Via DailyKos, US Sen. Maria Cantwell makes the argument for the public option, in summary:
(1) Health care costs must be brought under control or they will overrun the federal budget; (2) The public option is a critical tool for keeping health care costs down; (3) The public option will work because it (a) inserts more competition into the system and (b) delivers health care for the cost of health care.
As Jed Lewison notes, if we use reconciliation, we don’t need any Republican votes in the Senate to pass health care reform, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be rubbing their faces in our arguments.
If we merely eliminate the insurance companies’ role as financial intermediaries we’ll save 25% to 30% right off the top.
Via Daily Kos? How about a link?
@1
Exactly right. Take the chiselers out of the equation completely. Insurance companies are a total cash cow because they never lose money. They ALWAYS show massive profits even in disaster years. The federal government, and State governments guarantee in law their access to cash flow. Government (the taxpayers) recompenses all losses plus whatever extra it takes to allow the company to show profit on their books.
Insurance corporations are purely a wealth extraction industry. They produce nothing tangible, only capital that creates other avenues of wealth for the people at the top levels of the corporation. Insurance serves nobody but the stockholders in the corporation.
ivan @2,
Oops. Fixed.
How about letting insurance companies charge you based on your health risk, like car insurance companies do. The best scenario is to have some catastrophic policy for people and then pay out of pocket or join some kind of co-op for normal maintenance. My insurance is a waste of money, I go to the doctor once a year to get a physical. I would rather pay 200 bucks and take the 12k my company pays in insurance costs and add it to my paycheck. Also currently single people get screwed by the way most companies provide benefits.
Actually, a substantial portion of health insurance isn’t “insurance” at all.
Insurance, in essence, consists of many people pooling resources to provide indemnity against contingent risks arising from unpredictable events.
Because most people incur some amount of covered medical expenses every year, what we refer to (and think of) as “health insurance” in fact consists to some extent of prepaid medical care. Only the portion of coverage against unpredictable medical expenses that may not occur and which exceed the premiums paid in can be considered true “insurance.”
A standard health insurance policy, therefore, is a mix of prepaid routine medical service and insurance against the risk of medical expenses that may result from an injury or illness. In addition, the insurance company likely will play a negotiator role in obtaining more favorable prices from health care providers for policyholders than they could get on their own. The primary reason for these discounts is that a provider avoids certain business expenses (for marketing, bill processing, and collection) when an intermediary delivers a large bloc of customers to the provider.
The 25% to 30% the insurance industry skims off the top of our health care system pays for a large paper-pushing bureaucracy that provides no actual health care. It’s somewhat analogous to the 33% to 40% that lawyers get for negotiating injury settlements or getting a jury verdict. Insurers and lawyers are both facilitators and financial intermediaires who charge a lot for what ultimately is a very simple service, i.e. transferring money from one person or entity to another person or entity.
This is where the biggest efficiencies and cost savings in our health care system can be found, although I must point out that insurers take vastly more of our health care dollars than lawyers do.
However, if you want to get rid of the lawyers (and the alleged “defensive medicine” often blamed on them), here’s how you could do it. Limiting damages or taking away the right to compensation is NOT the way to go. Insulating medical providers from liability for negligence is unfair to patients and would encourage sloppy medical practices. You CAN get rid of the lawyers as financial intermediaries by creating a patient compensation system modeled on the workers’ comp system that eliminated lawsuits against employers for workplace injuries while protecting workers vis-a-vis medical expenses and lost wages. This system has worked well for a century and could be adapted to the health care system. However, no one should expect dramatic savings from such a step, because legal claims — unlike the overhead of maintaining a gargantuan insurance industry –just aren’t a large item in overall health care costs.
If you want the big money, you have to go after the financial intermediary role of the insurance companies, and the huge premium they charge thealth care consumers merely for moving money from one pocket to another pocket.
“And yet the administration is shocked — shocked that Americans aren’t rallying behind its vague health care plan. They can try to blame it on Fox News or town hall crazies, but I hope they know that much of the health care anger is a proxy for bailout anger.
“Americans feel it in their gut that the White House is treating the big business health care establishment the same way it handled the big business Wall Street establishment. The president seems to believe that what’s good for Goldman Sachs and PhRMA is, ipso facto, good for the country. We keep hearing from the administration how its health care plan is good for “choice and competition.” But we see how well “choice and competition” have fared in the financial sector.”
– Arianna Huffington
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....73341.html
@5 Without question, there should be patient financial responsibility for health care utilization. Nearly everyone agrees on this, and it’s not controversial. This is necessary to discourage frivolous doctor or ER visits, and to encourage healthy lifestyles. But patient financial responsibility, whether it takes the form of copays and deductibles or something else, can’t be so high as to discourage people from seeking necessary medical care or bar access to medical care altogether.
@6 Roger Rabbit
Great post and yes you have the issue exactly correct.
One take home from this is that we need to move away from employer provided healthcare. It makes absolutely no sejnse for any employer to be in the business of providing health care .. esp when we add in families, pregnancies, and elective procedures (does Bobby REALLY need a sex change operation?).
In an negotiation the interests f the employee are t get maximum benefit while the employer wants as much work for pay as possible. As a result the incentives to control healthcare costs, esp the kinds of costs that occur after employment has ceased, are never going to be big items for either party.
My other take home is that we need to think of healthcare as part of the Jeffersonian concept of a society where all have equal opportunity. A child denied healthcare has a huge deficit in life. An older person, you and I, may go bankrupt but most of our achievement is already in place.
@7 “much of the health care anger is a proxy for bailout anger”
That’s an interesting concept. I haven’t heard this before, nor had I thought of it, but there may be something to this.
If so, it’s not rational. There is no connection between bank bailouts and protecting ordinary citizens from soaring health costs and the risk of medical bankruptcy that hangs over all of us (even if we have comprehensive health insurance).
The visceral anger against the bank bailouts is understandable, but two presidents from opposite ends of the partisan spectrum — Bush and Obama — signed off on them, and virtually all reputable economists say they were necessary to prevent a catastrophic financial collapse and another Great Depression.
I see angry words over the bailouts, but I don’t see any of these people saying maybe banking, like defense, is so vital and so close to the nation’s jugular that it ought to be run by the government for the public interest. These folks need to understand that the more unregulated capitalism they want the more likely they as taxpayers will be called on to save the system from its own excesses. History teaches us that you can’t have unregulated banking without also having financial panics and economic collapses.
Everybody knows that to teach a dog you have to rub its face in its argument, not yours.
@9 “we need to move away from employer provided healthcare”
Whether we need to or not, we are, and the de facto declining role of employers in providing health benefits to members of society has to be dealt with simply because it’s going away.
Employer-provided health benefits was a historical accident that we now know has a limited shelf life whose “use by” date is coming due soon.
Like it or not, we either have to come up with something else, or do without.
Insurance isn’t Health Care.
Insurance is a TOOL to help manage RISK associated with Health Care Costs.
The Government Option will eliminate private insurers and eliminate competition.
As usual, Cantwell has it all wrong.
@7 Dave S.
Trying to double guess the Pres on this one is hard. Hillary effed up hbig time by doing just what you say.
I like to think that what BHO has done is laid a base. When healthcare passes, esp if it is done by over riding the f-bomb, the Repricans are going to look asinine and he will get huge cred.
I am convinced this is the strategy, but am concerned about the details. Liberal orthodoxy in these issues is a problem too. There are a number of myths that could hurt the final plan:
1. Insurance/admin overhead. Maybe BUT from what I read the costs of cooperatives, where one assumes there is no profit, are as high as the costs of insurance plans. There is something to be said for competition … IF the bill is written so as to encourage that!
2. Preventative medicine in adults. This does prolong life but it increases healthcare costs.
3. “death panels” of course any health care plan will have some sort of utilization/triage process. This is NOT just a matter of who gets what final care it is also a matter of who gets different forms of preventitive medicine.
4. cost shifting … I suspect that a huge part of American inefficieny is do to endemic cost shifting. Some illegal immigrant is injured in a state where state law prohibits paying for =care but federal law requires it. Who do you suppose pays for this?
5. American Subsidies .. All this debate about Americans being able to buy drugs in Canada misses the point. The drug companies operate accdording to a bottom line. If CA gets a discount, we pay for it. If we become more rigorous, then something will go .. the mix of drugs developed will change to conform to whatever is most profitable. That mix may or may not be what is best for patients.
6. Education … our current model .. $200,000 and more in loans .. is untenable. Med schools are also overly slective in the US. We need to educate more students and do so without creating a debt structure that forces students to choose specialty by recompense.
Well Mr Freeze.
Obviously you are a Republican who because of good choices will never get sick. Because of course, Bad things only happen to Bad people.
However maybe you could be unlucky one day and be diagnosed with one of those million $ ailments.
Under the Democrats plan we take care of you.
Under the Republican plan we take everything you have then rely on bake sales or toss you overboard because you are obviously not worthy ( rich enough to survive).
@13 mr. C
Mr C assures us that the term “insurance” was defined by Jesus in the gospel of George.
“And let insurance be a form of gambling where I win if you die before I pay for your healthcare.”
And George was pleased with this, on of the many definitions he created during his days of rest.
You say that like its a bad thing. Fuck the insurance companies. They can rot in hell. They are a leech on society, and a clear and present danger to the Republic.
Risk managment will always exist. You don’t want to see a person in their 70’s or 80’s get massive extraordinary treatments to keep them alive when they get cancer or have a massive brain destroying stroke. At the same time, you wont see so many junkies survive an overdose of whatever poison they’ve injested. In the Netherlands, there is an unwritten policy, that is a junkie comes in with a massive overdose. They treat them, and save their lives the first two times. They put them in a rehabilitation facility and do what they can to end the addiction cycle.
The third time, they are pretty much on their own. If they survive, thats okay. But if they die, they did it to themselves. Under the current system here, their lives are always saved if possible, and the costs are handed over to the taxpayers through the higher fees associated with carrying private insurance.
As a die hard liberal, I have no problem with that approach to the problem of chronic substance abuse. Treat them, do what one can to end the addiction cycle, and if that doesn’t work, tough shit. One can only do so much for a person addicted to a death drug like heroin, meth or cocaine.
Sj–
From the Bible of the Lunatic Left…Wikipedia
Insurance, in law and economics, is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent loss. Insurance is defined as the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another, in exchange for a premium, and can be thought of as a guaranteed and known small loss to prevent a large, possibly devastating loss.
Cantwell ought to be focusing on Afghanistan and give this old tired dog a rest.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
@18 Mr. C has now endorsed the Wki as a revealed truth!
Mythical view
Main article: Christ myth theory
Further information: Jesus Christ and comparative mythology
Certain scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure.
or …
At Elis during the Thyeia, the festival of Dionysus, three empty pots would be placed by priests in a sealed room and the following day be found to miraculously be filled with wine.[32][33] Wine would appear miraculously, though not from being turned from water on the feast days of Dionysus. For example, On the islands of Teos and Naxos, wine would burst from the ground regularly like a spring. According to Propertius, on the island of Andros, wine would flow from the temple there for a week but whenever it was removed from the temple area it would turn into water. [34]
SJ–
Aren’t you an Atheist??
I have always respected the Jewish Faith. Always.
I have to laugh at the HA Atheist JINO’s who use their “Jewishness” when it is convenient…but then go back to their HATE GOD dogma.
You are one of them…aren’t you SJ??
Too bad you put so much energy into Christian bashing and Christian-hating SJ.
PS–
I thought most fat people were jolly??
What happened to you??
@21 Atheism
Nothing in Judaism contradicts atheism. Judaism is not a religion in the sense that Christianity is a religion. There is no credo. I would guess that. amongst Israelis, atheists outnumber the haredi. If you are born ofg a jewish mother and identify yourself with us, Judaism accepts you as a jew.
As for bashing Christianity, I try to be objective. Historically Jesus-worship is not Jewish at all and anything like that would have been treated as blasphemy at the time he is supposed to have lived. (not crucifixion .. that was reserved for those who committed crimes vs the Roman empire).
For Jews, even the orthodox, the essence of Judaism is not belief in the diety but following the laws which, according to the MOST orthodox POV, is itself eternal .. not created by “God” but of God. An orthodox jew would eagerly ask me to partipate in his minyon and be very pleased if I laid onm tefillin.
This does not mean the orthodox accept atheism and a Jew who denied the OJ beliefs would be considered as sinful as one who decided that God was incarnate and copulated with Mary.
What I do bash in Christianity is its incomparable tradition of cultural genocide. ONLY Islam and Christianity have ever practiced the extermination of indigenous religions … a natural outcome of the design of Christianity by Constantine as a means for assuring loyalty to his state. To the best of my knowledge, ONLY religions derived from the Roamn concept .. including Marxism and Islam, have ever acted this way.
Amongst fundies, I also bash the general ignorance of Christina history. A good place to start is with the paradox of non Catholics who reject the authority of the Pope while insisting that the texts authorized by the institution that created him, that is the Roman State and the council of Nicea, is for some reason divine. One reason that Puddy and I are friends is that he is one of a few believers who can actually discuss why he accepts the Christian bible.
While I am at it, amongst the most egregious evils of the Roman text is the denigration of the Pharisees. Historically, if Jesus did exist, he would have himself has to be a lay Pharisee because his teachings are clearly Pharisaic. Of course, since the Pharisees were alos the sect that led the rebellion vs. the Romans, the judgment of the Roman Bible against the Pharisees is understandable.
Do I admire some things Chrsitian .. oh yeh! Charity, democracy, are wonderful. MLK, Jefferson, Voltaire,Kennedy, John XXIII, Cesar Chavez, .. all these are great exemplars of the good Christians can do.!
Hey Goldy, Maria might want to consider this as she spews the Party line—
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
The Dems have screwed the goat…so to speak.
Obama is certainly a charismatic guy…but it ends there. He is an inept politician and electeds like Cantwell will be dragged down by spewing Obama’s nonsense.
re 5: “My insurance is a waste of money, I go to the doctor once a year to get a physical. I would rather pay 200 bucks and take the 12k my company pays in insurance costs and add it to my paycheck.”
It takes a certain sort of innocence to suppose that the company will put that $12,000 into your paycheck. The same sort of innocence that thinks ‘tort reform’ will lower the cost of malpractice insurance.
I have a bridge in Brooklyn that’s for sale if that is your mindset.
re 23: You are nothing but a bag full of cookie-cutter Republican talking points. Give it a rest.
@13: At some point in life health care becomes a certainty, not just another “contingent” risk. The private insurance model then breaks down, and we get “competition” that is little more than rent seeking jobbery as the private insurers work to deny claims and limit their premium paying customers to the ‘healthy’ ones.
If you had read Kennth Arrow’s famous article on how markets inevitably fail when it comes health care, you would know this.
You have nobody to blame but yourself for your manifest ignorance.
@13 “The Government Option will eliminate private insurers …”
Yeah, you’re probably right, private insurance is such a bad deal for the consumer it probably will.
@19 “Cantwell ought to be focusing on Afghanistan”
According to conservative pundit George Will, the new conservative line on Afghanistan is to cut and run, so Al Qaida can reopen shop and attack us again.
The new conservative position on Afghanistan sounds defeatist to me.
@14 Given that drug companies spend about half of their total revenue on marketing, if we eliminated the marketing of drugs to the public and simply let doctors decide when patients should be on medication and what medications they should be on, we could cut the cost of drugs in half without cutting into drug company profits or R & D budgets.
@28 According to conservative pundit George Will, the new conservative line on Afghanistan is to cut and run, so Al Qaida can reopen shop and attack us again.
——————
The new conservative position? Sentiment against the war has been building for awhile, beginning on the left:
W.H. fears liberal war pressure
“White House officials are increasingly worried liberal, anti-war Democrats will demand a premature end to the Afghanistan war before President Barack Obama can show signs of progress in the eight-year conflict, according to senior administration sources.”
http://www.politico.com/news/s.....z0PtJnFFVB
As more troops – more American troops that is since our European allies have been less than generous with theirs when it comes to this “necessary” war – the war will become an even greater flash point for Dems.
Where have you been?
@29
You are full of it RR.
Conservatives support our efforts in Afghanistan. The POTUS’s positition and actions thus far with respect to Afghanistan has certainly earned my respect. I disagree with almost everything else he is doing, but on this one, he gets high marks.
It will be a test of his character and credibility to see the job thru as support among Democrats fades. It has already started with the Cindy Sheehan wing of the liberal anti war groups, Liberals of all stripes will soon follow, and soon after that, polling among all democrats and independents will be negative for POTUS with respect to Afghanistan. And what will he do?
In a previous thread Mr. Cynical touted Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) as a future GOP leader, and his “Roadmap For America’s Future.” Here’s what Ryan’s “roadmap” entails, in his own words:
“Health Care. Ensures universal access to affordable health insurance by restructuring the tax code, allowing all Americans to secure an affordable health plan that best suits their needs, and shifts the ownership of health coverage away from the government and employers to individuals.
“Provides a refundable tax credit – $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families – to
purchase coverage in any State, and keep it with them if they move or change jobs.
“Establishes transparency in health care price and quality data, so this critical information
is readily available before someone needs health services.
“Modernizes Medicaid and strengthens the health care safety net by reforming high-risk
pools, giving States maximum flexibility to tailor Medicaid programs to the specific
needs of their populations. Allows Medicaid recipients to take part in the same variety of
options and high-quality care available to everyone through the tax credit option.
“Medicare. Transitions the program to allow beneficiaries to choose the most affordable coverage to suit their needs.
“Preserves the existing Medicare program for those 55 or older.
“For those currently under 55 – as they become Medicare-eligible – creates a Medicare
payment of up to $9,500. This payment is adjusted for inflation and based on income,
with low-income individuals receiving greater support. It is also risk-adjusted, so those
with greater medical needs receive a higher payment.
“Establishes and fully funds medical savings accounts [MSAs] for low-income
beneficiaries, while continuing to allow all beneficiaries, regardless of income, to set up
tax-free MSAs.
“Makes Medicare permanently solvent, based on consultation with the Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Social Security.
“Preserves the existing Social Security program for those 55 or older.
“Offers workers under 55 the option of investing over one third of their current Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts, similar to the Thrift Savings Plan
available to Federal employees. Includes a property right so they can pass on these assets
to their heirs, and a guarantee that total benefits from the personal accounts will not be
less than they would have been under the current system.
“Combined with a more realistic measure of growth in Social Security’s initial benefits
Aand an eventual modernization of the retirement age, makes the program permanently
solvent, according to the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration [SSA].
“Tax Reform.
“Provides individual income tax payers a choice of how to pay their taxes – through
existing law, or through a highly simplified code that fits on a postcard with just two rates and virtually no special tax deductions, credits, or exclusions (except the health care tax credit).
“Simplified tax rates are 10% on income up to $100,000 for joint filers, and $50,000 for
single filers; and 25% on taxable income above these amounts. Also includes a generous
standard deduction and personal exemption (totaling $39,000 for a family of four).
“Eliminates the alternative minimum tax [AMT].
“Promotes saving by eliminating taxes on interest, capital gains, and dividends; also
eliminates the death tax.
“Replaces the corporate income tax – currently the second highest in the industrialized
world – with a border-adjustable business consumption tax of 8.5%. This new rate is
roughly half that of the rest of the industrialized world.”
http://www.americanroadmap.org/
Roger Rabbit Commentary: I haven’t seen a detailed analysis of Ryan’s proposal yet, but here’s how I interpret what he says. Assuming he wants to balance the budget, his plan will require making large cuts in federal spending, which will require large cuts in entitlement benefits like Social Security and Medicare. The fact these cuts would occur is apparent from the quoted language above.
Ryan also wants: More tax cuts for the rich; eliminating taxation of dividends, interest, capital gains, and inheritances; eliminating coporate income taxes; phasing out Medicare; and privatizing Social Security. He also wants to raise the eligibility age for Social Security and reduce senior citizens’ COLAs by tying them to the CPI instead of the wage index.*
So what would replace Medicare? A cash payment of “up to” $9,500. To put this in perspective, one day in a hospital can cost you over $20,000.
What would replace employer-provided health insurance? “Medical savings accounts.” In other words, workers would buy insurance or pay for medical care out of their own pockets, but hey, they’ll get a tax shelter. Ryan apparently would have the government subsidize the poorest of the poor by having the government put money into their MSAs.
Ryan’s plan, so far as I can tell, does not contain any regulation of insurers. He puts his faith in free market principles to control the price and terms of health insurance. All he promises is “transparency” of pricing data which, it seems to me, most people won’t understand or use.
If you click on the link, you’ll see that Ryan’s federal spending target is 18.5% of GDP. Historically, federal spending has been in a range of 18% to 22%, so that’s not in right field but it’s at the low end of the range. With the post-WW2 population bulge on the verge of qualifying for Social Security and Medicare, the only way you can get to that number is by eliminating all defense spending or making huge benefit cuts in those programs.
This is what Rep. Ryan stands for, and this is what Mr. Cynical is endorsing. Voters have seen much of this agenda before — and decisively rejected it in the 2006 and 2008 elections. What makes Mr. Cynical believe it will be more popular in 2010 or 2012?
Personally, I don’t think the “Roadmap” is going anywhere, and I don’t think Mr. Ryan’s political career is going anywhere either. If he is someone that die-hard Republicans like Mr. C want to run as their presidential candidate in 2012, that’s fine with me. A radical candidate and platform will simply make Obama’s reelection easier for our side.
@28 According to conservative pundit George Will, the new conservative line on Afghanistan is to cut and run, so Al Qaida can reopen shop and attack us again.
————–
And more:
Public Opinion in U.S. Turns Against Afghan War
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....03066.html
“Should Obama embrace his generals’ call for even more forces, he would risk alienating some of his staunchest supporters. Although 60 percent of Americans approve of how Obama has handled the situation in Afghanistan, his ratings among liberals have slipped, and majorities of liberals and Democrats alike now, for the first time, solidly oppose the war and are calling for a reduction in troop levels.
“Overall, seven in 10 Democrats say the war has not been worth its costs, and fewer than one in five support an increase in troop levels.
“Republicans (70 percent say it is worth fighting) and conservatives (58 percent) remain the war’s strongest backers, and the issue provides a rare point of GOP support for Obama’s policies. A narrow majority of conservatives approve of the president’s handling of the war (52 percent), as do more than four in 10 Republicans (43 percent). ”
So contrary to what you think, support for Obama’s Afghan war strategy is coming from the right, not the left. It is the left, in your words, which is “cutting and running,” and it is the right which you’re in agreement with.
Of course, you’re not alone. A number of the HA faithful believed Obama’s thinking on the war was spot on.
“Promotes saving by eliminating taxes on interest, capital gains, and dividends; also
eliminates the death tax”
Same old shit. And just what taxes would the wealthy pay? It’s not like they have jobs and would be paying income tax. No, the wealthy would pay no taxes and would not do so for generation after generation. Fuck that shit.
[Deleted —see HA Comment Policy and this may help]
Rog-
I haven’t seen Conservatives this fired up since 1994. You KLOWNS beat everything, you know that! I knew you KLOWNS would get your hand on the rudder and immediately hit an IceBerg!
The Dummocraps ought to change their Party name to the Titanic’s!
Medical care should be commonly available at a price that average working people can just buy, like going to a grocery store. The reason it is so expensive and so difficult is because of the government monopoly control.
What is needed to reform medical care is to get government out of the business:
1.End the quota system for doctor education and licensing
2.End the mandated extremely over-education of doctors
3.Allow free citizens to purchase pharmaceuticals at our own decision. It’s our body.
4.Break the Lieyer scum with Tort Reform
5.Break the pharmaceutical monopoly by allowing open manufacture and sale of pills.
@38 Allow the consumer to purchase insurance across state lines.
correction @33 — it seems I forgot to put in the asterisked (*) information, so here it is:
* Under current law, Social Security benefits go up with wages, not consumer prices. In theory, this means SS recipients’ standard of living rises in tandem with that of the general economy, whereas by pegging SocSec COLAs to the price index instead of wages, retirees would be left behind as general prosperity rises. In practice, the COLAs rarely cover much more than the increases in Medicare premiums, so that even under the current system retirees are falling behind inflation. Another problem with using the CPI index is that senior citizens’ major expenses, such as medical care, tend to have higher inflation rates than the general CPI.
@37 Please explain to me why wage earners should pay all the taxes in this country and people who get their income from owning investments and other property should get a free ride. How do you justify that on moral and fairness grounds? I don’t think you can.
@37 (continued) I’m not sure why conservatives are fired up by seeing their share of the electorate shrink to under 30%; but hey, if that rings your bell …
Oh no, a health study done by a member of big pharma…
In other news, we’ve learned that Chris Broughton, the wingnut who sported an AR-15 (a military-style assault rifle similar to the AK-47 used by Seattle’s freeway shooter last week) at a recent health care rally, attends Faith Word Baptist Church in Tempe, AZ, whose pastor, Steven Anderson, has garnered attention by praying for President Obama’s death. Broughton also publicly stated he wants Obama dead.
New development: The Secret Service has confirmed it’s investigating both men. Good.
@37 (continued) How’s that Titanic meme working out for you guys these days?
@38 Interesting website you have, Bob. You and Puddy should hit it off, seeing as you both have a thing for third person narrative.
“Bob suggests that you get a copy of the 1984 film “Red Dawn” and make preparations for the future that Obama and his supporters are preparing for. Between firebrand nations like Korea and Iran preparing to use nuclear weapons to conquer the world, and peace loving nations like the US disarming as quickly as Obama can manage it, the future is very scary indeed.”
Yeah, I always figured Korea was itching to conquer the world, those fuckers.
@42
Well you don’t want their numbers to shrink too much. After all, they’re the ones standing firm behind Obama on Afghanistan – along with you – unlike Dems in general who are turning against the war in droves. This abandonment – cutting and running according to you – is after singing hymns to his smart war judgment just a mere eight months ago. Eight months to implement a successful war strategy isn’t much, but that’s all it took for the knees of supporters to turn wobbly.
Thank god he has conservatives . . . and you.
Debunking of the right wing talking point on purchasing insurance across state lines:
http://www.newamerica.net/publ....._explained
I see that Bob’s got that commie-fascist thing going in high gear.
Hmm, I sense that Bob might have issues with women.
Yikes!
I see that Bob calls himself a philosopher and a cyber-libertarian. I take it that’s just another way of saying “I’m batshit-crazy”.
34 – Hilarious! Now it’s our turn to throw “cut and run” at the right wing..
You live long enough, you see it all.
A REPUBLICAN speaks truth to power!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8ezBSvJFsE
Never thought I’d see it in this day and age. I hope I see more of it.
headless lucy:
What is wrong with a company having the following policy:
We allow you X number of benefit dollars that you can spend how you wish. Anything left over you can pocket. The company may still be able to offer plans that are cheaper than you can get on your own so it would be a good deal to use their plans.
I think most people would prefer that kind of option.
To the other idiot #15, you didn’t even read what I said.
Does anyone really believe that Boeing gets better HC prices than other employers?
All I can say about the Georgia Congressman Paul Brown, RepubliKLAN is that I only wish General Sherman had the Nuclear Option.
@53: Don’t they self insure? If true, I bet they do.
@13 Cynical:
So you admit that single payer is inherently more efficient than private insurance. That is the only way your above prediction could come true.
@38 Sounds like you want to go back to having barbers treat cancer by putting leeches on people’s asses.
Hey Cynical, you haven’t answered my question @41. Why?
@46 “Red Dawn” was an entertaining action-fi flick if your mind could handle the implausibility of Nicaragua invading the U.S. — the plot definitely requires suspension of belief.
I loved the opening sequence where the Sandanista paratrooper machine-gunned the car in the high school parking lot. Yeah right. That scene convinced me the movie was intended to be slapstick comedy.
According to Wikipedia, MGM is doing a remake slated for release in Sept. 2010, this time with China the invading country. Yeah man, I wanna kill some Chinese! Wolverines! Maybe when the rednecks see this movie they’ll decide it’s unpatriotic to shop at Wal-Mart.
@47 “Dems in general … are turning against the war in droves”
Where do you get this crap from? Most Democrats have always thought we have to be in Afghanistan; and one of our criticisms of the GOP’s recreational war in Iraq was that it diverted military resources away from the fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda. During the campaign, Obama said we should go into Pakistan after them, whether Pakistan agreed to it or not. Which I agree with.
So, now that George Will is a cut-and-runner, are you wingnuts going to drum him out of the conservative corps and turn your backs on him?
@50 But we always knew they would run to the nearest deferment if the balloon went up, didn’t we? See, e.g., Five Deferments Cheney.
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
So does that mean the taxpayers needs to go into the car insurance business, life insurance business, boat insurance business? Is the government suppose to take over all businesses that strive to make a profit?
@63 The only thing health “insurance” has in common with car insurance, life insurance, or boat insurance is the term “insurance.”
@DCG 63
No. And that is a stupid comment.
The argument is that health care is a right that should be available to all Americans, not just the ones that can afford it…just like police & fire protection.
No one is arguing a fundamental right to car or boat ownership, or life insurance.
Nice straw man. Actually, no. Ridiculous.
Where in the Constitution does it state health care is a right that should be provided by the federal government?
Furthermore, why is government-run Medicare broke, with $36 trillion in unfunded liabilities? Why are taxpayers continuously subsidizing government-run Amtrak, which has never made a profit in its 38 years of existence? And how can you trust the government to run a health care program when they can’t even run a whorehouse in Nevada?
@66: Where does it say in the Constitution that health care is NOT a right? Do the people not have a right to shape the rules of government to their will as long as the rule does not violate the explicit proscriptive bounds on government? A constitutional scholar you are not.
@67: Specious number. The unfunded liabilities of the Dept. of Defense make that one pale by comparison. The People subsidize Amtrac because they want to. They also subsidize our inefficient sugar growers and many other things. In actuality, government does many things quite well.
“So does that mean the taxpayers needs to go into the car insurance business, life insurance business, boat insurance business?”
Wouldn’t be a bad idea, actually. If the need, and the pool, is big enough the government can do it better, fairer, and cheaper.
If the property casualty insurance biz is so efficient, why does the government have to help out the SE US every time a major huricane hits?
44 He must be a racist (oh wait, he’s black)! Garafolo would go into a spasm over this one!
@ 60 Most Democrats have always thought we have to be in Afghanistan;
——————
See @34 you dope:
““Should Obama embrace his generals’ call for even more forces, he would risk alienating some of his staunchest supporters. Although 60 percent of Americans approve of how Obama has handled the situation in Afghanistan, his ratings among liberals have slipped, and majorities of liberals and Democrats alike now, for the first time, solidly oppose the war and are calling for a reduction in troop levels.”
“Republicans (70 percent say it is worth fighting) and conservatives (58 percent) remain the war’s strongest backers, and the issue provides a rare point of GOP support for Obama’s policies. A narrow majority of conservatives approve of the president’s handling of the war (52 percent), as do more than four in 10 Republicans (43 percent).”
You’re out of touch with your party and obviously just plain out of touch. Your sentiments – support of the war – are in line with conservatives, not Dems, who, to use your language, are advocating “cutting and running.”
Opposition against the war among Dems will only continue to solidify as the buildup continues, putting you increasingly at odds with your party.
You’re a step behind.
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
Never professed to be a constitutional scholar. I have read the constitution and no where does it state that health care is a right that is to be provided by the federal government if you cannot afford your own. The Constitution is not intended to address every issue or perceived grievance, because it was intended to limit government’s role in our lives. Name ONE government branch that operates efficiently or does something quite well – or at least breaks even. Post Office? Amtrack (we don’t have a say in that when Biden throws in pork barrel spending for his pet project)? Medicare? Medicaid? WA State? Metro? State of CA? Fannie Mae? Freddie Mac? They may all do things “quite well” but never with the goal of saving taxpayers money and ultimately reducing our tax burden.
I didn’t state insurance companies were efficient, rather I was questioned why he felt the need to get rid of private insurance companies all together. I believe the government assists because the states receive federal funding when they can declare a natural disaster.
@67
Well, to start with…it isn’t.
@38 “We been doin’ brain surgeries fer two whole weeks…ain’t we, boss?”
“Right. We started out with heart transplants, but it was such a pain in the ass to clean the carpet…”
For once ArtFart is right@74…
“Please sit tight while I walk you through the math of Medicare. As you may know, the program comes in three parts: Medicare Part A, which covers hospital stays; Medicare B, which covers doctor visits; and Medicare D, the drug benefit that went into effect just 29 months ago. The infinite-horizon present discounted value of the unfunded liability for Medicare A is $34.4 trillion. The unfunded liability of Medicare B is an additional $34 trillion. The shortfall for Medicare D adds another $17.2 trillion. The total? If you wanted to cover the unfunded liability of all three programs today, you would be stuck with an $85.6 trillion bill. That is more than six times as large as the bill for Social Security. It is more than six times the annual output of the entire U.S. economy.”
Richard W. Fisher is president and CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. – Wait a minute… he’s not a right-wing bullshitter? – spongebob wondermoron squarepants.
Yep Artfart, the value was way too low. Thanks for pointing that out.
Now about ProudBeingAnASS@68, well he doesn’t bring much to the table, just like rujax the clusterfucked cinderblock.
Dummocrapts, please use reconciliation. Please do it now. Quickly call the vote Harry Land Deal Reid!
Dumbass @ 76: Pray tell, what is the value of all future GNP discounted “over the infinite time horizon”, eh? You bring the same shiny wingnut toy to this conversation that you brought to the debate over Social Secuity.
How’d that work for you? Your ignorance is vast indeed.
ProudASS: The Dallas Fed Reserve Chairman is a shiny wingnut toy? Man you are a clusterfucked cinderblock.
Now what were you saying again fool? So the programs are not going to run out of funds in the future? Did you read the Social Security Administration and Medicare Trustees annual report on their programs? Did you notice the values? Did you miss the July 21st congressional briefing by Social Security and Medicare Trustee Thomas R. Saving? Did you miss in his point in 2020, the combined deficits of Social Security and Medicare will consume more than one-fourth of all federal income taxes? Are you one of these morons who think the US GDP will continue to fund Social Security and Medicare forever? Even your Dummocrapt friends admit both programs are going to run out of money in the future. Or are you one of those who keep saying raise more taxes to continue the funds flowing to retirees?
So what do you support? Please tell us ProudASS.
@78
The fiscal issues associated with Social Security and Medicare are well-known:
http://www.cbo.gov/publication.....health.cfm
Only a potted plant at this point in time would ignore the problem or dismiss it.
But Cantwell still considers the cooperative a “public option”, just not as “aggressive” as she would prefer. But can’t get anything better. From herself. Out of her own committee. Because we all must hold hands & sing kumbaya w/ the birthers/deathers/uber-environmentalist-gun-runners until consensus is reached.
http://slog.thestranger.com/sl.....lic-option
If a cooperative will do so much good, why haven’t they? & why does my Group Health Cooperative insurance act just like every other insurance company in the world?