know you're ok. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Obama lays cards on table. Where’s the GOP health bid? His plan is as easy to pick on as its precursors were. (What change of this scale isn't?) But strip away all the Washington ax grinding and ideological infighting, and the plan can be put to a very simple test: Would it produce a health care system better than today's — one that would leave people confident that they could get high-quality care at a reasonable price? The answer is yes. In a nation where 46 million people lack health insurance, Obama's proposal would eventually cover more than 30 million. It would provide subsidies to help lower-income people buy policies. And it would eliminate an array of noxious insurance company practices, such as denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions. Like other plans on the left and right, the biggest weakness in Obama's is that it falls short in curbing the medical inflation that threatens to send premiums and the federal deficit soaring. It's disappointing that the president further weakened the "Cadillac" tax on expensive health insurance plans, one of the most important ways to discourage overuse of medical care — and cut costs. The larger picture, though, is that his plan would improve the lives of tens of millions of people without increasing the budget deficit. Republicans, by tossing bombs while refusing to negotiate, effectively stand for the unacceptable status quo, which is doubly troubling because individual Republicans have good ideas. Obama has adopted some, notably ones aimed at reducing Medicare and Medicaid fraud. He should take more, such as malpractice reform to reduce costly "defensive medicine." But responding to Obama's plan Monday, Republicans pretty much stuck with their drumbeat of demonization and obstruction, which has proved politically profitable. Key Republicans have dropped their support for fixes they once supported, such as curbing Medicare spending and requiring everyone to have medical insurance as a matter of personal responsibility. And the only coherent alternative the GOP has collectively produced would barely cover an extra 3 million people out of 46 million uninsured, according to the Congressional Budget Office, at least 27 million fewer than the Democrats' bills. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/02/debate-on-medical-overhaul-our-view-obama-lays-cards-on-table-wheres-the-gop-health-bid-.html#more [This message has been edited by JenniferMaxwell (02-23-2010 08:09 AM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Check your link, Jennifer. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Thanks Balladeer, I fixed it. |
||
|
threadbear Senior Member
since 2008-07-10
Posts 817Indy |
I would love to see an Autism Wellness bill passed that would help diffuse costs to families. 75%of all parents with autistic children, divorce. Most of the ones I know also went bankrupt trying to provide special care and education to the child. - provision 1: research money 1 out of every 100 children now have autism. The statistic used to be 1 out of every 750. - Provision 2: early diagnosis fast tracks - Provision 3: pay for percentage of care for autistic families - Provision 4: pay for reimbursement for skyrocketing one-on-one aututism education costs |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
In response to some of Mike's comments I offer a few interesting links. Here they are. In looking at Mike's stuff, and then at the supporting material that emerged in Google, I noticed: 1) that there was a lot of it from a fairly wide range of places; and 2) all those sources seemed to say a remarkably narrow range of things in remarkably similar language, and that all of it seemed to be released within a fairly narrow time frame. This looked like it might be a PR flood. I looked for some other information that seemed solid and reliable and offered a different perspective. I found this article from testimony in front of congress by an ex-insurance company executive (Cigna) who addresses some of the stuff that's in contention: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/potter_testimony.html I thin noticed that the business about the 2.2% profit margin seemed a bit rigid, especially since it was the same (and I assume correct) number being offered over and over but without any sort of structure or explanation around it, as though the mere mention of the phrase "profit margin" ought to be magic and explain everything when, of course, it doesn't. Especially during a recession. The inevitable comparison with the profit margin for soft drinks (25%) is offered as though that should settle matters forever, when of course it doesn't. If the insurance companies thought that this were the case, they'd be in the soft drink business, wouldn't they? I mean, really, folks, are we supposed to have checked our brains at the door? The Denver post offers some basic comments about that, in an article I quote, below. http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14386704?source=bb And here's a more complete look at the picture from another source. The folks doing the analysis are Liberal, but you can strain out the bias when you check out the facts, which seem to be from neutral sources, including filings from the insurance companies themselves required by law. http://hcfan.3cdn.net/a9ce29d3038ef8a1e1_dhm6b9q0l.pdf Should the possible bias above feel bothersome, or should you feel distrustful of how well the facts have been disentangled, the Wall Street Journal, below, has done a sector analysis of the thing below. They remind us that the problem is not simply an insurance problem, but a health care sector problem, and that it needs to be addressed that way. I for one was surprised to see the comment in the Wall Street Journal. They also mentioned, in passing, that the Health insurance folks have managed to triple their growth recently; despite what they say about their 2.2% profit margin, The Journal was quite pleased with them. All in all, it would appear that the picture that Mike has been painting is somewhat a PR picture to counter the negatives that The Health Insurance folks have been getting recently. Even some of the Health Insurance complaints about loss of business in California seems to have been a bit of a red herring. The business that the Health Insurance sheds seems to end up making them money in savings of money that they would have to shell out in payments. Also it seems that their notion of 2.2% doesn't take increased administrative costs and salaries into account. I do not know, but I would suspect that bonuses and merit raises would well come under one of the other of those categories, though perhaps others might disagree. One might only wonder how high the profits, which ran over 12 billion dollars for the five companies under consideration just last year, would have run. And this is during a very serious recession with many people out of work and with major expenses for lobbying and politicking doubtless to be paid, not to mention advertising expenses as well. Take your own stab at a more realistic figure. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/health-care-ends-bonanza-decade-on-bright-note-2009-11-19 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
They remind us that the problem is not simply an insurance problem, but a health care sector problem, and that it needs to be addressed that way. I for one was surprised to see the comment in the Wall Street Journal. But, Bob, that is the point. it is NOT simply an insurance problem. There are many areas that contribute to the problem. Listening to Obama, however, it is the insurance company that has three heads and a pointy tail. They are the ones taking the barbs, the accusations and the fault of the fall of the health care system. Obama has selected them to be his target and rallying cry to the troops. Have you heard anything nearly as negative said about the hospitals, the doctors, the pharmaceutical companies, the lawyers or any other facet of the industry? Me, neither. You are surprised that the Wall Street Journal would state that it is not simply an insurance problem? I would be surprised if they said anything else. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. George Will has recently made the point that if you took all the profits from all the applicable insurance companies it would amount to about two days of the nation's health care. http://www2.nationalreview.com/video/video_homie_022210_A.html Also insurance companies being public are not only audited but subject to a number of reviews so the percentage profit number is probably accurate. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
If you'll check my post, John, I'm not raising a fuss about the accuracy 2.2% figure. It is, however, somewhat misleading. It is a profit taken in the depths of the second recession that folks — and especially the Republicans at this point, lest you forget that point — are touting as a really terrible recession when profit margins are generally supposed to be at all time lows. That Profit margin according to the Wall Street Journal has tripled in recent years. And we are not talking about return on investments, were 2.2% would, indeed be low, but a 2.2% profit margin. That means NET. One of the points I was making earlier was that the profit margin of 2.2% takes no account of increased of unspecified amounts in "administrative costs" or of "salaries," nor does it specify where those expenses went. Being a neo-Californian, just getting used to life in LA, I have only recently become aware of the vital differences between Gross and Net in some businesses. Out here, in the movie business, it is apparently the case that if you wish to get paid, and well paid, your contract is for a percentage of the gross, which is guarded like access to Fort Knox. The foolish or the unwary are often fobbed off with promises of a percentage of the Net. Accounting being what it is, very very few movies, not matter how profitable, actually manage to make a Net Profit. They are structured that way from the beginning to avoid having to pay very much tax. An actual Loss may be preferable, if it can be managed, while all the actual major investors will frequently get paid from the Gross. Even so, a lot of movies will lose money in real terms. It is a chancy business. But there can be a great deal of money made that never shows up as part of the Net. But perhaps the accountants in the insurance industry are very stupid and don't understand how to do these things. Perhaps the people in the insurance industry don't get bonuses. Or if they get bonuses, the bonuses they get are all part of the net profits that show up on the books. I'm utterly convinced by that, as John is surely completely convinced by that and as Mike is utterly and completely convinced by that. After all the news stories released by this latest wave of insurance company informational PR make no mention of anything like that, and they would surely mention something like that, wouldn't they? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
One would note here that the 2.9 Billion dollar profit claimed by Blue Shield of California here is reported with a bit more detail in this interesting report as THE FOURTH QUARTER EARNINGS and not as what the earlier and other sources seemed to leave unspecified for us less than highly economically educated readers. That would be me. This means that the figures that they were reporting in other places were decidedly on the low side. When the newspaper reports were reporting Health insurance profits of 12 Billion dollars, silly me, I was led to believe that they were talking about 12 Billion dollars per year for the industry. Now it appears that the truth of the matter is that 12 Billion Dollars a year would be closer to what the yearly profit is on the money made by JUST THIS SINGLE CALIFORNIA COMPANY. Of course that’s only a measly 2.2%. You or I would starve on 2.2%. Of what we have available to us. Should you care to actually look through the article in a bit more detail, you’ll notice that 2.2% really is too tiny for this company, even though at 2.2% adds up to almost 12Billion dollars per year, and that they are seeking an approximately 39% rate hike, to get that tiny little drop-in-the-bucket profit margin up just a little bit where it doesn’t have to feel ashamed of itself. I do so feel their pain. http://www.care2.com/causes/health-policy/blog/health-insurer-defends-39-percent-premium-increase/ Having spend must of the last 40 years or so in Boston, I’ve grown familiar with a concept called Lying by Omission. It’s supposed to be as bad as lying by commission, but seems to be more favored by people who want to appear to be telling the truth while they’re really working very hard at constructing, crafting, polishing and presenting a lie of international Gold Medal Quality. I don't think the Olymic Lying Event runs during the Winter Olympics, though. It's probably a Summer Olympic event, butcause winter Olympic events have so much downhill to them, and with the Olympic Lying event, it seems to me like there's never really a downside, is there? It's all sunshine and smiles. I must say that without actually saying one thing that wasn’t literally true, the insurance companies and their PR flack friends seem to have taken you for a big time trip here. You need to find a better grade of publican and sinner to hang out with, guys. These folks are malicious. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Lying by omission....that describes the 2.2 million jobs "saved" by the stimulus plan. Got it... Malicious....Obama hasn't used that word yet but I'm sure he will get around to it. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Will the Republicans Post Their Health Plan… and When? The President believes strongly that Thursday’s bipartisan meeting on health insurance reform will be most productive if both sides come to the table with a unified plan to start discussion – and if the public has the opportunity to inspect those proposals up close before the meeting happens. That’s why yesterday the White House posted online the President’s proposal for bridging the differences between the Senate- and House-passed health insurance reform bills. The proposal puts American families and small business owners in control of their own health care. It makes insurance more affordable by providing the largest middle-class tax cuts for health care in history, it ends discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, holds insurance companies accountable, and reduces our deficit by $100 billion over the next 10 years. But you don’t have to take our word for it: the proposal is posted right here at WhiteHouse.gov for everyone to examine. You can read through the plan’s bipartisan ideas section by section, or you can select your health care status and find out what the proposal would mean for you. You can even submit a question for our policy staff to answer. What you can’t do just yet is read about the Republicans’ consensus plan – because so far they haven’t announced what proposal they’ll be bringing to the table. To be sure, there are many Republicans who share the President’s conviction that we need to act on reform, and there are several pieces of Republican health care legislation out there. Previously we were told this was the House Republican bill. Is it still? We look forward to hearing whether this the proposal they'll bring. The Senate Republicans have yet to post any kind of plan, so we continue to await word from them. As of right now, the American people still don’t know which one Congressional Republicans support and which one they want to present to the public on Thursday. President Obama has been clear that his proposal isn’t the final say on legislation, and that’s what Thursday’s meeting is all about. But after a year of historic national dialogue about reform, it’s time for both sides to be clear about what their plan is to lower costs, hold insurance companies accountable, make health insurance affordable for those without it, and reduce the deficit. A collection of piecemeal and sometimes conflicting ideas won’t do. As we said today, we’ll be happy to post the Republican plan on our website once they indicate to us which one we should post. We hope they won’t pass up this opportunity to make their case to the American people. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/02/22/will-republicans-post-their-health-plan-and-when |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
We should ask someone who is dying. I have a few people who are, but there is one in particular that I think might get some angst-sorta-therapy out of stating her mind. She understands that I don't want to understand. Let me know if ya'll are interested in an American Dream gone bad. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I'm sorry, I thought I was talking about the health care and insurance issues that You wanted to talk about, Mike. If I'd knjown that actually trying to address some of the points that you made and the sources that you brought up to make the points would end up with you changing the subject to jobs and recovery, I would have asked you in advance to keep to the subject of health care. But I do know that you dislike that sort of thing. Even if you dislike the points my comments try to make about the source material you've been talking about doesn't mean I'm right in my reasoning or in my conclusions. It simply means that the case I'm making isn't all that bad. And I do think I've made at least a reasonable case. That is, I can be seen believing my case if you look at it with an open mind. If, Mike, you are upset about what I'm saying about your comments about health care, why not repond to what I've said about health care? I'm sure that you have some interesting thoughts to share; and if you want to talk about the jobs bill or job reform, you've always been good about starting other threads to deal with these issues. I'll probably have stuff to say there as well. Right now, though, if we confuse these discussions, I won't get a very good idea of how you've understood what I've said, what you think of my reasoning and what you think of health care in general right now. And I agree with you that it is very important, especially with the president and the Senate Republicans getting together to talk about it soon. 1990 pages wage too long, 11 pages was much too short, a request for open dialogue, especially televised, was an urgent request by Mr. Boehner so the public could see what was going on; now that the press is invited to film, Mr. Boehner is unsure because being televised may preclude serious dialogue. The one think that I feel I can say with some certainty is that things are moving, though I can't say for certain which direction they are moving in. For all I can tell, it's around in majestic circles, but at least there seems to be some sort of reciprocal movement. Take a deep breath and let's see if we can continue to talk, Mike. You comments about the low profit margins really did set me back on my heels for abit and did make me think and re-examine the way I was looking at things. I found it useful. I'm hoping you can take my comments in the same spirit. The two of us can actually act like we're constructing a conversation and building up and testing facts and trying to get at the heart of things. This means that everybody has to think and re-think the way we see things and the way we understand them. I hope. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
If I'd known that actually trying to address some of the points that you made and the sources that you brought up to make the points would end up with you changing the subject to jobs and recovery, I would have asked you in advance to keep to the subject of health care. Sorry, Bob. After the responses I got in #73 and #77, I was beginning to think that was the new norm around here. You brought up a tactic known as lying by ommission and even labeled it malicious so I felt it not out of line to show an area where the Democrats themselves have used the same approach. If it is more proper to apply it solely to health care, no problem. Lying by ommission would be Obama declaring there were 46 million uninsured Americans needing health care without stating that over 9 million of them were illegal aliens, folks he claimed would not be eligible for coverage. (he later had to backtrack and adjust his figures, if you recall). Lying by ommission would be declaring that the cost would be deficit neutral, which it will not be. Lying by ommission would be the ping-pong world of the public option,which he declares is vital, is not vital, which must be included, which is optional. Lying by ommission is just another way of saying the devil is in the details. You call it malicious? Then you have to call all government actions using the same equally malicious. It would appear to me that you are reciting the same passages from Obama's playbook....demonize the insurance companies and make them the German Jews of 1935. God knows I am no fan of insurance companies but, as I stated earlier (which you decided not to respond to the question), where is the outrage over the other facets of the industry which also contribute to the high cost of health care? Obama is good about putting up wanted posters to vilify and incite the masses, be it banks, wall street, big business, insurance companies or anyone else he thinks will work (excluding ones he has made back door deals with, of course). Bob, when you hear the President or democrats talk, they always say one thing..."The American people want....", as if they are speaking for the American people, when, in fact, that is a bald-faced lie. Poll after poll, month after month, every poll shows that the American people do NOT want the democrat plan for health care, at least not the parts they are allowed to see. They want to see reform and cost-cutting procedures put into place but the majority do NOT believe that the proposed plan is the answer. How then can Democrat after Democrat proclaim that their plan is what the American people want when, in fact, the people have shown they want the exact opposite? Btw, your concern for my being "upset" by your words or thoughts is very thoughtful but don't let it bother you, my friend. Things in real life can upset me, although I try my best not to let them. Here in cyberspace, I can only get bemused or slightly irritated at best by what you or anyone else says, which dissipates the moment I press the Power Off button and return to real life. Perhaps you feel the same. In real life, I would be happy to sit down and buy you a beer or the beverage of your choice and speak of Michaelangelo.The fact of the matter, Bob, is that this isn't for the American people. This is personal. This is Obamacare. Obama wants to be known as the president that finally passed health care. The Democratic congress wants to be known as the congress that passed health care. That's what both want to be their legacy. God knows they need something. With a Democratic President, Democratic House and Democratic senate, with the power to pass anything they feel like, they have been singularly inneffective. Even several of the democratic congressmen have admitted that they need health care passed because they need SOMETHING to take back home to show voters they accomplished at least something. Obama just wants it for himself. With the vast majority of public opinion stating that unemployment is the major issue of the day needing to be resolved, Obama still throws the majority of his effort into health care, a program that will not even take effect for three years. If he threw 10% of the effort he has expounded in health care into job creation and employment, the country would be a lot better off, but then that would add to his legacy, would it? Health care overhaul is his baby, whether the American people support it or not. [This message has been edited by Balladeer (02-24-2010 10:57 AM).] |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
This is an interesting article: Fact-checking the GOP on healthcare reform "Almost no one is noting the extraordinary influence Republicans had on the healthcare reform bill crafted by the Senate, as it made its way through the committee process last year. The bill approved by Sen. Christopher Dodd's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee, for instance, included 161 amendments authored by Republicans. Only 49 Republican amendments were rejected out of 210 considered. Yet the bill got zero Republican votes when it passed out of the committee." ... "The Washington Post's Ezra Klein has noted that the final Democratic proposals have contained multiple GOP planks. To mention just a few: • Allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do • Give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower healthcare costs • End junk lawsuits • Let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines" ... "But they (Democrats) haven't compromised with Republicans? It seems as though the GOP's definition of compromise and collaboration involves the president and the Democrats dropping all of their ideas and passing the Republican platform. That's OK; it's their job to push their party line. But too much of the media seems to be falling for it." http://www.salon.com/news/healthcare_reform/index.html?story=/opinion/f eature/2010/02/23/hcr_amendments |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Someone needs to make up their minds. Obama and Reid claim there is no Republican participation and yet we have the above post. Can't they get their stories straight? Republicans either participated or they didn't. If they didn't, Obama is right and all of those republican entries are figments of someone's imagination. If they did, then Obama is lying. Your choice.... |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: I'm not a Catholic, though I do admire the religion, and I've on occasion tried to help lapsed Catholics get back in touch with the many fine qualities it offers when it seems therapeutically indicated. It has frequently provided material that allows for common ground in discussion with folks that have a devout background; I have some notion of what the church is talking about here, and once I mention the idea, they can get the drift of what I'm saying more easily, so it helps the talk along, especially when we're talking about addictions and stuff like that. So you'll understand when I say that yeah, it's a tactic, and people who use it that way really are doing it in a malicious way. When the priests that I've spoken to talk to be about it, though, they talk about it in terms of it being a sin. They point out, often, that the root meaning of the word "sin" has to do with error, with making an error, so I guess they're looking at lying by omission in a more charitable way than I do. I think of the fact that it's something you have to do on purpose, more or less. I think the priests would more or less think of it in terms of a partly conscious form of self-deception. I figure PR folks and Ad Agencies aren't paid to deceive themselves; they're paid to deceive the public, and that is something different entirely. And when they do that sort of deception to help others harm or even kill themselves for the profit of those who hire the advertising or Public Relation skills of these professionals, I fugure some sort of moral line has been crossed. I pride myself on my pragmatics, and here I am talking about some sort of moral line. I have a lot of them, I guess; I simply doen't like to drag them into these discussions. People will start to upbraid me for being a Liberal trying to induce Liberal Guilt in other people when I'm simply sharing a personal dislike. That is, I don't like people who make money off the self destructive behavior of others; and especially those who say, "Hey, if I didn't do it, somebody else would." You've got to wonder where the beginning of the line starts for people to volunteer for some of those jobs. Sure, I'll get people to buy more cigarettes. And so on. It pays well. (Sorry for the digression.) Are there Democrats in who lie by omission? Sure there are. I'm sure that everybody does it from time to time, as well; it's not that the thing is so rare that nobody every came up with a name for it before. It's got a name because it's so very common. Should you be embarrassed because you got taken by so fast-talking dorks? No Sir, you should not. It happens all the time, and this sort of fast talking dork is so good at this sort of thing they are paid to do it, and paid very well indeed. It is their job to lie to well meaning people by telling part of the truth and doing so in a convincing way. And I personally learned material from what you said and the stuff you quoted. So I would be stunned if Democrats didn't do the same think, and didn't do it well. The question that seems a useful one to my mind is what parts of the truth are they telling that you are throwing out because you assume them them to be lies? And what can you learn that ghets you closer to an understanding of reality? quote: You had this discussion with Grinch, as I recall. If it was not you, it was in a discussion between Denise and Grinch. Grinch pointed out that the law was written to exclude illegals from coverage. He pointed out the exact text in the law, as I recall. In case it was to Denise and not to you, or in case it was to you and you've forgotten some of the details, you might try e-mailing for the exact chapter and verse. Anybody may go into a hospital Emergency room with the reasonable expectation of life-saving emergency treatment, as I understand it, even without proof of identity or citizenship. I know that some hospitals on occasion try to turn some such folks away if they don't have insurance cards, or try to send them to "public hospitals." This would be an example of ad hoc Death Panels and Health Care rationing on life and death matters being imposed in for-profit institutions today. I have the same feeling about this that Denise has expressed about the potential of such things being imposed in the future. It stinks. I regard it as institutionalized murder or manslaughter by depraved indifference. It is also contrary to the oath that physicians take in order to become physicians. Talk about having legislation interfere with the relationship between a physician and a patient! Holy Canolli. Mike. Thar she blows! quote: You may be right, but I don't know. It would depend on the funding mechanism, wouldn't it? Then it would depend on which actual propgram is passed. And without a bill in place for us to evaluate that, I don't think I could tell you. Furthermore, you have no basis to make that assertion to tell me. There have been various estimates, some of which look closer than others. If the funding does include savings in the money spent on government drug purchases and the institution of a single payer health plan, it may indeed be budget neutral or close to it. If the whole notion of insurance and health care reform is scuttled, then it will not be. The President seems bent on offering versions of the bill with substantial Republican input. See Jennifer's comments above, where she is able to substantiate that. Exactly how that affects the cost of the billis something I don't know. Are these ammendments useful or are they poison pellets, so that the bill will be doomed to failure even those it may be passed entirely without Republican support, assuming such a thing is possible. It may in fact be structured with costly additions, and I wouldn't know who added them, Mike. Nor, I fear, would you. Is this Lying by Omission? Or is it a description of how the bill was constructed at one particular point in time or is it something else entirely? I can't tell you because I really don't know, {quote] Lying by ommission would be the ping-pong world of the public option,which he declares is vital, is not vital, which must be included, which is optional. Lying by ommission is just another way of saying the devil is in the details. [/quote] Do you have anything to back this up in context, Mike? It seems a bit vague to me. The devil may be in the details. This is often where Fraud lies as well, and manslaughter and various other things where the crime is in not revealing the potential damage or in misleading or in offering false information. You are trying to make nice and in the process coming across like a lawyer. quote: Certainly I call it malicious. That's what I was saying, and I went about the business of saying where, how and why. Now you are saying, If . . . then. If this (private sector example of) Catagory I is A, Then all (Government sector examples of) Catagory I are A. If you're trying to get me to come out in favor of the Government lying, you've come to the wrong guy. If you want to jump on President Obama, you've never had to ask permission. Your comment about the German Jews of 1935 makes absolutely no sense at all. I have said repeatedly that the drug companies were getting away with highway robbery and that they should have to submit competitive bids. I even said it during the time the legislation was being discussed and have said it loudly and frequently since. I usually accompany my comments about that with comments about the sweetheart deal that the then President Bush made with the drug Companies in the matter. I commented about the Republican role in the voting and the debt that that vote guaranteed to wrack up and I commented on the fact that the thing could have been done for much much cheaper and still provide the needed services. Perhaps you forget my comments at that time. You should be well aware of my comments since, if only because of the reasonable frequency with which I have voiced them. I also will stop to criticize the spineless quality of the Democrats who didn't hold out for a more taxpayer friendly version of that bill. They were wimps. This is a misinformed thing to criticize me about, Mike. I'm sure you can find other, more appropriate things, authentic flaws that I can learn from. quote: Yes, I do know that, Mike, and I respect you for it, and I even appreciate you taking time out in the middle of the discussion to say so. Comments such as this are very important to me. quote: I realize you see this from your position, but I have trouble from mine. And I find it difficult to get a sense of his impact on those masses as well. I wish he were better about following through. I understand that this makes no sense to you, probably, and that you are probably grateful that he's not so good at these things. quote: I am to some extent, with you on this one. Though I'm afraid that what I see here and what you see are different. That may not be so much a surprise. What I have seen and heard over and over is that the congress is not pushing for what a large portion of what the people want, which is a single payer health plan. There are people, like you, and Threadbear and Denise who are really deadset against such a thing, but the polls that I hear about seem to show a large part of the public wants that as at least a strong option. I think that the Democrats are pretty much in the pockets of the insurance companies and the Drug companies, with no real excuse for it. The Republicans are in the same pockets, but they haven't campaigned in the same way and for the same set of interests, and I think they're weakness is more understandable. I don't like it, but I understand it. Let me try to be clear, I think the Democrats are doing a better job on the whole of trying to speak for the American people, but the whole political process is so much in the hands of the multinationals and the money guys who can help a legislator into office or help an opponent get him out of office that we need the equivalent of a constitutional ammendment to get that money out of politics and get the regular folks back in. The decision in the Supreme Court about Money and Free Speech still makes me gag. It's like turning over the country to the highest bidder, the folks who can get together the highest advertising budget for tv ads and publicty blitzes and October surprises. quote: A couple of adult beverages would be nice some time, especially if you're ever in this neck of the woods. I sometimes get to the Charleston area. Maybe we could work something out at some point. It's be a lot of fun. Are are you in Florida? As for being concerned with treating you well on line, I continue to be concerned with treating you well on line. I do think and feel about things after the power button is off. I think about friends I haven't spoken with in 30 years, and have mental conversations almost as though they were still there. When I meet them, it's almost as though I'm meeting a stranger, sometimes, because I've got this self-created person in my head who's my old friend from 30 years before and here in front of me is this person that I have to get to know all over again. Maybe we'll get along, maybe not, but I've still got my inner pal. How strange! I think sometimes. I'm such an introvert. quote: Again, I think you're on to something. If only they could work together and get it actually done. I want to leave a legacy, too. Many people do, but a lot of us poets want to leave a legacy in the form of poems that people will read. This is basic to what people are and how people operate. quote: Not sure I'm with you so much, here. Jobs and employment can be a legacy as well. Think of FDR. Whatever your thoughts may be about FDR, coming as you do from the Republican standpoint so often, and I've heard Republicans give a whole range of opinions on the man, you've got to acknowledge that there are a lot of people who are sure as can be that FDR brough us jobs and led us out of The Great Depression. Kenneth Roberts, who hated the man, had an ashtry made of Roosevelt-head dimes, so that he could put his cigarettes out on FDR's face every time he reached for a new one. It really can be a legacy. Americans want health care as well. It sells better when their working, though. As the Clinton Campaign said, "It's the economy, Stupid!" and it's still true today. When more people are working, health care will be a more immediate part of the economy, though, and will shoot people in the wallets more directly. It's still the leading cost of bankruptcy far as I know. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I don't recall the President saying there was no Republican participation, Balladeer, but you say he did indeed say that and since there was, therefore he's lying. Calling the President a liar is a pretty strong statement. I'm sure you must have something to back that up with, so link please. Since the Republicans had such an extraordinary influence on the bill, why do you keep calling it Obamacare? Shouldn't the Republicans take at least some responsibility for what's in the bill? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
You, Mike, can have it both ways. Lots of ammendments, lots of Republican ideas, a plan that is virtually identical to the plan the Republicans suggested in response to the 1994 Hillary plan and would have voted for then and they still en block vote against it suggest that republicans were listened to. When were the "No Republican Help" statements made in comparison to the included ammendments, Mike? Are you comparing statements made at the same time about the same subject? Please quote the statements themselves. And what help are the ammendments if they aren't enough to get the help needed to get a health care bill passed? If you're going to make liar liar comments, you'd better get your comments and contexts nailed down and be ready to show your aces when your hand is called, hey. And please show all work. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, ladies and gentleman, I will have to look for links. Undoubtedly everything done or said in the past several years must be on the internet somewhere, I assume you must believe. I find it difficult for either of you to believe, however, that you hadn't heard Reid, Pelosi or Obama criticize republicans for their lack of participation in the health care process. I can hear Reid saying now, "Where is your plan?" to the democrats. I can also recall Obama chastizing republicans in his meeting with them several weeks ago for not coming forth with ideas. it must be that you missed that. buenas noches... |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Take your time coming up with quotes or links to back your statement that the President said there was no Republican participation, Balladeer, no rush. If you need a link to the transcript of that meeting you mentioned let me know. I have it right here, just finished reading it to refresh my recollection. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I remember that the ideas that the President criticised the Republicans for coming up with were ideas that didn't get by the budget advisors and weren't fiscally sound. I listened to the presentation for the Folks in the House, which was a very interesting conversation, I thought, and which may explain some of what we're talking about here. Over and over, The Republicans would come up with questions such as the ones that you were asking, and The President would have to complete the the sound byte for them, such as (and this is by no means exact; you'd have to look at a transcript for exact examples, I'm only trying to give you a flavor here) "Yes, you submitted me proposals, but when I sent them to my advisors and to fact checkers, all the proposals said that the proposals weren't budget neutral and would end up costing us extra money." There were a lot of exchanges like that one during the conference; and a mean A LOT. I don't know that the Republicans made their comments in bad faith, but then I can't imaginer that they were stupid, either. I simply didn't and don't know what to make of them. It was clear that at least some of them were sincerte and decent folks, and it was clear that The President thought so too, and, what's more, he treated them that way, though he sort of half appologized for it, like he knew he might be getting them in trouble, and he didn't want to do that. I think I remember that you said you hadn't actually watched the actual broadcast in its entirety, but only excerpts on Fox, and that might be your problem. Why not check out tonight's broadcast of C-Span. It won't be trying as hard to entertain you, but then it won't be trying as hard to spin the material right or left. You'll still be disliking The President, so that won't change. You'll still be rooting for your guys, so that won't change, but you will get pretty much the whole give and take and you won't depend on what somebody else is trying to tell you what everybody said. You'll have heard the whole thing for yourself. You'll hear enough of Fox and the other folks later. The straight BS is better that somebody else's version of the BS is better than someody else's self-serving version of of somebody else's version of the BS. That last would be comentators of one version or another, who can have an interesting take or interpretation; interesting so long as you don't confuse it with the BS its own self. If you know what I mean. Sorry if I'm trying to suggest a new way to suck eggs here, soldier. It just a lot of us don't like 'em powdered. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “The government’s own data show that the typical American defined as poor (according to the traditional, pre-Obama poverty measure) has two color televisions, cable or satellite service, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He also has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is far from the stark images conveyed by the mainstream media and liberal politicians.” http://article.nationalreview.com/427180/obamas-new-poverty-measurement/robert-rec tor?page=2 I’ve seen this data referred to before. If true, I’m not sure if I’m poor, (or worst), or being conned. Just who then are we hoping to help with such a massive program at the ant’s expense? . |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
The poverty level is defined by income, not by possessions which may have been given to you out of charity or compassion, picked up from curbside recycling or second hand stores, some so old or damaged as to be worthless even for scarp, or those you don’t actually own. Those we’re trying to help are those unable to afford the astronomical costs of healthcare, those denied coverage/treatment by greedy insurance companies, those suffering for lack of affordable healthcare. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: I see him saying so. I do not see him offering any references. You'd think it would be a simple matter, though, for him to offer them if they are at hand. If you've seen them somewhere, John, I'd appreciate any memory you have of where , though I understand you might not have any exact memory either. I might believe the media stuff, because, over the years, that's gotten a lot cheaper and you can get it on lay-a-way or you can rent it in some places. Cars are pretty much essential for most adults, though the sorts of cars poor folks get are often cheap used cars that require large amounts of money at unpredictable intervals to keep them running. They're often more expensive in the long run than a modest low cost new car if you can swing the down payment. I don't know who this guy at the national review is checking with, but in the poor neighborhoods I lived in, there were a lot of laundromats, and they were social centers. If you had a lot of furniture, it was often rented, as were computers printers, refrigerators. t.v.'s. Child-care was often a big problem. Depending on how the job market was doing, you might be on food stamps or not. The notion about having enough to eat at the poverty line is not really very easy to swing. But, I'll tell you what, it's been a while since I've been poor that way. Here's what I suggest to you as an experiment. Go to one of the government web-sites and look up what the current povery level is for however many people you have in your family, and then, as an experiment, put exactly that much money aside for all your needs for one month — rent, food, car payments, electric, gas, water, fuel, entertainment, the whole shebang, and see how easy it is for you. If it's simple, try it for three months, and see if that makes any difference. Make a point of not spending any more on medical than you'd be able to spend at a poverty level, either. Accept no more medical care than what you'd be able to get if you had poverty level and you had to fill out forms for medical treatment to qualify for any medical treatment under hospital medical treatment programs, and go wait in whatever lines that somebody on those programs would have to wait in. See if you'd be accepted for whatever program you applied for or not. Check and see how you're treated. See if there's enough food, and see if the quality is the kind you'd feel happy with. If your mortgage is paid off, chexck and see what sort of housing you'd be able to afford on the amount of money that somebody living at the poverty level would be able to fork out, and see what sort of appartment space that would buy you in which neighborhoods. What would your neighbors be like? How would you be able to afford to dress yourself and, if you're talking about family, the others in your household? This can be a very interesting experiment. Try it. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. “Research shows lifestyle choices and behaviors drive 87.5 percent of the cost for health care claims.” http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589377,00.html?test=faces Another comment I would like to know the reference for. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I would, too. Though what's your experience with illnesses not related to ETOH, smoking, and Diet choices? I suspect those three would account for a lot in terms of Cancer, heart disease, pulmunary disease and diabetes. Were I to look, I'd probably want to look at data from the Framingham heart Study first off, then check and see what's available at the Harvard School of Public Health in terms of reference materials. What's your best guess? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Busy day quickie - healthcare discussion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY6Z3lCyfCQ |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
As soon as health care passes, the American people will see immediate benefits. The legislation will: * Prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions for children in all new plans; * Provide immediate access to insurance for uninsured Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition through a temporary high-risk pool; * Prohibit dropping people from coverage when they get sick in all individual plans; * Lower seniors prescription drug prices by beginning to close the donut hole; * Offer tax credits to small businesses to purchase coverage; * Eliminate lifetime limits and restrictive annual limits on benefits in all plans; * Require plans to cover an enrollee's dependent children until age 26; * Require new plans to cover preventive services and immunizations without cost-sharing; * Ensure consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to appeal new insurance plan decisions; * Require premium rebates to enrollees from insurers with high administrative expenditures and require public disclosure of the percent of premiums applied to overhead costs. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-john-b-larson/he-top-ten-immediate-bene_b_501748.html |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzL4L_FpLvE&feature=fvw |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Health-care reform more popular after passage than before The first poll taken entirely after the House vote bears that out: 50% were enthusiastic or pleased while 42% were angry or disappointed. Similarly, 49% thought this a good thing for the country while 40% thought it bad. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8000752 |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
And now we hear from another 49%. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/march_2010/49_support_state_lawsuits_against_health_care_plan |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It seems Obama is less popular than the bill he rammed through by hook or by crook. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/22/cnn-poll-majority-disapprove-of-obama-for-first-time/?fbid=FWf58aU2QsG |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Obama also claimed that Pelosi was the greatest speaker the House has ever had (11% popularity) and Reid was among the greatest of the Senate Majority leaders (7% popularity). |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Well there you go, he fibbed again! |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
It appear that the two of you believe that popularity is the same as greatness. Let's see; Lincoln gets elected and a third of the country departs in protest, then close to half the remainder thinks he's a fink, and his popularity goes through enormous roller-coaster rides while in office. It appears he's great now. I think he's great, but if you applt the Mike and Denise Show's score to him, he's a pretty dismal failure. I'd say that thinking is lacking snap and clarity, folks. It's only 4% popular with me, so you know you must be wrong, judging greatness by immediate public opinion, and with me being the immediate public offering my public opinion. So of course I must be right! It looks like the two of you must be really on to something here. Do you want to hold a public opinion poll on gravity or the speed of light? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
My apologies, Bob. I had forgotten that liberals believe the entire country is stupid, except for them, of course. Yes, greatness can be achieved without being popular. Capone was a great organizer. Hitler was a great exterminator. Willie Sutton was a great bank robber and OJ great at using kitchen utensils. Pelosi is great at disregarding any will of the people to strive for her own personal glory, regardless of the cost. Since there are certainly more than 11% of the population that are Democrats, it would seem that even they have a hard time stomaching her or Reid....ad rightly so. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Freedom places in the negative. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
"Individuals will also be required to obtain health insurance or face a fine. Government subsidies will be available on a sliding scale for people making up to $43,000 per year (or nearly $90,000 per year for a family of four), but those who don't qualify for government subsidies should expect to pay about $5,000 a year for a policy on the exchange, while families should expect to pay about $15,000, says John Goodman, president, CEO and Kellye Wright Fellow of the National Center for Policy Analysis. The penalty starts in 2014 at $95 or up to 1 percent of income for individuals, whichever is greater, and rises to $695 by 2016 or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater. Families pay heftier fines - $2,085 or 2.5 percent of income by 2016." http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19135&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD If my employer discontinues our coverage and opts to pay the employer fine instead and tells us we have to get our own insurance from the government exchange, this is what it will cost. I can't afford it. For 2 of us it would cost more than my mortgage payment. I wouldn't even be able to afford the fine. In what universe is this affordable? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Not to worry, I can put up a map showing where the free clinic is down in the combat zone. Many of us who haven't had access to healthcare insurance because of the cost or pre-existing conditions have been going there for years. We really don't recommend it, but it's a better option than going to jail in order to get the rescue inhaler or epipen we need but can't afford. Many families are now paying more than $15000 a year for healthcare insurance and rates are going up. Welcome to their world. Not really sure of the exact percentages off the top of my head, but think there will be help for those who would have to pay more than 8% of their income for healthcare insurance so maybe you'll be ok. I honestly hope so. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"The first year, consumers who did not have insurance would owe $95, or 1 percent of income, whichever is greater. But the penalty would subsequently rise, reaching $695, or 2 percent of income. Families who fall below the income-tax filing thresholds would not owe anything. Nor would people who cannot find a policy that costs less than 8 percent of their income, said Sara R. Collins, a vice president at the Commonwealth Fund, an independent nonprofit research group." "Premiums would also be capped at a percentage of income, ranging from 3 percent of income to as much as 9.5 percent." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/your-money/health-insurance/22consumer.html |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I know where the free clinics are in my area, and I've actually had to use them for myself and my children at various times, Jen, but thanks anyway. And I'd rather do that again than have to pay almost 8% of my salary to the government for healthcare insurance. How can these rates be considered affordable? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
If you’ve been paying less than 8%, compared to most families paying for their own insurance, you’ve been getting a heck of a deal. Now you know how it feels to walk a worried mile in their shoes. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
So it's okay with you if people with insurance through their employers lose it because of this new law, Jen, and are told that they have to purchase something that they cannot afford? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Stupak, the Michigan Democrat whose last-minute compromise on abortion guaranteed passage of the bill Sunday, said callers have left messages for him saying, “You’re dead; we know where you live; we’ll get you.” “My wife still can’t answer the phone,” Stupak told POLITICO Tuesday. The messages are “full of obscenities if she leaves it plugged in. In my office, we can’t get a phone out. It’s just bombarded.” Politico also reports that “Rep. Dennis Cardoza, a Blue Dog Democrat from California, said he’s gotten physical threats over health care reform.” “There are some folks that identified themselves as being members of the tea party called, my staff has gotten to know their names over time, and they have been very loud and very ugly,” http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/24/stupak-death-threat/ |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I believe that it's employers who are mandated to supply coverage, and even then, only when the number of employees is over 100. Employers get a 35% tax credit for doing so per employee, and the employee does not have to buy the plan through the employer. The Employer is only obligated to pay half the cost of the policy. The employer can pay more if he or she wishes, of course, and the employee is supposed to pay the rest, as is currently the situation. People whose income levels fall below a certain point, and I'm uncertain where that point is but I believe it's 133% of poverty level, will have government help in paying their premium, and the money that individuals pay themselves toward insurance premiums now becomes a tax credit and can be used to reduce their income tax. The anticipation is that the inclusion of an addition 32,000,000 folks into the market should reduce premiums overall, so that the premiums should fall by 2014 to a more affordable level. I'm not sure I find this creditable, myself, this last part. Since Denise' employer is over 100 people, if I remember correctly, then she should continue to be carried on that plan as long as she's working there. She should of course check once the plan is passed and see how the final version reads. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I just heard on the news, Bob, that it is employers with 30 employers or more who will be mandated or fined, $2,000 per employee. Since that's cheaper than the estimated cost of $5,000 per person for insurance, some may opt, out of economic necessity, to pay the fine inst4ead. Then that will leave the employee liable to purchase the $5,000 (per individual) or $15,000 (per family of 4) or be fined by the government. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The anticipation is that the inclusion of an addition 32,000,000 folks into the market should reduce premiums overall, so that the premiums should fall by 2014 to a more affordable level. I'm not sure I find this creditable, myself, this last part. Nor should you, Bob. There was an insurance employee on the radio yesterday shedding a lot of light on the bill. According to her, the insurance companies will now have to return 85% back in claims of the premiums they collect, up from the 60% currently in use. Out of the remaining 15% comes the salaries, operating expenses, equipment and all other standard expenses. In addition, there will be more taxes sue to the bill tht will also come from that 15%. She doesn't expect insurance companies to survive more than 2-3 years. As far as premiums, all group policies are contracted every January 1st. When next January comes they will have to raise premiums 200-300 percent to survive. At that time they fully expect another atttack from Obama, like "Look at what those evil insurance companies are doing now. They are trying to rape you!" or something to that effect. Democrats are fortunate that the rates can't be raised until then, as far as the November elections are concerned. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"The anonymous source is a convenience of a fabulist." - serenity blaze |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
quote: Let's see here, Mike. Current premium costs are covered with 60% payout. The future costs, which are greater — they say — than the current costs will be covered by 15 percent of the new income. That 15% will certainly be larger than what they're making now, before the 32,000,000 new prisoners get shipped in, wouldn't it? And the rest of their increased costs will be covered by that. How that sounds to me that their current profits, at 60% plus — lets figure an additional 20% overhead instead of that 15% that they figure will be ruinous for them in the future, leaves them with what sounds like a 20% profit in the here and now, doesn't it? And weren't these the same folks who were telling you just a few weeks ago that all they made was 2.2% per year? At exactly what point did you decide that the insurance companies were reliable reporters about their own situation? They made the deal with President Obama, and you might have notice that, although they did put up a fight, it was not as tough a fight as it might have been. Do you really believe that they're telling you the truth now, or do you think that it's just their way of opening up negotiations for the January rate hike sweepstakes? My money is on the latter. A 200-300 percent rate hike just to keep their heads above water? And the camel will only put the very tippy tip of its nose under your tent. Best get out your camel repellant spray, Mike, and make sure you look all doey-eyed when you urge your fellow Republicans to give till it hurts. The insurance companies appreciate your helpful support. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Thanks for the lesson, Bob. It won't happen again. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Doesn't mean your wrong, Mike; it's simply a very cynical take on it by me. I've said what doesn't feel right, and why. But it's got to be your consideration, you know? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
The Right-Wingers Who Cried Wolf Listening to right-wing talk radio on the day after Congress passed health care reform, Bill O’Reilly was stunned. To him, the hosts and the callers sounded “crazed” as they shrieked about “the end of the world, we’re socialist now, we have to take the country back.” Maybe the Fox News host hasn’t been listening, but there has been plenty of crazy in the air now for many months on his network and elsewhere on the airwaves. Going too far for O’Reilly is going very far indeed, but the madness of the conservative reaction has yet to abate. His friend and colleague Glenn Beck declared that health care reform means “the end of prosperity in America forever ... the end of America as you know it.” Bill Hemmer, another Fox host who probably needs medication, has suggested that the legislation will send Americans who don’t have health insurance to prison. The Washington Times editorial page compared the bill to the Black Death, and The Drudge Report put up a headline suggesting that its passage is the equivalent of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_wingers_who_cried_wolf_20100324 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
MY comment doesn't mean I think my thoughts are wrong, Bob, simply that it was a mistake presenting it to you for rational thought, with no sarcasm involved, hoping for a decent discussion of it. We learn from our mistakes. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
And how does that last barb help the discussion along, Mike? If you have some difficulty with my reasoning, lay it out. I have no desire to be swiped at for what appears to be the pure fun of it. Suggesting there's a flaw in me doesn't cut it; I'm constructed entirely of flaws, and I'm unsurprised to be told so. That somebody would not comment on the reasoning and focus entirely on my flaws suggests they have missed the point of a reasonable discussion. "So's yer Mama!" doesn't address a thing I actually said, which I clearly acknowledged was a far from perfect response. I'll say so again, if it helps, but suggesting that I said nothing that didn't address your comments, and that it wasn't cogent is simply not true. |
||
|
icebox Member Elite
since 2003-05-03
Posts 4383in the shadows |
CNN claims the current bill includes a 10% tax on indoor tanning services (that replaced the 5% "BOTAX" surcharge). |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Best get out your camel repellant spray, Mike, and make sure you look all doey-eyed when you urge your fellow Republicans to give till it hurts. The insurance companies appreciate your helpful support. THAT, I suppose, is supposed to help the discussion along? I tried to give a report as to what an insurance accountant had to say but, to you, if it comes from an insurance employee it must be a lie, as if they could not possibly give some actual facts. I should have known that any disciple of Obama's "evil insurance empire" classes would naturally feel that way, reflexively and without thought. It was not the insurance companies who claimed to make 2-4% last year...it was Wall Street and the good folks who keep those records. WHen you make 4% in profits and have another 15% of expenses coming in, it doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to do the math that indicates a major problem on the horizon. At any rate, the point will be made in January and we'll see how it plays out. If the insurance companies are forced to come out with big increases, that will prove one point. If Obama then screams that the insurance companies are raping the public, that will prove another. You did not think about the math, nor did you waste any time at all on giving any credence to what they had to say. For that reason, I wasted my time....but, then, I waste it a lot so it's no big loss |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/34433 |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Uh-oh. Another surprise icebox. So much for ironclad promises. quote: http://www.facebook.com//photo.php?pid=3009282&id=851384409#!/note.php?note_id=379196668966&id=104853162173&ref=mf |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: http://townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2010/03/23/b-a-l-o-n-e-y!?page=1 |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
The scene outside Rep. Weiner's office today Officers stand next to a HAZMAT truck outside the office of Representative Anthony Weiner after the discovery of a letter which contained an unidentified white powder, in Queens, New York March 25, 2010. The FBI and police are investigating attacks and threats against Democratic members of Congress who voted for healthcare reform, and a senior House of Representatives Democrat said on Wednesday his colleagues are at risk. Weiner voted in favor of the legislation. http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/044QcVygFw7dH/x610.jpg |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Tea Party Patriots: First and foremost, Tea Party Patriots has a zero tolerance policy against violence or bigotry from Democrats, Republicans or Independents, and expects this standard to be applied equally to all. The values of Tea Party Patriots are clearly opposed to those who choose this path. By the same token, public anger at Congress is legitimate and warranted. Congress is not listening to the American people and their complaints. Sadly today, the majority in Congress continue to ignore and downplay the clearly expressed feelings of the majority of the American people. According to a CBS poll on March 24th, a full 62% of the American public wants this bill challenged. It is time for Congress to listen to the American people and act accordingly. Meanwhile, Tea Party Patriots will continue to provide constructive means for the American people to make their voices heard. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001117-503544.html |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Package With White Powder Sent To Congressman Weiner “The latest in a string of threats” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MortW98VCiM Threats, intimidation, inciting violence, racial and homophobic slurs - zero tolerance? Not hardly, especially when one of the tea party terrorists, one who called for "dropping by" at a congressman's home is invited to speak at the April 19th Open Carry. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
The only way to get worry under control is to let it work itself out against the unfolding of experience, sometimes. These seem legitimate worries, same as most folks would have in the facing of a new situation where the edges of things aren't clear yet. I feel some of them myself. Some will be baseless, some won't be, and we'll have to work on fixes for those as we go. A little bit at a time. There are days when it feels to me personally like using the phone book is insurmountable, but that isn't always the reality of the situation. You just have to walk through these changes, a step at a time. Nobody said you had to be thrilled about them; the thrill is optional. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Denise, what is this post # 39? quote: It appears that the statement says that Tea Party Patriots has no tolerance for bigotry or violence from just about everybody else in the country, and that it expects everybody to uphold that standard. It appears that Tea Party Patriots exempt themselves from this, simply from the grammar of the statement, while it holds everybody else to the standard. Is the statement incoherent or simply a statement putting themselves above everybody else in the nation, not obligated to a standard that they feel lesser beings need to honor? It is by no means clear from this statement that Tea Party Patriots, whomever they may be, are clear about anything. And the path that they are speaking about is gramatically unclear as well. If the statement is meant to clarify anything, it only clarifies that whoever wrote the statement cannot speak clear enough English to make their meaning understood. It also appears that their grasp of civics is nebulous, and that they have not understood why Senators are elected to six year terms, and why the executive is elected for a four year term — specifically to isolate them from the sort of rule by contagion that the radical right is trying to jam down the throats of the country right now. If there is a populatity contest, it's in the House, and the effects of the passage of the Insurance bill have not shown themselves clearly to affect that election at this point, even though the bill is currently unpopular. Just because it is unpopular now doesn't mean that it will be in November. Nor does it mean that it will even be vital to the November election. Maybe, maybe not; but I believe that the echoes of the old Clinton campaign saying may have much more weight. "It's the Economy, Stupid!" |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
*shakes head* Unbelievable. Is Organizing for America working overtime? Bob, if you have a problem with their grammar, drop them a line and tell them so. I was able to comprehend that they include themselves in the Democratic, Republican and Indpenedent comment, and then of course in the 'all' comment. Here's a ringing endorsement of the new healthcare law......from Fidel Castro! Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy?!! http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Cuban-leader-applauds-US-apf-124808403.html?x=0&.v=1 |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Number of deaths of infants under one year old in a given year per 1,000 live births in the same year; included is the total death rate, and deaths by sex, male and female. This rate is often used as an indicator of the level of health in a country 180 United States 6.22 2009 est. 181 Northern Mariana Islands 6.00 2009 est. 182 Cuba 5.82 2009 est. 183 European Union 5.72 2009 est. 184 San Marino 5.53 2009 est. 185 Italy 5.51 2009 est. 186 Isle of Man 5.37 2009 est. 187 Taiwan 5.35 2009 est. 188 Greece 5.16 2009 est. 189 Ireland 5.05 2009 est. 190 Canada 5.04 2009 est. 191 Wallis and Futuna 5.02 2009 est. 192 Monaco 5.00 2009 est. 193 New Zealand 4.92 2009 est. 194 United Kingdom 4.85 2009 est. 195 Portugal 4.78 2009 est. 196 Australia 4.75 2009 est. 197 Jersey 4.73 2009 est. 198 Netherlands 4.73 2009 est. 199 Luxembourg 4.56 2009 est. 200 Belgium 4.44 2009 est. 201 Guernsey 4.43 2009 est. 202 Austria 4.42 2009 est. 203 Denmark 4.34 2009 est. 204 Korea, South 4.26 2009 est. 205 Liechtenstein 4.25 2009 est. 206 Slovenia 4.25 2009 est. 207 Israel 4.22 2009 est. 208 Spain 4.21 2009 est. 209 Switzerland 4.18 2009 est. 210 Germany 3.99 2009 est. 211 Czech Republic 3.79 2009 est. 212 Andorra 3.76 2009 est. 213 Malta 3.75 2009 est. 214 Norway 3.58 2009 est. 215 Anguilla 3.52 2009 est. 216 Finland 3.47 2009 est. 217 France 3.33 2009 est. 218 Iceland 3.23 2009 est. 219 Macau 3.22 2009 est. 220 Hong Kong 2.92 2009 est. 221 Japan 2.79 2009 est. 222 Sweden 2.75 2009 est. 223 Bermuda 2.46 2009 est. 224 Singapore 2.31 2009 est |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
from Democrats, Republicans or Independents ...and you think they don't include themselves? And the path that they are speaking about is gramatically unclear as well. I'd like to see the areas of their statement you consider grammatically incorrect. (By the way, you misspelled grammatically) |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
A prime example of compassionate conservatism, ignore the infant mortality rate here in the US and point out spelling errors instead.  |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
No, I believe it's an example of Compassionate Conservatism at its absolute finest. The Grammatical mistake had to do with the unclear refferent, Mike, as I pointed out in my original comment, and with the unclear preposition. I also pointed that out. I'm sorry that my spelling mistake bothered you. I notice yours usually don't, but that may be because I usually manage to be able to read the word you intended through the error. If you need me to start posting a list oif your errors in retaliation, I respectfully decline the invitation your invitation. I'm a poor speller, have been all my life, and I usually depend on spell check. I should have used it this time as well. Using the occasional incorrect pronoun can be exceedingly confusing for your readers and is a grammatical error. It leads to imprecise and misleading communication. Clarity in refferents is also important and is a grammatical point that needs to be considered in clear writing as well. In the case of the statement above, errors like make the actual text shoddy. The fact that it may be read one way by people who from the beginning are sympathetic with the folks making the statement, such as Denise, doesn't mean that folks who are neutral or hostile to the folks making the statement — and I am neutral verging on hostile because of the content of much of the recent Tea Party rhetoric about the left and about the President — do not automatically read the text the same way. Part of my training in terms of listening to people and understanding the meanings of what say causes me to focus not only on what people would like you to understand from what they say, but the actual literal text and words they use. This is often a much clearer indication of some of the things that they are thinking and are, quite literally, saying. Not what they'd rather you understood from what they're saying. It's often not a matter of either/or, to be fair; it's frequently a matter of both meanings at once. Given a chance, people will generally say exactly what they mean, as is the case with the statement that Denise quotes. No, Denise, I have no intention of dropping them a line to tell them so. Why would I. You're the one who brought the statement to the table out of all the other possible statements you could have chosen. If you didn't mean to quote it, it was certainly a large accident. Since you did, I'm dropping the line to you, since you chose it, presumably as a reflection of your thinking unless you tell me otherwise. You haven't done so yet. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Interesting, revealing video. They don't even know what they voted for: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4124789/obama-zombies?category_id=86858 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Jennifer, do you consider yourself a good representative of compassionate liberalism, if there is such a thing? I certainly hope so. No, Bob, your spelling mistake doesn't bother me at all. I simply found it a little ironic that you would misspell grammatical while criticizing the grammar of others. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
That was the statement that was online denouncing violence and bigotry, Bob. But rather than accepting it at face value, you go off on a grammar tangent. Fine. That doesn't change the fact that they, as well as Republicans, have denounced violence and bigotry. It's now on the record, something that can be pointed to the next time the MSNBC or HuffPo crew start their malignant assaults. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
http://nationalrepublicantrust.com/Obama_Lies_on_Healthcare.html |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Can’t we have more fun without dog-pitting? How about focusing on the choices, once put into action. Pay...or Pay. Dang. Can I at least toss in a bit extra to afford my anonymously sponsored citizen a T-Shirt for attending our bankrupted Gov’s Bread & Circus show? I think it should say something like: “WHAT! NO HAT!?” Be patient. Hats will be a most sensible accessory next year. They should be designed to fashionably conceal all evidence of participation in the government sponsored Free Group Lobotomy. But, in time and slip-away of trends and the revealing of bottom lines: Even those with lobotomies will realize how they can’t depend on a Government to take care of them. Especially one that’s so bankrupt a sticker is worth more than our funny money. Don’t hate on me. The check for my fine will be good. For now. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: My government health care system is taking care of me just fine. Fortunately no lobotomy so far but my heart surgery worked a treat and the aftercare has been nothing short of exceptional. I was at the hospital today in fact, I had a stress ECG, ultrasound and full blood test. They charged me 80 pence for car parking, which I thought was a bit steep for an hour, but I guess I can live with it. My prescription charge cost a bit more, my wife paid it online last week – it was £104 for 12 months but covers any medication I might need in that period. http://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/1127.aspx . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Interesting posting reference, Denise. Remember when I said misinformation and disinformation? Much of this stuff would fall under the disiinformation part of my statement. It is illegal to cancell your health care for getrting sick. It is not illegal, however, for insurance to be cancelled for "pre-existing conditions. This is one of the reasons that rape may be considered a "pre-existing condition." The insurance industry knows that folks who have been raped tend to come down with expensive things to treat, such as depression, and occasionally aids. They also know that rapes are very underreported because of humiliation, shyness, and the depression itself. Nor is it uncommon for insurance companies to refuse to cover or to refuse to pay for the full treatment for one condition or another for reasons that have tenuous relations with actual medical necessity. This has happened to me. Here in California, the insurance appeals process is primarily within the control of the insurance companies. You can rarely get these decisions reversed, but it is rare indeed. The iunsurance companies do their very best not to do anything illegal; in practice, thios means acting in ways that won't lose them money, not that will necessarily be good for the patients. You notice, for example, how they mention that each state regulates its own insurance and must justify any hikes. You do not notice how the companies made a strong effort to get this system set aside during the run up to this bill. You may also have missed the exchange I had with Mike in which he quoted an insurance company executive as saying that they would need a 200-300% rate hike this coming January. This is to offset a rise in their payouts from 60% of benefits to 85% of benefits with the new law. If your sympathies are still with the poor insurance companies on this point, why not check where the payouts are in relation to premiums in terms of other forms of insurance? Pardon me while a bust a gut laughing at the notion of union guys with their pinkies in the air drinking latee coffee drinks while you act like insurance executives, bankers and the PR people are down-home folk who have little or no sophistication. Save us O Lord from all tghose Yale and Harvard educated Union Members! I used to know an insurance commissioner, by the way, from Massachusetts. He did not think well of the insurance industry. He also, to be fair, thought that the Massachusetts No Fault insurance wasn't such a wonderful idea. You might hate the President, and I don't always love him myself, but the article by the insurance company Flack was seriously misleading and disgusting. Why Oh why would you take the word of people from the insurance industry? |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Dear Grinch, Your heart is precious! As well as your brain, which even with a hypothetical lobotomy, you read the plan, so you’re a few neuro-signals ahead of most. Would you trust your heart to our current plan? I think not. Your health care sounds so free, but I’m not inclined to believe that either. I believe we’ve touched on this before. You actually do/did pay quite a sum, yes? In taxes. Medications are a whole ‘nother animal here as you may be aware. more later, must run, thanks. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Absolutely, positively NO. quote: Absolutely, positively YES It’s actually called National Insurance but it is a tax to all intents and purposes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance . |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Whoops! I didn’t give you the whole picture, the actual amount paid would be useful too. The rate is a maximum of 11% of earnings over £110 per week up to a maximum of £844, earnings over £844 incur a charge of 1%. For that you get Health Care, unemployment benefit (should you ever need it) and a state pension when you reach 65. Here’s a calculator if you’re interested (I’m in category F btw). http://nicecalculator.hmrc.gov.uk/Class1NICs1.aspx [This message has been edited by Grinch (03-26-2010 08:45 PM).] |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Could you give us some idea what the state pension benefits might be? Are they based on earnings, a set figure or what? Thanks! |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Here you go Jen - a list of all benifits available. http://www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk/JCP/stellent/groups/jcp/documents/websitecontent/dev_015666.pdf . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
The calculator gives a session timed out message. Are the benefits you received taxable? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Wow, lots of benefits. Will take a while to go through them. And benefits are paid weekly, no waiting for a check to come in the first of the month. Thanks for the info, Grinch. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Hit the ‘start again’ button Mike. Most benefits you receive aren’t taxable – here’s a list of those that are: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/eimanual/EIM76101.htm Jen, They’ll pay them directly into your bank account if you prefer. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear rWood, Loved your post. I vote we substitute olive and cherry pitting for dog-pitting, myself. Though as the song suggests, It's better to be pitted than censored. Forgive me, these moods come over me from time to time. I hardly know where the words come from. My Best, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Why wasn't this cost factored into the Healtcare Bill? http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=132629 |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
More Teabagger Hypocrisy: With No Jobs, Plenty of Time for Tea Party When Tom Grimes lost his job as a financial consultant 15 months ago, he called his congressman, a Democrat, for help getting government health care. In the last year, he has organized a local group and a statewide coalition, and even started a “bus czar” Web site to marshal protesters to Washington on short notice. This month, he mobilized 200 other Tea Party activists to go to the local office of the same congressman to protest what he sees as the government’s takeover of health care. Mr. Grimes, who receives Social Security, has filled the back seat of his Mercury Grand Marquis with the literature of the movement, including Glenn Beck’s “Arguing With Idiots” and Frederic Bastiat’s “The Law,” which denounces public benefits as “false philanthropy.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/us/politics/28teaparty.html |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Obviously, you're not getting an answer, Denise. Why am I not surprised? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
1) The estimate was partisan and not from the CBO. 2) The estimate gives the average wage of IRS folk in various jobs. Average means that you add everybody's money up, and divide by the number of folks, right? Everybody means everybody, from the lowest paid to the highest paid at all levels of seniority. Only a small number of those are new hires, who are at the BOTTOM of the pay scale. This means that The Republicans want you to compare the lowest paid workers, the new hires that they say The President wants to hire, with workers who have been there much longer and who have a much higher pay grade, doesn't it? They expect you to believe that el-cheapo new hires cost the same as expensive long term senior employees. 3) This means that the Republicans in this committee counted on you not being able to figure this out for your selves. 4) They were right. The Republicans bet they could lie to their constituents with figures and get away with it. And they did. 5) My Preference would have been to remain silent, but Mike's last post on the subject got under my skin. I shouldn't have allowed that, but I did. Sorry. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Bob, why wasn't any cost of having to hire 16,000 plus IRS workers to enforce Obamacare factored into the cost, entry level or otherwise? This was not even a part of any of the cost estimates for the Healthcare Bills that were sent to the CBO. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No apology needed, Bob. You gave a respectful answer to the best of your knowledge. Nothing wrong with that. Those new hires must cost SOMETHING. Judging by the pay schedule for federal employees, which dwarfs the private sector, that something is not inconsiderable, especially when multiplied by thousands. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Hopefully Mike you’re not surprised because you know that some of us will take their time to research the claims before addressing them. Denise, There’s a very good reason why you wouldn’t include any additional staff in the calculation of cost, that reason is that there’s not going to be a significant increase in staff, but even if there were any increase would be more than cancelled out by the increase in revenue. It’s simply another straw man argument designed to scare the gullible. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Interesting to call almost 17,000 new hires not a significant number. The increase in revenue? You must mean the taxes they will collect since they don't actually produce anything. Many of them will simply be auditing, checking companies and individuals for compliance to the new laws and taxes...nothing to bring revenue there. To call it a straw man argument isn't that rational, IMO. It IS an argument that Dems would prefer to avoid, though. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Insignificant? In what universe, Bob? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: You may be right about the Dems Mike, fortunately I ain’t one of them. quote: It’s not significant because it’s a total fabrication, there’s no need and, more importantly, no intention to hire 17,000 new staff, the figure is a straw man invented by a bunch of Republicans who either haven’t thought things through or are hoping other people won’t notice. I could spend hours waxing lyrical about why employing 17,000 extra auditors would actually be cost neutral but I’d be wasting my time, and yours, because nobody is going to hire them. Think about it Mike. Do the IRS increase their workforce by 17,000 every time they add an extra item that needs auditing to your tax return? Do they lay off 17,000 when they remove something? Think about how an IRS audit works. You fill in a return and in about 90% of cases the IRS accept it. In 10% of cases, where there’s a reason to doubt your word or as a random check, they audit the information you’ve given them. In that case they’ll ask you to provide additional evidence that you’ve purchased Health Care – if you can there’s no problem, if you can’t you’ll get a fine. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Denise, I appreciate you asking me the answer to that question, but I am not the source of your confusion here. Mike used the word insignificant here, not me. I was too flummoxed by the bat guano and the actual size of the Republican Lie to assume that they would have the nerve to make THE WHOLE THING up. I must thank Grinch for pulling the wool off my eyes about that one. I merely pointed out that the Republicans were lieing again on a huge scale; I simply was too intimidated by the scale of their lie to realize how huge. WOW. Sorry, Denise, you're going to have to pretend these folks are telling the truth without dragging me into this one. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Sorry, Bob, I meant to say Grinch. Talk about Whopping Lies!! Do they get any bigger than Obama's? http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/obamacare-by-the-numbers/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=HA#more-9545 |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Don’t you want to talk about the 17,000 IRS workers anymore Denise? I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on why so much effort was put into manufacturing the story and what your thoughts are regarding the people who did it. Would they pass the tea party test? . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
The story wasn't manufactured, Grinch. It's been headline news here all weekend, even in the lamestream media, with estimates of 17,000 to 19,000 new IRS Agents to be hired to enforce Obamacare. Part of their responsibilities will be to ascertain, every month, that everyone has, and is maintaining, a government mandated plan. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: It has to be true because the lamestream media reported it? Are you wandering over to the dark side Denise? Those lamestream idiots that you keep telling us never get anything right are suddenly the oracle of truth and font of all knowledge? quote: If you mean the story that some Republicans have claimed that 17,000 IRS auditors will be needed I agree – you’re right - that story is, unfortunately, true. If however you mean that the claim that 17,000 IRS auditors will be needed because of the health care bill then I maintain that you’re wrong – they won’t. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
It’s not significant because it’s a total fabrication, there’s no need and, more importantly, no intention to hire 17,000 new staff, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on why so much effort was put into manufacturing the story and what your thoughts are regarding the people who did it. If you mean the story that some Republicans have claimed that 17,000 IRS auditors will be needed I agree – you’re right - that story is, unfortunately, true. All of those comments from you, mr. grinch? If however you mean that the claim that 17,000 IRS auditors will be needed because of the health care bill then I maintain that you’re wrong – they won’t. Well, I suppose that's easier to say than apologizing to Denise. So let's see. Did the amount of taxpayers quadruple since last year, creating the need for an additional 17,000 auditors? No, I don't think so. Will millions of Americans now have to be monitored to insure they purchase health insurance? Yep. Will thousands of companies also need that monitoring? Yep again. Since this new requirement for everyone to get health insurance is part of the health care bill, wouldn't it be not that much of a stretch to think the hiring of the 17,000 has something to do with the monitoring which has something to do with the health care bill? Or do you htink that, if the health care bill had been defeated, they would still be hiring the 17,000? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Yes - they aren’t hiring 17,000 IRS auditors because they don’t need 17,000 auditors. quote: Apologise? For what – telling the truth? quote: Still be hiring? Mike they aren’t hiring anyone – that’s my point - they don’t need to. All returns are automatically scanned by a computerised system, at present the IRS only audit’s around 1.5% of all returns manually. None of that is going to change. The returns will be automatically scanned into the system as before and roughly the same number will be flagged for manual audit. Why would they need 17,000 additional auditors? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=176997 |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Health premiums may rise 17% for young adults buying own insurance By Carla K. Johnson, The Associated Press CHICAGO — Under the health care overhaul, young adults who buy their own insurance will carry a heavier burden of the medical costs of older Americans— a shift expected to raise insurance premiums for young people when the plan takes full effect. Beginning in 2014, most Americans will be required to buy insurance or pay a tax penalty. That's when premiums for young adults seeking coverage on the individual market would likely climb by 17% on average, or roughly $42 a month, according to an analysis of the plan conducted for The Associated Press. The higher costs will pinch many people in their 20s and early 30s who are struggling to start or advance their careers with the highest unemployment rate in 26 years. Consider 24-year-old Nils Higdon. The self-employed percussionist and part-time teacher in Chicago pays $140 each month for health insurance. But he's healthy and so far hasn't needed it. The law relies on Higdon and other young adults to shoulder more of the financial load in new health insurance risk pools. So under the new system, Higdon could expect to pay $300 to $500 a year more. Depending on his income, he might also qualify for tax credits. At issue is the insurance industry's practice of charging more for older customers, who are the costliest to insure. The new law restricts how much insurers can raise premium costs based on age alone. nsurers typically charge six or seven times as much to older customers as to younger ones in states with no restrictions. The new law limits the ratio to 3-to-1, meaning a 50-year-old could be charged only three times as much as a 20-year-old. The rest will be shouldered by young people in the form of higher premiums. The analysis, conducted for The Associated Press, examined the effect of the law's limits on age-based pricing, not other ways the legislation might affect premiums, said Elizabeth McGlynn of Rand Health. Jim O'Connor, an actuary with the independent consulting firm Milliman Inc., came up with similar estimates of 10 to 30% increases for young males, averaging about 15%. "Young males will be hit the hardest," O'Connor says, because they have lower health care costs than young females and older people who go to doctors more often and use more medical services. Young people who supported Barack Obama in 2008 may come to resent how health care reform will affect them, Gibbs and others say. Recent polls show support among young voters eroding since they helped elect Obama president. Jim Schreiber, 24, was once an Obama supporter but now isn't so sure. The Chicagoan works in a law firm and has his own tea importing business. He pays $120 a month for health insurance, "probably pure profit for my insurance company," he says. Without a powerhouse lobbying group, like AARP for older adults, young adults' voices have been muted, he says. He's been discouraged by the health care debate. "It has made me disillusioned with the Democrats," he said. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-03-29-insurance-premiums_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomWashington-TopStories+%28News+- +Washington+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
State attorneys general have filed two federal lawsuits challenging the individual mandate to purchase health insurance, which President Barack Obama signed into law last week. Those lawsuits look like pure political posturing to me, given the well-established Congressional powers to regulate interstate commerce and taxation. It turns out that precedent for a health insurance mandate is much older than the 1930s Supreme Court rulings on the Commerce Clause. Thanks to Paul J. O'Rourke for the history lesson: In July, 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen,” authorizing the creation of a marine hospital service, and mandating privately employed sailors to purchase healthcare insurance. This legislation also created America’s first payroll tax, as a ship’s owner was required to deduct 20 cents from each sailor’s monthly pay and forward those receipts to the service, which in turn provided injured sailors hospital care. Failure to pay or account properly was discouraged by requiring a law violating owner or ship's captain to pay a 100 dollar fine. This historical fact demolishes claims of “unprecedented” and "The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty...” ....... The other option is to name Presidents John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison et al. in the lawsuits. However, it might be difficult to convince a judge, or the public, that those men didn't know the limits of the Constitution. Because the attorneys general research is obviously lacking a comprehensive review of history and the Constitution, I’m providing a copy of the 5th Congress’ 1798 legislation. http://open.salon.com/blog/paul_j_orourke/2010/03/24/news_pres_signs_h-care_insurance_mandate-212_years_ago |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Republicans on the Wrong Side of History Health care reform, financial regulation, the economic stimulus, energy policy....the GOP has continually stonewalled legislation to move our country forward. The only victory the GOP can claim after the successful passage of health care legislation is that they stuck together in solidarity to do nothing. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbra-streisand/republicans-on-the-wrong_b_518925.html |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
First death panels, now 17000 IRS "goons" beating down doors and dragging the uninsured off to jail. Republicans - not only the party of NO, but the party of lies so outrageous only a teabagger would believe them. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Once again the myth continues. No one, including Republicans, is against health care reform. They are against OBAMA'S health care reform. As our Mensa maestro grinch pointed out, anyone with any sense knows his plan has nothing to do with health care. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I’m glad you’re paying attention Mike, health care reform is only necessary because the cost of Medicare and Medicaid is unsustainable and will result in a collapse of your economy if it isn’t addressed. Making this a fiscal rather than social issue. The increased coverage and reining in of the rip off merchants that infest private health insurance is simply a bonus. Unfortunately Obama has failed to resolve the original issue, you’ve got the additional bonuses without attaining the main prize, Medicare and Medicaid will still destroy your economy because the Republicans managed to remove the public option – the fix for Medicare- from the original proposals. . |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Ah, the Public Option! Be still my beating heart! |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Not in Health Reform: "16,500 Armed Bureaucrats" Again over the last few days, we've been reminded that opponents of reform will say and do anything, no matter how outrageous the charge, to cast doubt on health reform legislation that will reduce costs for American families and small businesses, expand coverage to millions of Americans and end the worst practices of insurance companies. In the latest example from an ever-growing list of willful distortions, the American people are being warned that because of health care reform, the federal government will hire over 16,000 new IRS agents to enforce the new law. Indeed, in a March 22 interview with Fox Business News, Rep. Ron Paul declared that the bill would mean “16,500 armed bureaucrats.” This is a thoroughly debunked charge that has absolutely no basis in reality. In fact, earlier this week the widely-respected FactCheck.org looked into this charge and concluded that it was a “wildly inaccurate…partisan assertion” that is “based on guesswork and false assumptions, and compounded by outright misrepresentation.” FactCheck concluded: the “claim of 16,500 new agents simply lacks any foundation in fact.” What makes this whole attempt at fear mongering even more ridiculous is that this legislation represents the largest middle class tax cut for health care in our nation’s history. The major task of IRS employees that will work on implementing this legislation will be to inform the American people of the different aspects of reform that they stand to benefit from and to make sure the historic health care tax relief is administered smoothly and efficiently. Indeed their first task is to inform millions of small business owners that they are eligible this year for tax credits that will cover up to 35 percent of their premium contributions for their employees and to start planning for delivering $400 billion in affordability tax credits the IRS will work with the health exchanges to deliver starting in 2014. Getting the word out about these tax credits and delivering them smoothly and accurately will require relatively modest investments in technology and staff – even if that is less interesting to some than their fantasies about 16,000 gun-toting bureaucrats. What’s clear from all of this is that there are people who refuse to have a debate on the merits of health care reform. Maybe that’s because these ardent defenders of the status quo are worried about the consequences of stopping at nothing to deny the American people quality and affordable health insurance white house.gov health care |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
“I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people.” - Jack Handey |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/01/04/pm-irs/ It would be beneficial if whitehouse.gov gave statistical facts to counter what they call fear mongering, instead of just saying that there is fear mongering. That tends to happen when there is no transparency. The IRS will be involved, no doubt about that. What we need to know is the extent of their involvement, facts and figures that debunk the so-called guess work based on false assumptions. And why do they need to have Factcheck look into it and debunk it? Debunk it yourself with your facts and figures. If it's not 16,500 additional agents, what is the government's official estimate? They must have one, I would think. But maybe not. Maybe they haven't thought it through that far yet. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Who said the white House needed to have the stuff fact checked? The fact Check people are independent and will debunk stuff distorted in either direction, Denise. Did you look at the article itself? I have references to it in two other Alley threads, so it shouldn't be too hard to find, and there are details offered there. I'm sure there will still be information you'll want to know about left over after that, but why not check that out for a start, then maybe we can jointly find out some extra informational sources to get some of the details nailed down as best we can. There will always be stuff left to worry about that we'll all have to watch, to see how they come out in the wash. But to get some of the data directly from factcheck will be a good start, I hope. Try checking that out, and let's see what's left to be nervous about. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
And I think it would be beneficial to stop spreading rumors that aren’t true. First the Republicans come out with a baseless, unsubstantiated bit of nonsense - 17000 new IRS employees, then Ron Paul/Fox News take it a step further, crank up the fear factor = IRS “thugs” “goons” coming with guns to collect or drag off to jail those without insurance. There’s a good example of fear mongering - all of it coming from the Right. When the time comes to prove to the IRS you have insurance, all you need do is attach the proof of insurance form you’ll receive from your insurance company to your tax form. Pretty simple, just like attaching your W-2. Nothing about that requires hiring 17000 more IRS workers. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I was referencing the whithouse.gov statement that Jen supplied, Bob. Instead of their pointing to Factcheck's so-called debunking, why don't they just supply the actual facts and figures and level of IRS involvement? To me that would seem a bit more professional and informative, instead of their political posturing. Are we to believe, Jen, that the IRS will have no involvment other than to make sure we attach our verification forms to our tax returns? End of story? No follow-up. No confiscation of money, whether through attaching refunds or taking it out of your bank account, to pay fines and penalties for non-compliance? Now that's what I would call spreading untruths. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: So magnanimous of them to waive Criminal Penalties. I feel all warm and fuzzy! And they won't be placing liens on our property! Cool! That means I won't have to worry about them taking my house! quote: That's an awful lot of money for virtually doing nothing but insuring that appropriate forms are attached to one's tax return. |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
"Spreading untruths" Fox allows and encourages it. http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4119541/ron-paul-bill-makes-health-care-system-worse Starting at about 3:54 - Thugs with guns putting people in jail |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: http://www.thebulletin.us/articles/2010/04/02/commentary/op-eds/doc4bafda1591ca2173552248.txt |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Pelosi was right....after it's passed we keep finding out what's in it. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/pelosi-passed-it-and-we-just-keep-finding-out-whats-in-it.html |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
So...it's a crime to not purchase health insurance but no one can be brought up on criminal charges if they don't, nor can their be liens on any of their property. Dos this mean Democrats will show up on one's lawn chanting "shame on you" as punishment? To not enforce these laws and do nothing more than remove the staples from tax forms with proof of insurance attached, the FBI will need 5-10 billion dollars more. Left-wingers, does this make any possible sense to even you? Are you required by your party to close your eyes and your brains to things like these? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I think 5 - 10 billion might just about cover the cost of correcting all the rumors and lies re HCR spread by Fox News, right wing pundits and silly hat wearing teabaggers. So if it's not a crime and there will be no criminal charges, and no "thugs with guns" beating down doors, what are the teabaggers whining about? Are they just too cheap to buy insurance, expect us to pay for their medical care when they can't? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
It shouldn't cost them that much, Jen. They could just farm it out to Factcheck. They might even do it for free! |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Last but not least, my personal favorite: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVX7h9sAYYY&feature=related |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
They could just farm it out to factcheck? Would you please, Denise, connect that comment to something I can recognize as having some connection to the discussion? Are the facts that disturbing for you? Do you think that factcheck always comes out on the side of the left-wing? |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
I'm not totally convinced but I'm hopeful: Small Businesses Will Gain Under New Health Reform Bill Our current health care system creates particular challenges for small businesses. But the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides various forms of relief for small businesses who often struggle to pay for their employees' health coverage. Small businesses spend about 18 percent more on average than large businesses for comparable health policies. This is largely due to high administrative costs, which can be up to 30 percent of premiums; their limited ability to spread risk because of these businesses' small scale; and a lack of market power when negotiating rates with insurers. One-third of workers at firms with fewer than 25 employees are uninsured. High uninsurance rates among small business employees partly reflect the fact that their employers are less likely to offer coverage, especially at the smallest firms that pay the lowest wages. Firms with fewer than 10 employees that pay low wages (in the bottom quartile) had a coverage offer rate of 18.4 percent in 2008 compared to the national average of 56.4 percent. Overall employer sponsored coverage offer rates have declined by nearly 5 percent over the past decade, but the decline for small businesses was significantly steeper at 21 percent for firms with 10 to 24 workers and 28 percent for firms with fewer than 10 workers. The recently passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act makes substantive improvements to our health care system that will better provide small business employees access to affordable, quality health coverage. The new health reform law provides certain small businesses with a tax credit to help pay for coverage in the years leading up to the establishment of state health insurance exchanges in 2014. The state health exchanges will have further reformed insurance market rules, which will provide small businesses with a new avenue for purchasing coverage. And if small businesses decide not to offer coverage, lower-income employees will likely receive subsidies to purchase coverage within the exchange. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/04/small_business_health_calculator.html |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
Maybe Dr. Cassell should have used Factcheck. A doctor denying care because of political affiliation, lying about hospice care, scaring the sick and the elderly - how outrageous is that! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlRjRHp3xUM |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
JCT: Healthcare law to sock middle class with a $3.9 billion tax increase in 2019 By Jay Heflin - 04/12/10 02:37 PM ET Taxpayers earning less than $200,000 a year will pay roughly $3.9 billion more in taxes — in 2019 alone — due to healthcare reform, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress's official scorekeeper. The new law raises $15.2 billion over 10 years by limiting the medical expense deduction, a provision widely used by taxpayers who either have a serious illness or are older. Taxpayers can currently deduct medical expenses in excess of 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income. Starting in 2013, most taxpayers will only be able to deduct expenses greater than 10 percent of AGI. Older taxpayers are hit by this threshold increase in 2017. Once the law is fully implemented in 2019, the JCT estimates the deduction limitation will affect 14.8 million taxpayers — 14.7 million of them will earn less than $200,000 a year. These taxpayers are single and joint filers, as well as heads of households. "Loss of this deduction will mean higher taxes for 14.7 million individuals and families making under $200,000 a year in 2019," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told The Hill. "The new subsidy for health insurance would not be available to offset this tax increase for most of these households." The healthcare law contains tax breaks for individuals purchasing health insurance, but the breaks phase out for those making $88,000 a year. President Barack Obama in his Saturday radio address said the healthcare law keeps his campaign pledge to not raise taxes on the middle class. In his bid for the White House, he promised that individuals earning less than $200,000 and joint filers earning less than $250,000 would not see a tax increase under his watch. http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/domestic-taxe s/91669-healthcare-law-socks-middle-class-with-a-39-billion-tax-increase Another promise down the tubes. Ho-hum. So what's new? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Since more people will be covered by insurance and the cost of insurance is supposed to come down as a result of the larger insurance pool, exactly how is there supposed to be a real difference, Mike? More things should be covered in the first place. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Whether I'm here, or if I am there, I'm still a piece of meat. How's it going for YOU? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Bob, can you explain how increasing demand while not increasing supply brings down the cost of something? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
If Bob can't Denise I certainly can - the answer is inherent in the way insurance works. . |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
What happens to insurance rates when medical costs continue to rise due to rising demand (increased amount of consumers) with no corresponding increase on the medical supply side, Grinch? Will insurance premiums increase or decrease as a result? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
All medical care is not the same, actually, Denise. A lot of the demand is on misused medical care — emergency rooms being used to treat colds, and ambulances being called for non-emergency situations. This is the only way that some patients can get any medical care at all, and it is very expensive. It drives up the total cost of hospital care for everybody. If more of these patients can use regular medical care, the cost of emergency care comes down and the cost of hospital care in general should stabilize and possibly (perhaps too much to hope for) come down as well, while the patients with colds can see regular physicians. These physicians have been traditionally underpaid, and could do with a bit of a raise. If more of their time wasn't wasted in dealing with insurance companies and rejected claims and paper work, they could probably get it without working extra hours. A lot of the medical overhead also goes to hiring folks to do the billing for them, and in doing insurance paperwork themselves. Talk to them about this if you can and get their input. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I don't see that the cost of emergency room care will go down, Bob, if the new law creates a shortage of doctors and wait times to see a doctor or medical professional. Usage may very well go up. Ambulance regulations also need to be changed. Right now, at least in Pennsylvania, if someone calls for an ambulance, and it's determined that the 'emergency' is not truly an emergency, even for 'frequent flyers' who are known abusers of the system, the ambulance crew must take them to the emergency room. My question again is what will happen to insurance premiums when medical care costs continue to rise? Is there anything in the new law that addresses these problems? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
There's at least as much about that as there is on tort reform.... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Indeed. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
You should start a thread on that, Mike. It's a little more complicated than many might think and mixing it in with health care reform (sic) only muddies the waters of both. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Tort reform is certainly one of the reasons health care is as high as it is. Since this health care reform is supposed to have ways to lower costs, it's omission is glaring, IMO. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
How much would tort reform save Mike? . |
||
|
JenniferMaxwell
since 2006-09-14
Posts 2423 |
A brief easy to digest article that lays out pros and cons: http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:LVF9hnF9JxgJ:www.bankrate.com/brm/news/pf/20050727a1.asp+tort+reform+pros+and+cons&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
More than it would not save by not having it in there, grinch. Seems to me that tort reform was one of the areas Obama listed as being something to be controlled, and yet ignored it in the bill. I'll look for that. When you think about the significant amount doctors have to pay to be fully covered against any type of aggregious lawsuits, it becomes a large amount...and, of course, that expense is passed on to patients. A good start would be limiting lawyer fees, which are despicable. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I think, perhaps, it was a question about percentages, Mike, not a question that would allow you to duck out quite so easily. The insurance industry like to blame everybody else for increases in it rates, and if it can set the doctors and the patients against each other, so much the better. The insurance companies seem to make money on both sides of the deal, and they raise rates in each direction, so the more paranoid they have everybody about each other, the better off they are. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Having your electric company shut off power to your house would save you money, too, Mike. More, indeed, that it would not save by not having it turned off? You can't, however, look at savings without also looking at costs. Certainly, it would cost you something to live without electricity, even if that cost can't be easily measured in dollars and cents. Similarly, what I think you are calling tort reform I might characterize as making people less responsible for their actions. To me, that's a pretty high price to pay for savings you seem unwilling to define. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, I'm not unwilling to define it. The truth is I'm not capable of defining it. I'll admit that. I'm no lawyer and no politician, not even a doctor. I'm just a fellow on the outside making a few observations I don't like. My observations are... Doctors are paying through the nose for malpractice insurance. Why? Because of the inordinate amount of lawsuits. These expenses get passed on to the patients. Doctors have to run barrages of tests, even ones they feel may not even apply to the care of their patients. Why? As a CYA move in case of future lawsuits. These expenses get passed on to the patient. Lawyers take 30-50% of the awards, and some even tack on more expenses on top of that, sometimes going over 70%. This I have seen. They spew out emotional speeches on how their client's lives have been damaged and the hardships they will have to go through as a result and how they deserve X amount of dollars - and then they keep most of it. I happen to think that's wrong, not only because of the amount of money they take from them but also it spurs them on to press for incredible amounts because they know they are getting a good share of it. To my mind, I happen to think these things are wrong and need to be changed. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
not a question that would allow you to duck out quite so easily Once again, Bob, you have shown you cannot direct a comment toward me without injecting some type of sarcasm or insult. Please direct your comments to someone else. When I see your name on the left of a comment, I won't be reading it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
By John Fritze, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — In an election year dominated by health care, dozens of candidates for Congress have a catchy campaign slogan at their disposal: Send a doctor to the House. Forty-seven physicians — 41 Republicans and six Democrats — are running for the House or Senate this year, three times the number of doctors serving in Congress today, according to a USA TODAY review. An influx of doctors to Congress could alter the landscape for future debates over Medicare and rising insurance premiums months after lawmakers approved President Obama's 10-year, $938 billion health care law. Physician candidates start with at least one political advantage: voter confidence. A Gallup Poll in March found 77% of Americans trust doctors to do "the right thing" on health policy, compared with 32% for Republican leaders and 49% for Obama. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-04-19-doctors_N.htm?csp=34&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomWashington-TopStories+%28News+-+Washin gton+-+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I think you could Mike. You don’t need to do the calculation yourself, you could use California, who’ve already enacted tort reform with regard to Health Care, as a comparative model, Is health care in California significantly less than yours Mike? If so by how much. California may be a bad example though. You could use the CBO estimate, they have all the figures and have done the calculation already, and they say health care tort reform could save up to $4.1 billion a year, that’s between 2-3% of the total cost of health care. Not a very big saving. It’s still something though, as you rightly say, however there are several potential costs to enacting tort reform that make enactment far less of a slam-dunk decision that it seems. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
That's an interesting point of view, Mike, considering that my last comment contained no sarcasm at all, at least none that I intended. Should I intend sarcasm, I like to be aware of it. I certainly don't intend to leave you out of any comments I make, should I feel the inclusion appropriate, so feel free to ignore me or chime in as feels best to you at the time. You do occasionally withdraw in a state of high indignation for shorter or longer periods, and, for my part, you are always missed. I don't always agree with you, but you do say some interesting things. [This message has been edited by Bob K (04-19-2010 07:16 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I think this is a pretty fair assessment of many people's feelings... "I am as irate as anyone at the way that Obama and Pelosi, like a pair of old-time bootleggers, strong-armed members of Congress into voting for ObamaCare. But just because the Republicans fought back, I'm not as prepared as some to give them a pass. ... I would say to GOP politicians, you had control of the House, the Senate and the Oval Office from 2001-2007, but you didn't do a darn thing about health insurance. It's only now that the liberals are gobbling up one-sixth of the economy that you're suddenly all for tort reform and allowing insurance companies to compete across state borders. When you had the power, all that people like John McCain and the rest of you punks did was cozy up to people like Feingold and Kennedy, like a bunch of school girls hoping the liberals would ask you to the prom. ... [I]nstead of behaving responsibly, you cheered Bush on when he signed a blank check to cover pharmaceuticals. You patted him on the back and took a few bows yourself, as if you or he were personally picking up the tab for granny's meds. ... I'm not suggesting that I don't despise Obama, Pelosi, Waxman and the other left-wing gnomes, but just letting you know that there's more than enough well-deserved contempt to go around. So don't assume that simply because you call yourself a Republican and make nice with the Tea Party crowd that we trust you any farther than we can throw Barney Frank." --columnist Burt Prelutsky |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I love Burt! He's one of my favorite columnists! He's also the only one who has ever replied to an email from me thanking me for writing him. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
