Paying for Universal Health Coverage

[skinguy]

Paying for Universal Health Coverage
June 6, 2009

> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/opinion/07sun1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion


~ ~ more taxes ? ? :thinker:

[akhhorus]

1.5 trillion over the next 10 years isn't that much money frankly. And if the projections on medicare are true(2-3 trillion a year after 2015), that 1.5 trillion isn't going to look that bad.

[VegasSkinsFan]

So many people harp on healthcare, when the majority of people dont care about their health. Too many people smoking, drinking to excess, eating toxic food, covering their bodies with chemicals, lack of exercise....maybe its time people "change" their lifestyles instead of hoping the govt will help them since we know doctors havent and wont cure anything. just my rant.

[shally]

people have no clue how much it would take to provide universal health care on the medicare model for all

there isnt enough money without sending the debt into orbit, or taxing the s***
out of every working man, woman and child

pie in the sky

[skinguy]

1.5 trillion over the next 10 years isn't that much money frankly. And if the projections on medicare are true(2-3 trillion a year after 2015), that 1.5 trillion isn't going to look that bad.
it's going to cost ALOT of $ . alot MORE than the projestions/estimates.
seriously , i sure hope all the tax payers enjoy paying taxes because
the taxes are gonna go up.
WAY up . . :smash:

cheers ~ ~
:beer:

[akhhorus]

it's going to cost ALOT of $ . alot MORE than the projestions/estimates.
seriously , i sure hope all the tax payers enjoy paying taxes because
the taxes are gonna go up.
WAY up . . :smash:

cheers ~ ~
:beer:

So, you agree with me then? Then why did you post your latest article?

[BurgundyNGold]

So, you agree with me then? Then why did you post your latest article?
Bored today, lol?

I think that most people agree with what you say. Honestly, the more I think about it and research the plan, the Canadian and Australian models seem the best starting point for the US. We can work in our current HMO and PPO models with a minimal service disruption for existing healthcare consumers.

[BurgundyNGold]

1.5 trillion over the next 10 years isn't that much money frankly. And if the projections on medicare are true(2-3 trillion a year after 2015), that 1.5 trillion isn't going to look that bad.
Would UHC be a replacement for Medicare or a supplement?

[VegasSkinsFan]

Bored today, lol?

I think that most people agree with what you say. Honestly, the more I think about it and research the plan, the Canadian and Australian models seem the best starting point for the US. We can work in our current HMO and PPO models with a minimal service disruption for existing healthcare consumers.

I wish i still had the article, but can probably find it on google...but the guy who was the architect of the Canadian health care system said it would be a huge mistake for Amerca to follow their plan....he basically said what they did was a mistake.

[BurgundyNGold]

I wish i still had the article, but can probably find it on google...but the guy who was the architect of the Canadian health care system said it would be a huge mistake for Amerca to follow their plan....he basically said what they did was a mistake.
Yeah, that would be helpful. I would like to know why he considers that plan a mistake. Canadians seem happy with it. In fact, about a week ago, I had a deep discussion over dinner with a half dozen Canadians from different provinces (Manitoba, Ottawa and BC) and they're all very pleased with it. Sadly, they're also pretty misinformed about the state of US healthcare. The media and Michael Moore have them thinking that the US denies emergency services and pretty much everything else to the uninsured.

[akhhorus]

Bored today, lol?

I think that most people agree with what you say. Honestly, the more I think about it and research the plan, the Canadian and Australian models seem the best starting point for the US. We can work in our current HMO and PPO models with a minimal service disruption for existing healthcare consumers.

I don't think either system would be worth it. I think the solution is much simpler than the rhetoric: Offer a public health care plan with decent coverage for 100 dollars a month for anyone under 50 and 250 dollars a month for anyone over 50. Figure about half the country signs up for it(and the health care companies reduce prices & improve service/coverage to keep customers), and you're paying for most of the costs(anywhere from 55-70% of the program). Even if the Feds have to cover the rest, the states can save billions from state medicare cost reductions. Considering that Medicard, Medicad and the prescription drug subsidies cost about 250-300 billion a year now(and the price tag will just keep growing), you're fixing a lot of the problems here. And if the health care companies were smart, they would offer supplemental coverage to the public plan and offer to administer the public plan along the federal guidelines to stay in business.

There's also a good piece(I'll try to find the link) that makes the argument that the Feds should just expand the VA health care plan to every citizen(for a small premium along the 100/250 lines I mention). Thats not a bad idea either.

Would UHC be a replacement for Medicare or a supplement?

De facto replacement. The state/fed medicare patients would just go on the Fed health plan, with the costs subsidized by the states(which would cost a lot less than what they're spending now).

[skinguy]

Bored today, lol?

I think that most people agree with what you say. Honestly, the more I think about it and research the plan, the Canadian and Australian models seem the best starting point for the US. We can work in our current HMO and PPO models with a minimal service disruption for existing healthcare consumers.
" . . . the Canadian and Australian models seem the best starting point for the US. . . "

~ ~ " . . . Canadian . . . " ? ? ? :thinker:

fyi :

THE FAILURE OF CANADIAN HEALTHCARE

You've probably never heard of a man by the name of Claude Castonguay. He's a Canadian who is also known as "the father of Quebec medicare." Back in the 1960s, Castonguay was the chairman of the Canadian government committee studying health reform, and he's the one that suggested that the province of Quebec adopt a government healthcare system that covers all citizens through taxes.

Fast forward forty years. And guess what Castonguay thinks now ... his system has been a failure. He says that the system is in "crisis ... We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it." Clearly that hasn't worked. And Castonguay is now suggesting ... get this ... to give a greater role in healthcare to the private sector so that people will have the freedom of choice. What a concept! And this from the man who created Canada's government healthcare system.

> http://boortz.com/nuze/200806/06302008.html


~ ~ " . . . Canadian . . . " ? ? ? :smash:

[Ibleedburgundy]

That doesn't help your argument at all.

[BurgundyNGold]

" . . . the Canadian and Australian models seem the best starting point for the US. . . "

~ ~ " . . . Canadian . . . " ? ? ? :thinker:

fyi :

THE FAILURE OF CANADIAN HEALTHCARE

You've probably never heard of a man by the name of Claude Castonguay. He's a Canadian who is also known as "the father of Quebec medicare." Back in the 1960s, Castonguay was the chairman of the Canadian government committee studying health reform, and he's the one that suggested that the province of Quebec adopt a government healthcare system that covers all citizens through taxes.

Fast forward forty years. And guess what Castonguay thinks now ... his system has been a failure. He says that the system is in "crisis ... We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it." Clearly that hasn't worked. And Castonguay is now suggesting ... get this ... to give a greater role in healthcare to the private sector so that people will have the freedom of choice. What a concept! And this from the man who created Canada's government healthcare system.

> http://boortz.com/nuze/200806/06302008.html


~ ~ " . . . Canadian . . . " ? ? ? :smash:
Alluding to my earlier post, just because media outlets tell Canadians that the US healthcare system is a colossal failure doesn't make it true. Most Americans know this to not be the case, even if it is a success for only about 85% of the population at a time operating at an unmanageable deficit.

Conversely, just because some talking head (especially Neil Boortz) writes an article stating that the Canadian healthcare system is a "failure" doesn't make it any more true than what is preached to Canadians about American health care.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating:

* The US healthcare system (private PPO, HMO systems and Medicare/Medicaid supplements) cover about 85% of the population, is getting increasingly expensive individually and is projected to be bankrupt around 2030 without tax increases beyond those paid in Canada OR Europe.

* The Canadian system covers all people, gets slightly lower marks in customer satisfaction that US PPO/HMO plans (which hover around 50-60% based on plan) and is sustainable at its current (albeit higher) tax rate indefinitely.

Which is better? Which is a failure? Decide for yourself.

[skinguy]

Alluding to my earlier post, just because media outlets tell Canadians that the US healthcare system is a colossal failure doesn't make it true. Most Americans know this to not be the case, even if it is a success for only about 85% of the population at a time operating at an unmanageable deficit.

Conversely, just because some talking head (especially Neil Boortz) writes an article stating that the Canadian healthcare system is a "failure" doesn't make it any more true than what is preached to Canadians about American health care.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating:

* The US healthcare system (private PPO, HMO systems and Medicare/Medicaid supplements) cover about 85% of the population, is getting increasingly expensive individually and is projected to be bankrupt around 2030 without tax increases beyond those paid in Canada OR Europe.

* The Canadian system covers all people, gets slightly lower marks in customer satisfaction that US PPO/HMO plans (which hover around 50-60% based on plan) and is sustainable at its current (albeit higher) tax rate indefinitely.

Which is better? Which is a failure? Decide for yourself.

Canadian Health Care We So Envy Lies In Ruins, Its Architect Admits

> http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=299282509335931

~ ~ Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in "crisis."

"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."

Castonguay advocates contracting out services to the private sector, going so far as suggesting that public hospitals rent space during off-hours to entrepreneurial doctors. He supports co-pays for patients who want to see physicians. Castonguay, the man who championed public health insurance in Canada, now urges for the legalization of private health insurance.In America, these ideas may not sound shocking. But in Canada, where the private sector has been shunned for decades, these are extraordinary views, especially coming from Castonguay. It's as if John Maynard Keynes, resting on his British death bed in 1946, had declared that his faith in government interventionism was misplaced.

What would drive a man like Castonguay to reconsider his long-held beliefs? Try a health care system so overburdened that hundreds of thousands in need of medical attention wait for care, any care; a system where people in towns like Norwalk, Ontario, participate in lotteries to win appointments with the local family doctor.

Years ago, Canadians touted their health care system as the best in the world; today, Canadian health care stands in ruinous shape. :smash:

Sick with ovarian cancer, Sylvia de Vires, an Ontario woman afflicted with a 13-inch, fluid-filled tumor weighing 40 pounds, was unable to get timely care in Canada. She crossed the American border to Pontiac, Mich., where a surgeon removed the tumor, estimating she could not have lived longer than a few weeks more.

The Canadian government pays for :thinker:U.S. medical care in some circumstances, but it declined to do so in de Vires' case for a bureaucratically perfect, but inhumane, reason: She hadn't properly filled out a form. At death's door, de Vires should have done her paperwork better.De Vires is far from unusual in seeking medical treatment in the U.S. Even Canadian government officials send patients across the border, increasingly looking to American medicine to deal with their overload of patients and chronic shortage of care.

Since the spring of 2006, Ontario's government has sent at least 164 patients to New York and Michigan for neurosurgery emergencies — defined by the Globe and Mail newspaper as "broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain." Other provinces have followed Ontario's example.Canada isn't the only country facing a government health care crisis. Britain's system, once the postwar inspiration for many Western countries, is similarly plagued. Both countries trail the U.S. in five-year cancer survival rates, transplantation outcomes and other measures.

The problem is that government bureaucrats simply can't centrally plan their way to better health care.

rst of article ---> http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=299282509335931

[shally]

Would UHC be a replacement for Medicare or a supplement?

NO WAY medicare gets touched.. that is a third rail politically

[RedskinsDave]

NO WAY medicare gets touched.. that is a third rail politically

But the same people who depend on it for their pandering purposes are behind UHC.

[shally]

But the same people who depend on it for their pandering purposes are behind UHC.

true, but to alter one of the most popular programs in existence is political suicide

[skinguy]

fyi :

Government Health Plans Always Ration Care
Europe offers a glimpse of the future if President Obama and congressional Democrats have their way.
By SCOTT GOTTLIEB

Only by expanding government control of health care can we bring down its cost. That's the faulty premise of the various proposals for health reform now being batted around Washington. The claimed cost control depends on politically safe ideas such as preventive care or the adoption of electronic health records. And neither -- even according to the Congressional Budget Office -- will do much to reduce spending.

If these proposals are implemented and fail to produce savings, government will turn to a less appealing but more familiar tool to cut costs: the regulation of access to drugs and medical services. Medicare is already going down this path. What will be new about government-run health care is the instrument of regulatory control. There will be an omnipotent federal health board. Buried in current reform proposals, this board deserves closer scrutiny.

rest of article --> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588779662250705.html

[shally]

fyi :

Government Health Plans Always Ration Care
Europe offers a glimpse of the future if President Obama and congressional Democrats have their way.
By SCOTT GOTTLIEB

Only by expanding government control of health care can we bring down its cost. That's the faulty premise of the various proposals for health reform now being batted around Washington. The claimed cost control depends on politically safe ideas such as preventive care or the adoption of electronic health records. And neither -- even according to the Congressional Budget Office -- will do much to reduce spending.

If these proposals are implemented and fail to produce savings, government will turn to a less appealing but more familiar tool to cut costs: the regulation of access to drugs and medical services. Medicare is already going down this path. What will be new about government-run health care is the instrument of regulatory control. There will be an omnipotent federal health board. Buried in current reform proposals, this board deserves closer scrutiny.

rest of article --> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588779662250705.html



yeah, yeah yeah.... all i can say is that the private sector has done a mighty piss poor job of holding down costs and making health care available

nothing like a little competition to provide incentives, is there ? what the insurance companies fear most is competition from the government, not regulations..

[Keino]

yeah, yeah yeah.... all i can say is that the private sector has done a mighty piss poor job of holding down costs and making health care available

nothing like a little competition to provide incentives, is there ? what the insurance companies fear most is competition from the government, not regulations..


Okay, what have you done with Shally and who are you?

[akhhorus]

Okay, what have you done with Shally and who are you?

There's nothing more conservative than substituting regulations with market forces. Thats the whole point of a public plan: get the private insurers to improve their coverage and/or lower their prices to compete with the public plan.

[skinguy]

So, you agree with me then? Then why did you post your latest article?
" . . . Then why did you post your latest article? . . . "

:thinker: ok , here ya go :

Obamacare failed in Europe
By: Guillaume Vuillemey and Philip Stevens - OpEd Contributors | 6/30/09 5:49 AM

~ ~ This is precisely what happened in Britain. The state provides most health care, via the National Health Service. Patients have almost no say over which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use, while professionals have to conform to government plans and targets.After its birth in 1948, planners soon found that "free" health care multiplied demand. NHS founder Lord Beveridge predicted free health care would cut spending as health improved.The opposite was true. Between 1949 and 1979, it tripled in real terms. The service now costs twice as much as it did 10 years ago, with productivity down 4.5 percent.One way government tries to limit demand is to decree which new drugs can be prescribed. Many drugs, widely available in America and continental Europe, are denied to British patients.

State mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average causing 8.6 weeks of waiting. Once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning and maintenance mean higher rates of an antibiotic-resistant variety of staph infection. This "superbug" has turned even routine surgery into a lottery of death.Britain may be an extreme example. Many point to France as a better example of public insurance delivering high-quality, equitable care. While it's true that French patients do enjoy better care and shorter waits than the British, this is due to a far greater reliance on independent health care and greater freedom from government for doctors and patients.

Yet this plus side is expensive. The French government is trying to control costs by increasing regulation of the private sector, meaning it will soon become more similar to Britain.In France, there are already "medical deserts," particularly in the suburbs and countryside. In some places, patients wait more than :eek: six months to see an ophthalmologist.

rest of article ---> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Obamacare-failed-in-Europe-7900839-49458267.html

[shally]

here is the thing.. there ALREADY is rationing of healthcare.. only it is done by insurance companies

and,yes, ANY system will have to have Rationing of care. it is just another way of expressing the term, allocating of resources..

as a Doc, i dont trust the Feds in most things.. but, i trust the insurance companies even less.. it is that simple.

most people are very satisfied with Medicare. it is one of the most popular government run programs ever created.. there are problems to be sure, but if they can design a system built along those lines, it will likely be preferable to anything the insurance lobby can come up with.. and you wont have to deal with pre existing illnesses or cherry-picking of less than healthy patients..

it is simply time to do better than what we have now

[akhhorus]

here is the thing.. there ALREADY is rationing of healthcare.. only it is done by insurance companies

and,yes, ANY system will have to have Rationing of care. it is just another way of expressing the term, allocating of resources..

as a Doc, i dont trust the Feds in most things.. but, i trust the insurance companies even less.. it is that simple.

most people are very satisfied with Medicare. it is one of the most popular government run programs ever created.. there are problems to be sure, but if they can design a system built along those lines, it will likely be preferable to anything the insurance lobby can come up with.. and you wont have to deal with pre existing illnesses or cherry-picking of less than healthy patients..

it is simply time to do better than what we have now

+1.

And if the HELP committee's bill is the basis for reform, the country will be fixing the problem for the most part while saving hundreds of billions a year. They should put in some tax breaks to make the public/private plans competative for certain, but it seems like a good start.

[shally]

+1.

And if the HELP committee's bill is the basis for reform, the country will be fixing the problem for the most part while saving hundreds of billions a year. They should put in some tax breaks to make the public/private plans competative for certain, but it seems like a good start.

i just worry if they start putting in "fines or penalties" for people who choose to not enroll in a health plan.. that is the kind of cockamamie provision that could generate enough bad press to scuttle the whole process

in essence, people dont have to choose Medicare, although technically you could not sign up.. still, my guess is that if it is there, people will accept it, and then use it, if they need to...

[akhhorus]

i just worry if they start putting in "fines or penalties" for people who choose to not enroll in a health plan.. that is the kind of cockamamie provision that could generate enough bad press to scuttle the whole process

From what I understand there's no mandate in it.


in essence, people dont have to choose Medicare, although technically you could not sign up.. still, my guess is that if it is there, people will accept it, and then use it, if they need to...

Agreed, but I have a feeling that if this plan goes through, medicare will morph into a subsidy that pays for the public insurance. Why have a medicare style system and a public insurance option at the same time? Its probably much cheaper, and at the end of the day simpler, to just put medicare/medicaid patients on the public plan--even if you're paying for X% of the fees for them to be on it. Thats the biggest long term entitlement cost for the US gov: medicare..mostly because of how the costs will grow status quo. 60 billion a year for 10 years(which is the HELP plan price tag)-even if they have to end up paying double that-is financial sanity as compared to 500ish billion a year for Medicare/Medicaid now.

[shally]

From what I understand there's no mandate in it.



Agreed, but I have a feeling that if this plan goes through, medicare will morph into a subsidy that pays for the public insurance. Why have a medicare style system and a public insurance option at the same time? Its probably much cheaper, and at the end of the day simpler, to just put medicare/medicaid patients on the public plan--even if you're paying for X% of the fees for them to be on it. Thats the biggest long term entitlement cost for the US gov: medicare..mostly because of how the costs will grow status quo. 60 billion a year for 10 years(which is the HELP plan price tag)-even if they have to end up paying double that-is financial sanity as compared to 500ish billion a year for Medicare/Medicaid now.

that will kill it for sure.. you cannot take away medicare, even if you promise to replace it with something "better"

it is not politically do-able.. people are distrustful of anything that will alter medicare in it's present form

[akhhorus]

that will kill it for sure.. you cannot take away medicare, even if you promise to replace it with something "better"

it is not politically do-able.. people are distrustful of anything that will alter medicare in it's present form

No one's saying that. Thats speculation on my part of how it will work long term. At the very least, a public plan will drain the number of people on medicare significantly without any encouragement from HHS or the state governments(especially if medicare is willing to give them the money to pay for some of the public plan costs). Thats one of the points of reform: to reduce the medicare costs dramatically.

[shally]

No one's saying that. Thats speculation on my part of how it will work long term. At the very least, a public plan will drain the number of people on medicare significantly without any encouragement from HHS or the state governments(especially if medicare is willing to give them the money to pay for some of the public plan costs). Thats one of the points of reform: to reduce the medicare costs dramatically.

yup.. a stealth cut back.. otherwise medicare will bankrupt the country by itself
as all those boomers come on board..there will be some "mean's test" and definitely some cutting back on certain procedures.. but it will be gradually phased in to prevent public relations disasters, and to provide opposition talking points

[BurgundyNGold]

+1.

And if the HELP committee's bill is the basis for reform, the country will be fixing the problem for the most part while saving hundreds of billions a year. They should put in some tax breaks to make the public/private plans competative for certain, but it seems like a good start.
Personally, I think all health care and education costs should be tax deductible. On the one hand, any forward thinking society with its sights on standard of living increases for the next generation and beyond should see this as a no brainer. On the other, the negative reality is that once these costs become tax deductible, it's only a matter of time until health care providers and educational institutions start exploiting this as a subsidy and prices start to climb that much further out of control. On health care, you might be able to cap or slow those costs with a government-competed (or, ugh, run) contract for the masses. There isn't a real option for education, though. I doubt the government wants to get into the higher education business.

[akhhorus]

Personally, I think all health care and education costs should be tax deductible. On the one hand, any forward thinking society with its sights on standard of living increases for the next generation and beyond should see this as a no brainer. On the other, the negative reality is that once these costs become tax deductible, it's only a matter of time until health care providers and educational institutions start exploiting this as a subsidy and prices start to climb that much further out of control. On health care, you might be able to cap or slow those costs with a government-competed (or, ugh, run) contract for the masses.

HHS will be overseeing any public plan, but I'm almost 95% certain that it will be contracted out to health insurers who have to follow fed guidelines on coverage/cost/etc.

There isn't a real option for education, though. I doubt the government wants to get into the higher education business.

They have a great federal school system run for the DOD: DODE(DODDSE). They should think about making that the model for all k-12 education. I can't believe that it would cost significantly more than what the states/local municipalities and feds pay for k-12 education now.

[BurgundyNGold]

They have a great federal school system run for the DOD: DODE(DODDSE). They should think about making that the model for all k-12 education. I can't believe that it would cost significantly more than what the states/local municipalities and feds pay for k-12 education now.
I think that the states have K-12 handled already. And National Defense University might be a better model if you want to you an apples to apples comparison as has been done for health care (the VA).

Still, that's just not an option for education. Too many people, too little government experience in the arena. They'd be better off to just levy higher tax rates on schools that raise costs at a rate that is, say, 1% or 2% about the rate of inflation.

[akhhorus]

I think that the states have K-12 handled already. And National Defense University might be a better model if you want to you an apples to apples comparison as has been done for health care (the VA).

Oh, I thought you were talking about k-12. The only solution to better colleges is to have better students. You shovel money into them and they'll just waste it on new buildings and salaries.

[shally]

Personally, I think all health care and education costs should be tax deductible. On the one hand, any forward thinking society with its sights on standard of living increases for the next generation and beyond should see this as a no brainer. On the other, the negative reality is that once these costs become tax deductible, it's only a matter of time until health care providers and educational institutions start exploiting this as a subsidy and prices start to climb that much further out of control. On health care, you might be able to cap or slow those costs with a government-competed (or, ugh, run) contract for the masses. There isn't a real option for education, though. I doubt the government wants to get into the higher education business.

are you kidding me ? the government clearly IS in the higher education business.. the explosive growth in colleges and their rising tuition/fees is directly tied to the explosion of loans available.. college for everyone, is the governments motto now.

it should also not be lost that one of the things that a person CANNOT get discharged under bakruptcy is a college loan.. Uncle wants his money back- even if it takes a lifetime or longer to pay him back

[shally]

Oh, I thought you were talking about k-12. The only solution to better colleges is to have better students. You shovel money into them and they'll just waste it on new buildings and salaries.

that is exactly what is going on.. so many loans out there that colleges expand and expand.. a lot faster than the pool of qualified students who actually should be going to colleges

[shally]

To Keino:

a few days back we were having a discussion about who the uninsured were, and i made the comment that many were young who simply didnt want to spend money on something for which they saw little value.. there is an article by Paul Krugman today making exactly the same point

about 7 or 8 paragraphs into it he makes exactly the same point..That the young (and presumably healthy) make up a large share of the uninsured..

www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/opinion/06krugman.html

obviously Krugman, whom i disagree with on many many issues, is at least a published authority on economic issues, and it would indicate that i was not pulling this idea
"out of my butt." or else, both Krugman and i are pulling the same idea out of our collective butts.. i hope you find this a credible reference as it bolsters my impression from at least my own anecdotal experience...

[Dolla Bill]

I actually work for one of the private insurance companies, and I will say this can and has, impacted our business in numerous ways.

[shally]

I actually work for one of the private insurance companies, and I will say this can and has, impacted our business in numerous ways.

it will continue to impact your company in ways, large and small for the forseeable future.. i think you will need to maintain a place at the table so that you can be a party to the decision making process, but any faction that stonewalls or obstructs the process is going to get hammered.. i say knowing that my profession has been guilty of that as well.

nobody is going to be totally happy with the outcome, but at least all should have the ability to shape the process

[CNYSkinFan]

To Keino:

a few days back we were having a discussion about who the uninsured were, and i made the comment that many were young who simply didnt want to spend money on something for which they saw little value.. there is an article by Paul Krugman today making exactly the same point

about 7 or 8 paragraphs into it he makes exactly the same point..That the young (and presumably healthy) make up a large share of the uninsured..

www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/opinion/06krugman.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/opinion/06krugman.html)

obviously Krugman, whom i disagree with on many many issues, is at least a published authority on economic issues, and it would indicate that i was not pulling this idea
"out of my butt." or else, both Krugman and i are pulling the same idea out of our collective butts.. i hope you find this a credible reference as it bolsters my impression from at least my own anecdotal experience...

Is this the reference you were talking about:


First, the uninsured are disproportionately young adults, whose medical costs tend to be relatively low. The big spending is mainly on the elderly, who are already covered by Medicare.


because if it is Shally, then I don't think this helps your argument. I think most people can agree that the young are a large portion of the uninsured, but you were stating that they are making a CHOICE to be uninsured on the basis of value rather then the fact that most young people can't afford to be without insurance or have jobs that pay nothing toward their health insurance thus costing the employee a ridiculous amount.

I doubt there is a large segment of the uninsured actual doping a cost beenefit analysis on health care...they most likely are saying "I can't afford $350 a month when i am barely making rent now" and if you call that a choice, then well it really is no choice at all.

[shally]

Is this the reference you were talking about:



because if it is Shally, then I don't think this helps your argument. I think most people can agree that the young are a large portion of the uninsured, but you were stating that they are making a CHOICE to be uninsured on the basis of value rather then the fact that most young people can't afford to be without insurance or have jobs that pay nothing toward their health insurance thus costing the employee a ridiculous amount.

I doubt there is a large segment of the uninsured actual doping a cost beenefit analysis on health care...they most likely are saying "I can't afford $350 a month when i am barely making rent now" and if you call that a choice, then well it really is no choice at all.


i dont think that is how it should be read..nothing says that the young are disproportionately POOR.. it just says that they are disproportionately represented among the uninsured.. and i submit, that cost analysis aside,
young people (especially those who are NOT married and have no other responsibilities but themselves) chose NOT to have insurance, regardless of the cost.. insurance for that age group is about as low as it gets because
the young are healthier as a group

and from the young/insured i have taken care of the thought process is more often: "hmmmmmm Beer and a trip to Spring Break or insurance ??..
give me another couple of cases of beer.."

[Fathead]

i dont think that is how it should be read..nothing says that the young are disproportionately POOR.. it just says that they are disproportionately represented among the uninsured.. and i submit, that cost analysis aside,
young people (especially those who are NOT married and have no other responsibilities but themselves) chose NOT to have insurance, regardless of the cost.. insurance for that age group is about as low as it gets because
the young are healthier as a group

and from the young/insured i have taken care of the thought process is more often: "hmmmmmm Beer and a trip to Spring Break or insurance ??..
give me another couple of cases of beer.."



Define young, Shally.

[shally]

Define young, Shally.

for the purposes of this discussion, 25 and under

[Fathead]

So my wife and I chose not to have insurance when we were living paycheck to paycheck for 4 years?

[shally]

So my wife and I chose not to have insurance when we were living paycheck to paycheck for 4 years?

did i NOT say that it was a function of people who were NOT married and had no dependents other than themselves ?? people who are NOT married, experience an entirely different set of "realities" that young people who ARE married and who have dependents

how many married men will go out and purchase a motorcycle ? i see it constantly among young unmarried men

[Ibleedburgundy]

So my wife and I chose not to have insurance when we were living paycheck to paycheck for 4 years?

Fathead is arguing on behalf of UHC? I can honestly say I did not see that coming.

[shally]

Fathead is arguing on behalf of UHC? I can honestly say I did not see that coming.

i dont know his position.. he used PAST TENSE in his argument..

but you wont get any argument from me that some form of UHC is needed,
regardless of the reason why young people arent insured..
it is just the format of it, and the mechanism for paying for it..

[Fathead]

Fathead is arguing on behalf of UHC? I can honestly say I did not see that coming.




Oh, I hate the idea of universal health coverage from the government. But healthcare in this country is so ****** up that I don't think any entity other than government is capable of fixing it.


I don't like any of the solutions out there. This is a case of choose the least bad of a bunch of awful choices.

[Fathead]

did i NOT say that it was a function of people who were NOT married and had no dependents other than themselves ?? people who are NOT married, experience an entirely different set of "realities" that young people who ARE married and who have dependents

how many married men will go out and purchase a motorcycle ? i see it constantly among young unmarried men

So I went 3 years w/o health insurance because I wanted to buy a motorcycle?



Just because some idiots don't give a **** about their health, doesn't mean the rest of us were the same way. It was an impossibility to find a job out of high school that would offer health insurance, and to buy a policy myself at that point would have meant either living in complete squalor or not eating.

[shally]

Oh, I hate the idea of universal health coverage from the government. But healthcare in this country is so ****** up that I don't think any entity other than government is capable of fixing it.


I don't like any of the solutions out there. This is a case of choose the least bad of a bunch of awful choices.

i tend to agree with you

So I went 3 years w/o health insurance because I wanted to buy a motorcycle?



Just because some idiots don't give a **** about their health, doesn't mean the rest of us were the same way. It was an impossibility to find a job out of high school that would offer health insurance, and to buy a policy myself at that point would have meant either living in complete squalor or not eating.

did i say YOU did ? did i say Keino did ?
i will say that guys like you are exceptions compared to many many guys i have treated over the years.. where do you think Jackass recruits from ?
how many of THOSE guys do you think buy insurance ? but i bet they all have motorcycles and lots of expensive tattoos..

[CNYSkinFan]

i dont think that is how it should be read..nothing says that the young are disproportionately POOR.. it just says that they are disproportionately represented among the uninsured.. and i submit, that cost analysis aside,
young people (especially those who are NOT married and have no other responsibilities but themselves) chose NOT to have insurance, regardless of the cost.. insurance for that age group is about as low as it gets because
the young are healthier as a group

and from the young/insured i have taken care of the thought process is more often: "hmmmmmm Beer and a trip to Spring Break or insurance ??..
give me another couple of cases of beer.."
Shally that is an extreme twisting of what krugman is saying, and I think you perhaps know that and that is why you did not quote it. I submit to you my own example, when I was young I was working at crappy fast food jobs that offered health insurance, at a caost of about $300/month. I was barely making rent period. So i "chose" not to have healthcare. I did not choose to go partyy it up.

The young tend to work the crappier jobs which tend to not pay for health insurance which means it is ultra expensive. Once I got to a point where I had office jobs that offered reasonably priced plans I took the health insurance, despite living check to check and reasonably healthy (though I am overweight I have probably been into the doctors about 10 times in my adult life).

Saying the young are choosing beer over health insurance is a blatnet falsehood.

[CNYSkinFan]

i tend to agree with you



did i say YOU did ? did i say Keino did ?
i will say that guys like you are exceptions compared to many many guys i have treated over the years.. where do you think Jackass recruits from ?
how many of THOSE guys do you think buy insurance ? but i bet they all have motorcycles and lots of expensive tattoos..
so the Jackass recruits are a prime example of youth today and not IBB Keino or myself?

We;ll if that is your data set (which I bet the jackass recruits are actually insured up the whazoo by mtv) then I can understand your confusion. I love you shally but you are really coming off like the old man with the broom teling the youngsters to stop throwing their football around in front of his house.

[shally]

Shally that is an extreme twisting of what krugman is saying, and I think you perhaps know that and that is why you did not quote it. I submit to you my own example, when I was young I was working at crappy fast food jobs that offered health insurance, at a caost of about $300/month. I was barely making rent period. So i "chose" not to have healthcare. I did not choose to go partyy it up.

The young tend to work the crappier jobs which tend to not pay for health insurance which means it is ultra expensive. Once I got to a point where I had office jobs that offered reasonably priced plans I took the health insurance, despite living check to check and reasonably healthy (though I am overweight I have probably been into the doctors about 10 times in my adult life).

Saying the young are choosing beer over health insurance is a blatnet falsehood.


young single males prioritize completely differently. they also believe, to a much higher percentage, that they are immortal and will never get sick, or hurt.

that is why the armed services recruit among them.. why you see them purchasing lifestyle items like motorcycles and tattoos far and above other
groups

again, there was absolutely NOTHING in the Krugman article that linked poverty to lack of insurance purchase in the young.. you are making that link based upon your own life experience and choices

[shally]

so the Jackass recruits are a prime example of youth today and not IBB Keino or myself?

We;ll if that is your data set (which I bet the jackass recruits are actually insured up the whazoo by mtv) then I can understand your confusion. I love you shally but you are really coming off like the old man with the broom teling the youngsters to stop throwing their football around in front of his house.
in contrast to you and our other younger members i have actually spent thousands of hours of my life taking care of people who didnt have insurance, and my experience was that a very high percentage of them COULD have afforded basic coverage, but chose not to..

[Fathead]

And there is a huge percentage of people in the same group who couldn't afford it if they wanted to.

[shally]

And there is a huge percentage of people in the same group who couldn't afford it if they wanted to.

fine. you base your opinions on your life experiences, and i will do the same.

it doesnt change the necessity of overhauling the current system.. but i will tell you one thing i believe. if you create ANY system where it is mandated that all people purchase coverage and it is not provided, there will be a percentage of people who decline to purchase it, no matter what the penalty is, or how little it might cost...i believe that is the system currently in place in Massachusetts.. it fails to cover a percentage of people, despite the intent..

the only system that will cover all, is one that actually DOES cover all

[skinguy]

~ ~ here we go. . . :sun:

House Dems look at taxing the rich for health care
House Democrats, moving to finish health overhaul bill, turn to taxing the rich to pay for it
By Erica Werner, Associated Press Writer - Thursday July 9, 2009, 1:28 pm EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Democrats working on President Barack Obama's goal of health legislation are narrowing in on an income tax surcharge on the highest-paid wage earners to help subsidize insurance for the 50 million people who lack it.Pushing to complete a comprehensive health care overhaul plan by Friday and bring it up for committee votes next week, House Democrats abandoned earlier money-raising proposals, including a payroll tax. They met behind closed doors Thursday to fine-tune the details.

"I promised the president that we would have legislation out of the House before we went on an August break. That is still my goal," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday.As discussed in the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, the surtax would apply to individuals with adjusted gross income of more than $200,000 and couples over $250,000, according to officials involved in the discussion. Most spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks were private.Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., a member of the panel, said the panel is looking at a surtax of around 3.5 percent on income above those amounts. Other members suggested it would be closer to 3 percent.

In addition, key lawmakers are expected to call for a tax or fee equal to a percentage of a worker's salary on employers who do not offer health benefits.Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., has said his committee needs to come up with $600 billion in new taxes to deliver on Obama's goal of sweeping changes to the nation's health care system to bring down costs and cover the 50 million uninsured. Hundreds of billions of dollars more would come from cuts to Medicare and Medicaid to pay for legislation expected to cost around $1 trillion over 10 years.

~ Lawmakers cautioned that no final decisions have been made. ~ . . .

> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/House-Dems-look-at-taxing-the-apf-4128126927.html?x=0&.v=2

[skinguy]

~ uggh , sorry !

computer issues

i apol.

[Ibleedburgundy]

How on earth do you double post 12 minutes apart?

[shally]

How on earth do you double post 12 minutes apart?

talent on loan from God.....?? lol

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw

[CNYSkinFan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw
a douche posting a video with a douche starring...sweeeet

[dj_stouty]

a douche posting a video with a douche starring...sweeeet

Chill with the name calling...

[shally]

get ready.. congress is getting ready to pass something, and it will cost most of us something, sooner or later.

the references to "rich people" making over 250 K is just the starting point.. sooner or later this is going to reach down and get most everyone..

[dj_stouty]

get ready.. congress is getting ready to pass something, and it will cost most of us something, sooner or later.

the references to "rich people" making over 250 K is just the starting point.. sooner or later this is going to reach down and get most everyone..

Yup...the goverment's "ceiling of income" that defines the rich will continue to creep lower and lower until the middle class are included.

And you can bet that Universal Healthcare package will include a plethora of unrelated junk just like the Economic Stimulis package did. Meanwhile, unemployment continues to increase yet the Air & Space Museum will get a much needed painting. But hey...a painting company in Northern, VA got a pretty stimulating contract out of it! lol

[akhhorus]

get ready.. congress is getting ready to pass something, and it will cost most of us something, sooner or later.

the references to "rich people" making over 250 K is just the starting point.. sooner or later this is going to reach down and get most everyone..

Unfortunately, Medicare's growth means we have to pay later or pay later lol.

[Ibleedburgundy]

I'm pretty sure the richest Americans (who pay on average 23% net federal income tax) will be OK. Hopefully they've made the most out of the 3.6% the Bush administration loaned them annually under the guise of tax cuts.

[RedskinsDave]

Universal health care will bring this country to its knees. Obama has no clue how to pay for it but that doesn't stop him from forcing it down our throats. This Michael Moore/Al Gore propaganda politics thing is scary but, like the mindless lemmings we are, Americans don't spend enough time looking at the consequences. Canada's health care is abysmal. I love how none of the advocates for health care socialization ever mention that the countries who have it also pay twice the taxes we do. TWICE. Big brother is in your pockets people. Keep giving ole Barry carte blanche and don't come crying to me when your taxes are 50% and he's still blaming Bush for his own mistakes.

[shally]

Unfortunately, Medicare's growth means we have to pay later or pay later lol.

that is the elephant in the room because until they can control those costs, little else will matter.. right now, there are almost no curbs to it's use

[akhhorus]

Universal health care will bring this country to its knees. Obama has no clue how to pay for it but that doesn't stop him from forcing it down our throats. This Michael Moore/Al Gore propaganda politics thing is scary but, like the mindless lemmings we are, Americans don't spend enough time looking at the consequences. Canada's health care is abysmal. I love how none of the advocates for health care socialization ever mention that the countries who have it also pay twice the taxes we do. TWICE. Big brother is in your pockets people. Keep giving ole Barry carte blanche and don't come crying to me when your taxes are 50% and he's still blaming Bush for his own mistakes.

A Canadian style single payer plan won't pass any House of congress. I've only heard Bernie Sanders pushing that, so I don't understand why people are bringing up that example. If your company provides health care, you cannot get govt. healthcare according to the latest version of the bill, so that will ratchet down the size of any public plan.

The overarching problem is that Medicare will kill the US budget within 10 years. We'll be spending twice as much on Medicare/Medicaid as we do on defense in 2019(according to the CBO). Even if the public plan numbers are way off(and it will cost double the estimates), the US gov will be saving hundreds of billions of dollars each year with limited public plan. Medicare, this year, will cost about 300-400 billion dollars. Medicaid is another 100+ billion from the states. 100-200 billion a year for a public plan seems like fiscal sanity.

[shally]

I'm pretty sure the richest Americans (who pay on average 23% net federal income tax) will be OK. Hopefully they've made the most out of the 3.6% the Bush administration loaned them annually under the guise of tax cuts.

that's is all and well today.. but when "richest" is defined as making over 50 grand, it will be a different story.. once the ice is broken, there is little to prevent congress from shifitng the burden to lower and lower tax brackets, or raising the celing upon which income is taxed..

[BurgundyNGold]

Universal health care will bring this country to its knees. Obama has no clue how to pay for it but that doesn't stop him from forcing it down our throats. This Michael Moore/Al Gore propaganda politics thing is scary but, like the mindless lemmings we are, Americans don't spend enough time looking at the consequences. Canada's health care is abysmal. I love how none of the advocates for health care socialization ever mention that the countries who have it also pay twice the taxes we do. TWICE. Big brother is in your pockets people. Keep giving ole Barry carte blanche and don't come crying to me when your taxes are 50% and he's still blaming Bush for his own mistakes.
I can agree with a lot of this post, but I can't agree with this. I know a lot of Canadians. Perhaps more than anyone should, lol. And none of the folks I know and count as friends speak anything but highly about their everyday health care system. They come from all walks of life, in Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, Newfoundland, Calgary... all over, really. In fact, while many of them are misinformed about the state of our health care (the Michael Moore bit is believed more up there than here), they really like their system and don't mind paying for it.

That said, when it comes to high end, specialty operations or medical service, many of them come down to the US to get it done. Our high end medical care is certainly better than theirs. But for 90-95% what they need medically, their plan seems to work out just fine for them and they seem happy about it.

[shally]

Universal health care will bring this country to its knees. Obama has no clue how to pay for it but that doesn't stop him from forcing it down our throats. This Michael Moore/Al Gore propaganda politics thing is scary but, like the mindless lemmings we are, Americans don't spend enough time looking at the consequences. Canada's health care is abysmal. I love how none of the advocates for health care socialization ever mention that the countries who have it also pay twice the taxes we do. TWICE. Big brother is in your pockets people. Keep giving ole Barry carte blanche and don't come crying to me when your taxes are 50% and he's still blaming Bush for his own mistakes.


the bill will be 2000 pages long.. NOBODY will have read it- even the people voting on it..

[RedskinsDave]

I'm pretty sure the richest Americans (who pay on average 23% net federal income tax) will be OK. Hopefully they've made the most out of the 3.6% the Bush administration loaned them annually under the guise of tax cuts.

If you take the low end of those folks, $250K, that's $57K in taxes. I do love how you on the left always talk percentage and leave out dollar amounts. Never mind those wealthy folks use far less services than the people who pay no taxes. Let's punish people for being successful. How amazingly socialist.

[shally]

I can agree with a lot of this popst, but I can't agree with this. I know a lot of Canadians. Perhaps more than anyone should, lol. And none of the folks I know and count as friends speak anything but highly about their everyday health care system. They come from all walks of life, in Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, Newfoundland, Calgary... all over, really. In fact, while many of them are misinformed about the state of our health care (the Michael Moore bit is believed more up there than here), they really like their system and don't mind paying for it.

That said, when it comes to high end, specialty operations or medical service, many of them come down to the US to get it done. Our high end medical care is certainly better than theirs. But for 90-95% what they need medically, their plan seems to work out just fine for them and they seem happy about it.


you have hit on it exactly.. if all you want from it is a yearly checkup, and the ability to get seen when you have a cold or a bellyache, you will be fine

for difficult diagnostic conditions, surgery, complex problems it will be a nightmare of waiting and arguing of what is permitted.. cancer care is also going to be a hot button issue. will the pay 50,000 for a treatment that extends life 6-12 months ? spending 3 months arguing over it is the equivalnet of a NO

[shally]

I can agree with a lot of this post, but I can't agree with this. I know a lot of Canadians. Perhaps more than anyone should, lol. And none of the folks I know and count as friends speak anything but highly about their everyday health care system. They come from all walks of life, in Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, Newfoundland, Calgary... all over, really. In fact, while many of them are misinformed about the state of our health care (the Michael Moore bit is believed more up there than here), they really like their system and don't mind paying for it.

That said, when it comes to high end, specialty operations or medical service, many of them come down to the US to get it done. Our high end medical care is certainly better than theirs. But for 90-95% what they need medically, their plan seems to work out just fine for them and they seem happy about it.
canada does not have the poverty and population density we have.. in that way, it is closer to a european country than to us...they also pay taxes at a higher rate..

[RedskinsDave]

I can agree with a lot of this post, but I can't agree with this. I know a lot of Canadians. Perhaps more than anyone should, lol. And none of the folks I know and count as friends speak anything but highly about their everyday health care system. They come from all walks of life, in Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, Newfoundland, Calgary... all over, really. In fact, while many of them are misinformed about the state of our health care (the Michael Moore bit is believed more up there than here), they really like their system and don't mind paying for it.

That said, when it comes to high end, specialty operations or medical service, many of them come down to the US to get it done. Our high end medical care is certainly better than theirs. But for 90-95% what they need medically, their plan seems to work out just fine for them and they seem happy about it.

The ones I know don't agree. They complain about waiting weeks for doctors appointments and surgeries and the only good thing is the cost of drugs. If we go to a socialized system, where will they go for high end services?

[shally]

The ones I know don't agree. They complain about waiting weeks for doctors appointments and surgeries and the only good thing is the cost of drugs. If we go to a socialized system, where will they go for high end services?

if permitted by law, there will be "concierge" clinics that will spring up

[dj_stouty]

the bill will be 2000 pages long.. NOBODY will have read it- even the people voting on it..

Ahhhh....the Ralph Wilson approach to voting. lol

[shally]

Ahhhh....the Ralph Wilson approach to voting. lol

happens all the time.. stimulus bill, climate change bill-- nobody has a clue what is in the bowels of these bills (although you could certainly guess, couldnt you ??)

[akhhorus]

happens all the time.. stimulus bill, climate change bill-- nobody has a clue what is in the bowels of these bills (although you could certainly guess, couldnt you ??)

Fent could speak more directly to this, but I wouldn't believe it most of the time when either party complains about not reading a full bill(and they both do that...a lot). The basic bill would have to be in committee long enough for anyone to read it(and you can put up amendments in committee to slow it down). Any earmarks or floor amendments have to be read out on the floor as well(and its very easy to get the transcript quickly). On top of this, all bills go into conference(where both parties are represented) and that takes a long time to agree on anything(and more than enough time to get the bill read).

[BurgundyNGold]

The ones I know don't agree. They complain about waiting weeks for doctors appointments and surgeries and the only good thing is the cost of drugs.
You have to wait weeks to see a specialist here. Als like here, emergency surgeries are handled ASAP. What's the difference?

If we go to a socialized system, where will they go for high end services?
I don't think they're talking about going to a socialized system. France has a socialized system. So does the UK. Canada has a single payer insurer system. If we're talking about modeling the Canadian model, we'd still have private health care and private insurance companies like Canadians do.

[akhhorus]

I don't think they're talking about going to a socialized system. France has a socialized system. So does the UK. Canada has a single payer insurer system. If we're talking about modeling the Canadian model, we'd still have private health care and private insurance companies like Canadians do.

Absolutely no one who matters is talking about going to a socialized system(nevermind that we already have 2 major socialized medical systems, 3 if you count Medicaid). The farthest anyone is going is a public plan for those who don't have insurance or who's companies aren't providing it.

[shally]

Absolutely no one who matters is talking about going to a socialized system(nevermind that we already have 2 major socialized medical systems, 3 if you count Medicaid). The farthest anyone is going is a public plan for those who don't have insurance or who's companies aren't providing it.

+1

competition would be wonderful

as long as the private clinics arent outlawed

[shally]

Fent could speak more directly to this, but I wouldn't believe it most of the time when either party complains about not reading a full bill(and they both do that...a lot). The basic bill would have to be in committee long enough for anyone to read it(and you can put up amendments in committee to slow it down). Any earmarks or floor amendments have to be read out on the floor as well(and its very easy to get the transcript quickly). On top of this, all bills go into conference(where both parties are represented) and that takes a long time to agree on anything(and more than enough time to get the bill read).

i cannot believe that a bill that is 2000 pages long is understood by ANYONE..except to the extent that some people know exactly about a few clauses here and there..
they are cobbled together

[akhhorus]

+1

competition would be wonderful

as long as the private clinics arent outlawed

Competition is the point. Along with saving money. Unfortunately, no one wanted to touch the Medicare third rail for 40 years, so the solution might have to be radical. If there's another plan that would reduce the costs of medicare significantly without destroying coverage, I'm all for it.

i cannot believe that a bill that is 2000 pages long is understood by ANYONE..except to the extent that some people know exactly about a few clauses here and there..
they are cobbled together

I disagree with that(fent could enlighten further im sure). Congress is full of staffers both in the offices of the MOCs and on the committees who specialize in certain areas and can blast through large bills pretty quickly. If you split the bill up among 20 staffers in 5 offices, you can churn through a lot of paperwork quickly.

[shally]

Competition is the point. Along with saving money. Unfortunately, no one wanted to touch the Medicare third rail for 40 years, so the solution might have to be radical. If there's another plan that would reduce the costs of medicare significantly without destroying coverage, I'm all for it.



I disagree with that(fent could enlighten further im sure). Congress is full of staffers both in the offices of the MOCs and on the committees who specialize in certain areas and can blast through large bills pretty quickly. If you split the bill up among 20 staffers in 5 offices, you can churn through a lot of paperwork quickly.

maybe.. but each staffer only knows a portion of it.. of that, i would be certain..

[akhhorus]

maybe.. but each staffer only knows a portion of it.. of that, i would be certain..

Right, but Im sure they slap it all together, then distribute their analysis to everyone on their side of the aisle.

[Ibleedburgundy]

If you take the low end of those folks, $250K, that's $57K in taxes. I do love how you on the left always talk percentage and leave out dollar amounts. Never mind those wealthy folks use far less services than the people who pay no taxes. Let's punish people for being successful. How amazingly socialist.

Dollar amounts can be misleading. Last year congress spent $13 million on travel. That's 50% more than 2005. To some bumpkin who doesn't realize congress was flying around on corporate jets with lobbyists before 2006, they think the taxpayer is getting robbed. And they think $13 million is a lot of money even when they are told this includes 535 people and over 100 trips to Iraq and Afghanistan.

When Abraham Lincoln introduced income tax it was every bit as progressive as what we have now, although the percentages were lower.

$57K is a lot in taxes. But taking home $193K ain't bad either.

This trend of what you (inappropriately) call socialism is only going to get worse so long as the difference between middle class and upper class keeps growing.

[BurgundyNGold]

Dollar amounts can be misleading. Last year congress spent $13 million on travel. That's 50% more than 2005. To some bumpkin who doesn't realize congress was flying around on corporate jets with lobbyists before 2006, they think the taxpayer is getting robbed. And they think $13 million is a lot of money even when they are told this includes 535 people and over 100 trips to Iraq and Afghanistan.

When Abraham Lincoln introduced income tax it was every bit as progressive as what we have now, although the percentages were lower.

$57K is a lot in taxes. But taking home $193K ain't bad either.

This trend of what you (inappropriately) call socialism is only going to get worse so long as the difference between middle class and upper class keeps growing.
I think where people get crossed up is because that's not all of the taxes someone pays. State taxes are usually 50-60% of that amount. And local jurisdiction taxes are usually 50-60% of state taxes. Now you're looking at a little under $112K, with $138K left for you and your family. Of course, that's before state sales tax on everything you buy, property taxes, etc.

If people only paid $57K of taxes on $250K it would be fine by most folks. But when you look at without the prism of idealism and look at the reality, a guy is taking home $138K out of that $250K before a whole lot of other taxes whittle his income down that much more.

[Ibleedburgundy]

I think where people get crossed up is because that's not all of the taxes someone pays. State taxes are usually 50-60% of that amount. And local jurisdiction taxes are usually 50-60% of state taxes. Now you're looking at a little under $112K, with $138K left for you and your family. Of course, that's before state sales tax on everything you buy, property taxes, etc.

If people only paid $57K of taxes on $250K it would be fine by most folks. But when you look at without the prism of idealism and look at the reality, a guy is taking home $138K out of that $250K before a whole lot of other taxes whittle his income down that much more.

That's certainly a good point. I kept the subject on federal income tax because that is what is concerned here, but I made the mistake of saying "take home" which is incorrect.

[shally]

Dollar amounts can be misleading. Last year congress spent $13 million on travel. That's 50% more than 2005. To some bumpkin who doesn't realize congress was flying around on corporate jets with lobbyists before 2006, they think the taxpayer is getting robbed. And they think $13 million is a lot of money even when they are told this includes 535 people and over 100 trips to Iraq and Afghanistan.

When Abraham Lincoln introduced income tax it was every bit as progressive as what we have now, although the percentages were lower.

$57K is a lot in taxes. But taking home $193K ain't bad either.

This trend of what you (inappropriately) call socialism is only going to get worse so long as the difference between middle class and upper class keeps growing.


i dont know about you, but i sweat bullets for every dollar i make.. i deeply resent it when people act as though the money i earn in the last 25 % of my earnings is worth less to me, or i worked less hard to earn.. that is bullsh**..

i can understand people paying taxes on money that their investments make, but i get up every morning and work my tail off (even now bucko's)
and i want every dollar of that i can keep

[shally]

I think where people get crossed up is because that's not all of the taxes someone pays. State taxes are usually 50-60% of that amount. And local jurisdiction taxes are usually 50-60% of state taxes. Now you're looking at a little under $112K, with $138K left for you and your family. Of course, that's before state sales tax on everything you buy, property taxes, etc.

If people only paid $57K of taxes on $250K it would be fine by most folks. But when you look at without the prism of idealism and look at the reality, a guy is taking home $138K out of that $250K before a whole lot of other taxes whittle his income down that much more.


exactly.. surrounded by parasites and bloodsuckers

[Fathead]

I vant to suck your blood shally.....

[shally]

I vant to suck your blood shally.....

wait until the evening.. it might be 40 proof by then..lol

[PyroGenic]

BAM!

http://timeswampland.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/boehnerchart.jpg

It's a flow chart.

Enjoy.

[akhhorus]

BAM!

It's a flow chart.

Enjoy.

health care is simpler than that now? lmao

[Fathead]

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/119/294168009_b25decaddf.jpg

[Ibleedburgundy]

i dont know about you, but i sweat bullets for every dollar i make.. i deeply resent it when people act as though the money i earn in the last 25 % of my earnings is worth less to me, or i worked less hard to earn.. that is bullsh**..


***warning. bleeding heart liberal diatribe***:)

It's not about you. It's about people who don't have enough money to pay for basic care that everyone should have access to in the richest country in the world.

And that money is worth less to you if you make somewhere in the neighborhood of $250K. I know people who work 60 hours for less than 1/6of that. To them, that's the difference between healthcare or no healthcare. Savings or no savings. Affording children or not. Car or bike. Ramen noodles or actual food. To someone who makes a quarter mil, that's the difference between a 5000 sq foot home and a 6000 sq foot home (depending on the area).

i can understand people paying taxes on money that their investments make, but i get up every morning and work my tail off (even now bucko's)
and i want every dollar of that i can keep

Who doesn't? Agree on investments though. Cap gains is 15%. Should be treated like income IMO.

[dj_stouty]

Yeah, and some of the people who can't "afford healthcare" are also the ones living above their means and driving nicer cars than I do. lol. Sort of reminds me of all the people who gambled on interest-only loans on houses they couldn't afford and are now mailing their keys back to the banks and bolting.

Personal responsibility is not an inherent trait of the American People anymore. I'm not keen on paying more taxes just so some people can continue to live vicarioiusly and reap the awards with no effort on their part.

I know that not everyone falls into this category; but there are plenty enough that do.

[shally]

***warning. bleeding heart liberal diatribe***:)

It's not about you. It's about people who don't have enough money to pay for basic care that everyone should have access to in the richest country in the world.

And that money is worth less to you if you make somewhere in the neighborhood of $250K. I know people who work 60 hours for less than 1/6of that. To them, that's the difference between healthcare or no healthcare. Savings or no savings. Affording children or not. Car or bike. Ramen noodles or actual food. To someone who makes a quarter mil, that's the difference between a 5000 sq foot home and a 6000 sq foot home (depending on the area).



Who doesn't? Agree on investments though. Cap gains is 15%. Should be treated like income IMO.


dont EVEN get me started.. about the 100 + hour weeks i worked
for about 10 grand a year... about the nearly decade of postponement of just about everything discretionary so that i could improve my skills and learn more..and that was AFTER college
about the 3 years of indentured servitude i paid to get my foot inthe door


about the thousands of hours of free care i willingly donated to help my fellow citizen's suffering, knowing i would never get compensated--- many times not even thanked, because it was THEIR RIGHT

and NO, it's not the difference between a 5000 and 6000 square foot house
(the largest i ever owned was 3200) it is the difference between sending my kids to decent state schools, decent graduate schools and not leaving them with over 100 grand in debts they would have to work off over their life times


so, YEAH it IS about me, because i will be one of the ones who will be taxed further to pay for this program (regardless of what the F****
mouth pieces for the DEMs spout now)

DONT get me wrong.. everyone should have health care. but this burden is not going to be shared equally or fairly when it comes down to it

where to get it ? tax investments.. tax corporations. end subsidies to agribusiness (the family farm doesnt exist any more). tax the S*** out of things that actually kill people, like cigarettes..

[akhhorus]

where to get it ? tax investments.. tax corporations. end subsidies to agribusiness (the family farm doesnt exist any more). tax the S*** out of things that actually kill people, like cigarettes..

Two birds with one stones: tax transfats, tobacco and other things that cause long term health care probs lol

[shally]

Two birds with one stones: tax transfats, tobacco and other things that cause long term health care probs lol

as long as they dont touch bourbon.. i am officially in revolt if they do...

[akhhorus]

as long as they dont touch bourbon.. i am officially in revolt if they do...

Yep: you, me and a whole state with a history of drunken rebellion.

[shally]

Two birds with one stones: tax transfats, tobacco and other things that cause long term health care probs lol

the dirty little secret is that when people die early, they dont live to collect SS benefits long term and that money is never paid out.. they might spend more on health care, but the government saves money in benefits compared to someone living an extra 10 years after 65

[shally]

Yep: you, me and a whole state with a history of drunken rebellion.

i might have to abandon Washington State and move to South Carolina at that point...

[Fathead]

I think we should just cut off health care for anyone over 70. ;)

[shally]

I think we should just cut off health care for anyone over 70. ;)

viking funerals for all.. put them all on an ice floe and let them drift out to sea..

[Fathead]

Think of all the money we'd save!

[shally]

Think of all the money we'd save!

sounds good to me.. ask me again in 7 years, lol

[Carmelo]

people have no clue how much it would take to provide universal health care on the medicare model for all

there isnt enough money without sending the debt into orbit, or taxing the s***
out of every working man, woman and child

pie in the sky

I've been trying to figure this out. I know I'm ignorant on the whole matter but here in Germany, health care is mandatory and somehow it works for them. I'm not saying that it should be that way in the states. I've been trying to weigh all the sides of the situation. Frankly, if I was at home I wouldn't have health insurance (I didn't when I was there) because I can't afford it. Here, I have health insurance but I still can't afford it and it's beating me over the head for 165 euro a month. It's a complete guess each month for me where this money will come from. I'm not sure if I preferred uninsured and no payment or forced insurance and a payment that I cannot afford (just borrowed money to pay the last 3 months...). This health care issue is one of those things that I still haven't figured out where I stand. I'm not sure which side of the political spectrum I agree with on this one.

Just for the sake of argument, I'll add the fact that after I miss a number of payments I will be brought before court to address the debt to the health insurance company. I'll also add that I haven't used it in the two years I've been here (although I'm sure I'll be glad to have it if I do need it). Although I will say as well that it is a relief to be covered. When I get sick I never actually go to a doctor but it feels good now to know that I could go if I wanted to...

I just don't know where I stand on the US health care issue. I wish everyone had it. I'm not sure if I'd make them do what I'm doing to get it though.

[PyroGenic]

I guess I'm lucky that my school offers some cheapo health care alternatives that'll help if my innards decided to revolt against me or something. I haven't been to a doctor in ages, but at least I know that I'm not totally boned if a sudden accident occurs.

[fent]

Fent could speak more directly to this, but I wouldn't believe it most of the time when either party complains about not reading a full bill(and they both do that...a lot). The basic bill would have to be in committee long enough for anyone to read it(and you can put up amendments in committee to slow it down). Any earmarks or floor amendments have to be read out on the floor as well(and its very easy to get the transcript quickly). On top of this, all bills go into conference(where both parties are represented) and that takes a long time to agree on anything(and more than enough time to get the bill read).

i cannot believe that a bill that is 2000 pages long is understood by ANYONE..except to the extent that some people know exactly about a few clauses here and there..
they are cobbled together

Competition is the point. Along with saving money. Unfortunately, no one wanted to touch the Medicare third rail for 40 years, so the solution might have to be radical. If there's another plan that would reduce the costs of medicare significantly without destroying coverage, I'm all for it.



I disagree with that(fent could enlighten further im sure). Congress is full of staffers both in the offices of the MOCs and on the committees who specialize in certain areas and can blast through large bills pretty quickly. If you split the bill up among 20 staffers in 5 offices, you can churn through a lot of paperwork quickly.

maybe.. but each staffer only knows a portion of it.. of that, i would be certain..

Right, but Im sure they slap it all together, then distribute their analysis to everyone on their side of the aisle.

in most instances, people know what they're looking at. however, on emergency bills, there really is an opportunity for major misses when looking for bad language. both sides of the aisle have written bills in leadership offices, bypassed committees, and had votes less than 24 hours after the bills were introduced. the bailout bill comes to mind as the perfect example of one recent bill that fit that mold. if the bill goes through full committee process, then yes, the chances something is hidden in it are very slim. last minute bills, however, very often do have hidden language or even just elementary-level screw ups in bill language that can drastically alter the end result.

[shally]

I guess I'm lucky that my school offers some cheapo health care alternatives that'll help if my innards decided to revolt against me or something. I haven't been to a doctor in ages, but at least I know that I'm not totally boned if a sudden accident occurs.

see that is the misconception.. if all you want is "catastrophic coverage", that is a cheap policy.. but people dont "want " that.. it is when you add low deductables and coverage for all the bells and whistles that it becomes horrendous.

part of the reason that companies like GM are getting killed by this is that the unions insisted on, and won, the best possible coverage for their workers forever..
that is fine in principle, but is almost unaffordable, as they found out.

and make no mistake, talk about health care is cheap. REAL coverage is expensive, and so there will be rationing or limits on ANY policy the government comes up with.. unless we want to go the model of the scandanavians with cradle-grave coverage-- and a 50 % tax table, or more

[shally]

in most instances, people know what they're looking at. however, on emergency bills, there really is an opportunity for major misses when looking for bad language. both sides of the aisle have written bills in leadership offices, bypassed committees, and had votes less than 24 hours after the bills were introduced. the bailout bill comes to mind as the perfect example of one recent bill that fit that mold. if the bill goes through full committee process, then yes, the chances something is hidden in it are very slim. last minute bills, however, very often do have hidden language or even just elementary-level screw ups in bill language that can drastically alter the end result.

thanks for the clarification.. i still believe that stuff is "hidden" in bills at the request of individual legislators.. often that has little to do with the overall intent of the bill.. in that case, it is probably done by a wink of the other legislators who might know what is going on and engage in log rolling or back scratching...

[fent]

thanks for the clarification.. i still believe that stuff is "hidden" in bills at the request of individual legislators.. often that has little to do with the overall intent of the bill.. in that case, it is probably done by a wink of the other legislators who might know what is going on and engage in log rolling or back scratching...

oh there is. a lot of times manager's amendments are added on the floor level as debate starts and people are left scrambling to interpret what it all means before the bill passes. on cap and trade there was a 300 page manager's amendment. fortunately, the senate slowed everything down enough that people have the opportunity to look at it in depth before it progresses.

[Keino]

Guys don't worry about it. I've got it covered. ;)

[PyroGenic]

see that is the misconception.. if all you want is "catastrophic coverage", that is a cheap policy.. but people dont "want " that.. it is when you add low deductables and coverage for all the bells and whistles that it becomes horrendous.

part of the reason that companies like GM are getting killed by this is that the unions insisted on, and won, the best possible coverage for their workers forever..
that is fine in principle, but is almost unaffordable, as they found out.

and make no mistake, talk about health care is cheap. REAL coverage is expensive, and so there will be rationing or limits on ANY policy the government comes up with.. unless we want to go the model of the scandanavians with cradle-grave coverage-- and a 50 % tax table, or more

Yeah, well, I have a feeling a large portion of the American population will utter "over my dead body" before that becomes a reality. The problem as I see it is that people want the best of the best, but without having to pay the costs inherent to the quality associated with cost. It's a widespread mindset that seems to be ingraining itself into our culture, as can be seen with the over spending in almost every facet of American life. Oh well.

[BurgundyNGold]

see that is the misconception.. if all you want is "catastrophic coverage", that is a cheap policy.. but people dont "want " that.. it is when you add low deductables and coverage for all the bells and whistles that it becomes horrendous.

part of the reason that companies like GM are getting killed by this is that the unions insisted on, and won, the best possible coverage for their workers forever..
that is fine in principle, but is almost unaffordable, as they found out.

and make no mistake, talk about health care is cheap. REAL coverage is expensive, and so there will be rationing or limits on ANY policy the government comes up with.. unless we want to go the model of the scandanavians with cradle-grave coverage-- and a 50 % tax table, or more
The unions did this during the 70s when inflation was out of control. Detroit traded off annual wage increase battles and the threat of a strike for wage increases based on a fixed percentage of inflation. Part of the reason the union did this was because they could cap wage increases and divert some those funds to health care and retirement benefits if they kept wages consistent as adjusted for inflation.

It was a good deal for Detroit too, theoretically. Where Detriot got screwed was because a) the inflation rate is not the "real" inflation rate because it's based on a contrived, downward adjusted CPI, and b) the growth of health care costs have far outpaced the rate of inflation, "real" or otherwise.

If inflation was calculate correctly and health care costs had grown at a rate consistent with those of the 70s, everything would probably still be OK up in Detroit. Or at least better than now.

[shally]

Yeah, well, I have a feeling a large portion of the American population will utter "over my dead body" before that becomes a reality. The problem as I see it is that people want the best of the best, but without having to pay the costs inherent to the quality associated with cost. It's a widespread mindset that seems to be ingraining itself into our culture, as can be seen with the over spending in almost every facet of American life. Oh well.

this is done incrementally.. like boiling a crawfish.. by the time the water gets too hot, it is too late

and we have politicians pandering constantly telling people they can have anything they want and it wont cost anything.. that is a large part of the problem.
either the true cost of things is finessed, or it is unknown.. either way, the single best thing that could happen is to get consumers directly involved in paying for their care.. THEN you would see people insist upon a true accounting and getting the most for their dollars

as long as someone else is paying, the sky is the limit..

[shally]

The unions did this during the 70s when inflation was out of control. Detroit traded off annual wage increase battles and the threat of a strike for wage increases based on a fixed percentage of inflation. Part of the reason the union did this was because they could cap wage increases and divert some those funds to health care and retirement benefits if they kept wages consistent as adjusted for inflation.

It was a good deal for Detroit too, theoretically. Where Detriot got screwed was because a) the inflation rate is not the "real" inflation rate because it's based on a contrived, downward adjusted CPI, and b) the growth of health care costs have far outpaced the rate of inflation, "real" or otherwise.

If inflation was calculate correctly and health care costs had grown at a rate consistent with those of the 70s, everything would probably still be OK up in Detroit. Or at least better than now.

again, when there is a total disconnect between the extent and quality of care VERSUS the entity paying for it, you get that kind of behavior. when people pay directly for something, they watch what they pay for it.. when they dont, why should they care ? and they dont..

[rfann]

any of you folks see this -

July 16, 2009 – 12:52 p.m.

CBO Chief: Health Bills To Increase Federal Costs
By David Clarke and Edward Epstein, CQ Staff

The health care overhauls released to date would increase, not reduce, the burgeoning long-term health costs facing the government, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said Thursday. . .

rest of article ---> http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cf...s-000003168293

[rfann]

this one too -

Tax Hike Comin'
Posted 07/16/2009 06:45 PM ET

Paying For Reform: New data from a nonpartisan think tank confirm our worst fears about health care reform: The plans proposed by the White House and Congress will lead to economically ruinous tax hikes.Thursday marked the kickoff for the White House's push to get medical insurance reform passed in Congress. Top White House aides David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel and spokesman Robert Gibbs will make a hard sell on reform's big benefits.Likely missing from their pitch will be the tragic cost it will mean for the economy once the huge new tax hikes to pay for it are in place. The House bill, for instance, is estimated to cost $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion over 10 years. To pay for it, the White House has proposed raising taxes by $544 billion, almost all on the "rich" — those in the top 5% of incomes.

That leaves a $1 trillion gap. Where will the rest of the money come from? The government claims it will be able to "save" that amount. But please name any government program that saves money over a private one. The only way government will save money is to ration care — that is, give you less medical care at lower quality. Is that your idea of reform ?

When the savings fail to appear, higher taxes will have to be imposed — especially on a middle class that's been led to believe it'll get something for nothing on health care.And why the middle class? "Because," as bank robber Willie Sutton said when asked why he robbed banks, "that's where the money is."

Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, sees no savings from the health reform plans offered. He reckons that current legislation would raise costs.Faced, then, with exploding annual deficits over the next decade of $1 trillion or more, the federal government will be looking high and low — mostly high — for more revenues. . .

rest of article ---> http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=482438

[akhhorus]

New screen name kelly?

[hogskins]

the dirty little secret is that when people die early, they dont live to collect SS benefits long term and that money is never paid out.. they might spend more on health care, but the government saves money in benefits compared to someone living an extra 10 years after 65

And the big-bucks-end-of-life healthcare expenditures also happen sooner, and are therefore cheaper (i.e., dying probably cost a lot less in real dollars 10 years ago than it does now). Plus, if you die at 65, the system saves $$$ on artificial joints, Alzheimer's care, pacemakers, etc.

If we wanted to get serious about health care costs, the govt would run daily happy hours, and hand out free drinks, cigs, and trans-fat bars...

[shally]

And the big-bucks-end-of-life healthcare expenditures also happen sooner, and are therefore cheaper (i.e., dying probably cost a lot less in real dollars 10 years ago than it does now). Plus, if you die at 65, the system saves $$$ on artificial joints, Alzheimer's care, pacemakers, etc.

If we wanted to get serious about health care costs, the govt would run daily happy hours, and hand out free drinks, cigs, and trans-fat bars...

...while at the same time. taxing stuff like that out the wazzoo.. come to think of it, that is probably where we are headed..Government as both Nanny and Pimp at the same time..

[rfann]

ok , so you want to know the truth about obama's healthcare plan ?

how about 118 million people switching their healthcare from the private sector to the "free" government option.
does that sound like it is going to provide much in the way of competition ? i don't think so.
YOU DO ? . . . ok :thinker:

the politicians keep claiming it will create MORE competition.
in great britain the gov.'t provides most health care, via the national health service (nhs).
patients have almost no say over which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use,
while professionals have to conform to government plans & targets.
after the nhs started in 1948, planners soon found that "free" health care multiplied demand.
nhs founder lord beveridge predicted free health care would cut spending as health improved.
the OPPOSITE was true. between 1949 & 1979, it tripled in real terms.
the service now costs twice as much as it did 10 yrs ago, with productivity DOWN 4.5 %.

one way government tries to limit demand is to say which new drugs can be prescribed.
many drugs, widely available in america & continental Europe, are denied to british patients.
state mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average causing 8.6 weeks of waiting.
once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning & maintenance mean higher rates of an antibiotic-resistant variety of staph infection.
this "superbug" has turned even routine surgery into a lottery of death :smash:

[shally]

ok , so you want to know the truth about obama's healthcare plan ?

how about 118 million people switching their healthcare from the private sector to the "free" government option.
does that sound like it is going to provide much in the way of competition ? i don't think so.
YOU DO ? . . . ok :thinker:

the politicians keep claiming it will create MORE competition.
in great britain the gov.'t provides most health care, via the national health service (nhs).
patients have almost no say over which physician, surgeon or hospital they can use,
while professionals have to conform to government plans & targets.
after the nhs started in 1948, planners soon found that "free" health care multiplied demand.
nhs founder lord beveridge predicted free health care would cut spending as health improved.
the OPPOSITE was true. between 1949 & 1979, it tripled in real terms.
the service now costs twice as much as it did 10 yrs ago, with productivity DOWN 4.5 %.

one way government tries to limit demand is to say which new drugs can be prescribed.
many drugs, widely available in america & continental Europe, are denied to british patients.
state mismanagement has also created waiting lines for hospitals, on average causing 8.6 weeks of waiting.
once inside, budgetary cutbacks on cleaning & maintenance mean higher rates of an antibiotic-resistant variety of staph infection.
this "superbug" has turned even routine surgery into a lottery of death :smash:

MRSA has nothing to do with government programs.. in fact, you could make a strong case for the theory that OVERUSE of antibiotics by patients and their compliant physicians has lead to their development

the development of COMMUNITY based MRSA, as opposed to hospital based varieties, represents the largest and most scary component of the increases.
it has little to do with budgetary cutbacks as you state

get your facts right, and stop posting ridiculous scare comments. mixing fact and fiction makes your arguments incoherent. there is much to dislike about the various Obama style plans working their ways through Congress, but MRSA isnt one of them..

[rfann]

July 16, 2009 – 12:52 p.m.

CBO Chief: Health Bills To Increase Federal Costs
By David Clarke and Edward Epstein, CQ Staff

The health care overhauls released to date would :smash: increase , not reduce, the burgeoning long-term health costs facing the government, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said Thursday. . .

rest of article ---> http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cf...s-000003168293


&

Tax Hike Comin'
Posted 07/16/2009 06:45 PM ET

Paying For Reform: New data from a nonpartisan think tank confirm our worst fears about health care reform: The plans proposed by the White House and Congress will lead to economically ruinous :smash: tax hikes.Thursday marked the kickoff for the White House's push to get medical insurance reform passed in Congress. Top White House aides David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel and spokesman Robert Gibbs will make a hard sell on reform's big benefits.Likely missing from their pitch will be the tragic cost it will mean for the economy once the huge new tax hikes to pay for it are in place. The House bill, for instance, is estimated to cost $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion over 10 years. To pay for it, the White House has proposed raising taxes by $544 billion, almost all on the "rich" — those in the top 5% of incomes.

That leaves a $1 trillion gap. Where will the rest of the money come from? The government claims it will be able to "save" that amount. But please name any government program that saves money over a private one. The only way government will save money is to ration care — that is, give you less medical care at lower quality. Is that your idea of reform ?

When the savings fail to appear, higher taxes will have to be imposed — especially on a middle class that's been led to believe it'll get something for nothing on health care.And why the middle class? "Because," as bank robber Willie Sutton said when asked why he robbed banks, "that's where the money is."

Douglas Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, sees no savings from the health reform plans offered. He reckons that current legislation would raise costs.Faced, then, with exploding annual deficits over the next decade of $1 trillion or more, the federal government will be looking high and low — mostly high — for more revenues. . .

rest of article ---> http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=482438

[CNYSkinFan]

as long as the mods allow this charade go on, there will never be decent discussion in the potomac. ban kelly/skinguy/rfann for hr rules violations. it is that easy.

[BurgundyNGold]

as long as the mods allow this charade go on, there will never be decent discussion in the potomac. ban kelly/skinguy/rfann for hr rules violations. it is that easy.
I have to agree at this point. I thought that poster might be able to contribute in a positive way with his/her own thoughts. I guess I was wrong. I guess it was the liberal in me that thought it might be possible, but it's the conservative in me that says it's probably time to pull the plug. ;)

[shally]

i dont mind seeing ignorance. it gives all of us a chance to educate (hopefully).
as long as it doesnt descend to ad hominem attacks, i am okay with it and would prefer not to see people banned for simply not complying with formats.. especially here in Potomac

i think the mods and admins do a great job permitting exchange of positions without insults..if someone is trolling, they should be banned.. other than that, i think that exposing ignorance and foolishness to sunlight is the best cure for it...

[BurgundyNGold]

i dont mind seeing ignorance. it gives all of us a chance to educate (hopefully).
as long as it doesnt descend to ad hominem attacks, i am okay with it and would prefer not to see people banned for simply not complying with formats.. especially here in Potomac

i think the mods and admins do a great job permitting exchange of positions without insults..if someone is trolling, they should be banned.. other than that, i think that exposing ignorance and foolishness to sunlight is the best cure for it...
What do you consider mindless posting of articles and links ad nauseum without the least bit of actual intellectual discourse on the part of the poster? Certainly, it's not a debate. It's not an exchange of positions. If anything, its a deluge of positions -- none of which those of the poster.

This rfann character has to go. If it is proven that skinfan is behind the actions of the rfann account, that poster has to go too. Those are the rules, this is not a new thing. It's unfortunate, because I had hopes that skinfan could continue to actually contribute his/her own thoughts. If skinfan is not behind this, I apologize in advance for repeating what others have said that it might be him/her.

[akhhorus]

What do you consider mindless posting of articles and links ad nauseum without the least bit of actual intellectual discourse on the part of the poster? Certainly, it's not a debate. It's not an exchange of positions. If anything, its a deluge of positions -- none of which those of the poster.

This rfann character has to go. If it is proven that skinfan is behind the actions of the rfann account, that poster has to go too. Those are the rules, this is not a new thing. It's unfortunate, because I had hopes that skinfan could continue to actually contribute his/her own thoughts. If skinfan is not behind this, I apologize in advance for repeating what others have said that it might be him/her.

Obviously it is kelly/sherry/merlin/skinguy.

Simply put: we need to reinstitute the password feature on this forum.

[BurgundyNGold]

Obviously it is kelly/sherry/merlin/skinguy.

Simply put: we need to reinstitute the password feature on this forum.
I don't think so because we've gotten new contributors without the password.

[akhhorus]

I don't think so because we've gotten new contributors without the password.

Well, the choice is to have Kelly spamming this forum with her crap or get a few new contributors. There has to be some feature that stops Kelly's crap. Come up with a better idea.

[BurgundyNGold]

Kelly/sherry/etc wasn't able to post in this forum when we had that up.
True, but simply adding that poster to your ignore list solves that problem. Disallowing new members to come in and contribute isn't the answer.

[akhhorus]

True, but simply adding that poster to your ignore list solves that problem. Disallowing new members to come in and contribute isn't the answer.

Ignore listing her is pointless. Kelly is violating the rules(several of them actually), she needs to be banned from this forum.

And no one would be disallowed with a password except Kelly. If they're too lazy to ask for the password, tough.

[shally]

True, but simply adding that poster to your ignore list solves that problem. Disallowing new members to come in and contribute isn't the answer.

that is the way i would do it.. just ignore

[rfann]

i have found that the " . . . / Ignore Lists " works quite well :sun:

cheers ~ ~
:beer:

[shally]

i have found that the " . . . / Ignore Lists " works quite well :sun:

cheers ~ ~
:beer:

you are setting yourself up for banishment.. not just ignoring..dont go around "poking the bears"

[BurgundyNGold]

i have found that the " . . . / Ignore Lists " works quite well :sun:

cheers ~ ~
:beer:
It's unfortunate that you have to act this way. I actually liked reading what you posted when you thought about it and posted what your own thoughts were. Dunno why you would act like this when you don't have to.

[shally]

It's unfortunate that you have to act this way. I actually liked reading what you posted when you thought about it and posted what your own thoughts were. Dunno why you would act like this when you don't have to.

agreed.. foolish, needless provocative behavior.. are we dealing with a teen ??

[rfann]

It's unfortunate that you have to act this way. I actually liked reading what you posted when you thought about it and posted what your own thoughts were. Dunno why you would act like this when you don't have to.
how 'bout :

- in canada private for-profit clinics are becoming a booming business.
in the united states obama wants to implement a universal healthcare system similar canada's.
the canadians are trying to emulate a system closer to the one we have in the united states NOW.

- in canada the folks are "facing long waits and substandard care, private clinics are proving that canadians are willing to pay for treatment."
under the canada health act, private facilities are ~ NOT ~ allowed to charge citizens for services that are covered by government insurance. . .
until 2005, when a supreme court ruling in quebec ruled that patients facing unreasonable wait times could pay out of pocket for private treatment :thinker:


ok, this is good :eek: ;

here is the explanation from the ontario health coalition as to why private clinics are bad for canadians:
"private clinics don't produce one new doctor, nurse, or specialist. all they do it take the existing ones out of the public system, make wait times longer for everybody else while people who can pay more and more and more money jump the queue for health care services."

this is why the left is eventually going to have to forbid YOU from seeking your own doctor with your own funds.


p.s. btw , that was hillary's plan.

[BurgundyNGold]

how 'bout :

- in canada private for-profit clinics are becoming a booming business.
in the united states obama wants to implement a universal healthcare system similar canada's.
the canadians are trying to emulate a system closer to the one we have in the united states NOW.

- in canada the folks are "facing long waits and substandard care, private clinics are proving that canadians are willing to pay for treatment."
under the canada health act, private facilities are ~ NOT ~ allowed to charge citizens for services that are covered by government insurance. . .
until 2005, when a supreme court ruling in quebec ruled that patients facing unreasonable wait times could pay out of pocket for private treatment :thinker:


ok, this is good :eek: ;

here is the explanation from the ontario health coalition as to why private clinics are bad for canadians:
"private clinics don't produce one new doctor, nurse, or specialist. all they do it take the existing ones out of the public system, make wait times longer for everybody else while people who can pay more and more and more money jump the queue for health care services."

this is why the left is eventually going to have to forbid YOU from seeking your own doctor with your own funds.


p.s. btw , that was hillary's plan.
Except that none of that is any more true than what Michael Moore says about the American health care system. If folks want to focus on the fringe cases, you can find holes in any large initiative of any type.

[shally]

how 'bout :

- in canada private for-profit clinics are becoming a booming business.
in the united states obama wants to implement a universal healthcare system similar canada's.
the canadians are trying to emulate a system closer to the one we have in the united states NOW.

- in canada the folks are "facing long waits and substandard care, private clinics are proving that canadians are willing to pay for treatment."
under the canada health act, private facilities are ~ NOT ~ allowed to charge citizens for services that are covered by government insurance. . .
until 2005, when a supreme court ruling in quebec ruled that patients facing unreasonable wait times could pay out of pocket for private treatment :thinker:


ok, this is good :eek: ;

here is the explanation from the ontario health coalition as to why private clinics are bad for canadians:
"private clinics don't produce one new doctor, nurse, or specialist. all they do it take the existing ones out of the public system, make wait times longer for everybody else while people who can pay more and more and more money jump the queue for health care services."

this is why the left is eventually going to have to forbid YOU from seeking your own doctor with your own funds.


p.s. btw , that was hillary's plan.


the local hospital ER's here are choked with people waiting 12 hours to be seen- or longer.. you cant convince me that what we have now is working
for enough people to ignore it..
the problem is not to make the system worse, and more expensive by fooling with it

[Keino]

True, but simply adding that poster to your ignore list solves that problem. Disallowing new members to come in and contribute isn't the answer.

The password doesn't disallow any new members from coming in here. The only need to get Admin permission for the password. Shally is a member who gained access this way and has been a solid contributor.

I will note one more thing for the record. Spence unilaterally did away with the password roughly 5 days before his decision to give up his ownership interest in the site became public. That should shed some light on his apparent change of heart over the issue. It was no longer going to be his problem and he knew this.....What an act of Calculating Cowardice.....

[BurgundyNGold]

The password doesn't disallow any new members from coming in here. The only need to get Admin permission for the password. Shally is a member who gained access this way and has been a solid contributor.

I will note one more thing for the record. Spence unilaterally did away with the password roughly 5 days before his decision to give up his ownership interest in the site became public. That should shed some light on his apparent change of heart over the issue. It was no longer going to be his problem and he knew this.....What an act of Calculating Cowardice.....
You should start another poll and see if the others up here have had enough of the Boortzorama.

[Keino]

You should start another poll and see if the others up here have had enough of the Boortzorama.

I don't think it much matters what any of us thinks. She blatantly violated the rules and should be banned as a consequence. The only thing the password would do is prevent her from appearing here again with yet another identity.

[BurgundyNGold]

I don't think it much matters what any of us thinks. She blatantly violated the rules and should be banned as a consequence. The only thing the password would do is prevent her from appearing here again with yet another identity.
I don't disagree. I just think that before we start locking down forums that we ask the participants of that forum what they would like to do. This should especially be the case in the Potomac where we spend so much time talking about democracy.

[Keino]

I don't disagree. I just think that before we start locking down forums that we ask the participants of that forum what they would like to do. This should especially be the case in the Potomac where we spend so much time talking about democracy.

Even thought we talk about it, HR is not a democracy. Even so, I think one person can ruin it for everyone. We tried it the "Greek" way and the Polis doesn't function to eliminate douchebaggery and rule breaking. A more heavy handed approach has shown to be necessary.

[akhhorus]

Democracy is much easier when people aren't involved.

[BurgundyNGold]

Even thought we talk about it, HR is not a democracy. Even so, I think one person can ruin it for everyone. We tried it the "Greek" way and the Polis doesn't function to eliminate douchebaggery and rule breaking. A more heavy handed approach has shown to be necessary.
Haven't you noticed that this forum has had more activity since we unlocked it? Locking the forum pretty much choked the life out of the Potomac. Locking it again will just do the same. And then who will be the big winner? Kelly.

Just ignore list whatever account she uses.

[akhhorus]

Haven't you noticed that this forum has had more activity since we unlocked it? Locking the forum pretty much choked the life out of the Potomac. Locking it again will just do the same. And then who will be the big winner? Kelly.

Just ignore list whatever account she uses.

Its academic now: kelly has been banned again.

I don't accept the choice of 1-letting Kelly clutter up this forum or 2-choking the life out of it. Either way the forum is hurt by her. She should be banned whenever spotted and her posts deleted.

[BurgundyNGold]

Its academic now: kelly has been banned again.

I don't accept the choice of 1-letting Kelly clutter up this forum or 2-choking the life out of it. Either way the forum is hurt by her. She should be banned whenever spotted and her posts deleted.
Agreed. I would also suggest that we block her entire subnet. Unless she changes her ISP, she won't be betting a new subnet for her IP block.

[akhhorus]

Agreed. I would also suggest that we block her entire subnet. Unless she changes her ISP, she won't be betting a new subnet for her IP block.

I have a response for this, but I don't want to post it. I'll text you.

Thats the solution to this: just ban her whenever she pops up. Have an open ban order on her.

[Keino]

Haven't you noticed that this forum has had more activity since we unlocked it? Locking the forum pretty much choked the life out of the Potomac. Locking it again will just do the same. And then who will be the big winner? Kelly.

Just ignore list whatever account she uses.

The only thing I've noticed is that I come here less frequently now that it isn't locked.

[BurgundyNGold]

The only thing I've noticed is that I come here less frequently now that it isn't locked.
Consciously? Do you say, "Hmmm. I wonder what's going on in the Potoma.... meh, kelly probably posted a bunch of Boortz. Why bother?"

[Keino]

Consciously? Do you say, "Hmmm. I wonder what's going on in the Potoma.... meh, kelly probably posted a bunch of Boortz. Why bother?"

Consciously? Yes. But not because of Kellmerlinskinguy, but because I am a snob and didn't want to mingle with you common folk.....

[BurgundyNGold]

Consciously? Yes. But not because of Kellmerlinskinguy, but because I am a snob and didn't want to mingle with you common folk.....
:lol1:

Is there anything funnier than brutal honesty lol?

[akhhorus]

:lol1:

Is there anything funnier than brutal honesty lol?

The concept of Keino in a tuxedo and top hat pushing the rest of us aside with a cane like out of Dickens novel will not leave my head for a long time lmao. "Get out of my way you grimy urchin!" lmao

[shally]

The concept of Keino in a tuxedo and top hat pushing the rest of us aside with a cane like out of Dickens novel will not leave my head for a long time lmao. "Get out of my way you grimy urchin!" lmao

better that than Mr Burns...lol

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

Urban Health Initiative in Chicago


http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/25424087/hannity-special-investigation.htm

[csquared]

Urban Health Initiative in Chicago


http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/25424087/hannity-special-investigation.htm

Im not much of a contributor here. I do a lot of reading. Its actually helping me gain knowledge on different topics i wouldn't have know anything about. That said, Did the above poster just read the last 2 pages? Regarding just spamming articles. Moron.........

[Dolla Bill]

I am going to show my naivity on this subject, but here goes. Is there a program that exists, or existed, that states that anyone below the age of 18 have any kind of free or severly reduced cost for health care that may or may not of included prescription coverage?

I figure if there hasn't,then couldn't there be a conscious compromise to allow "children" Universal Healthcare, from birth-18. Then upon turning 18, they will have to either find their own healthcare (private insurances) or have possible situations that would further extend Universal Healthcare (disabilities that cause people to receive Medicare/Medicaid).

Essentially, private insurances would be allowed to be used from 18-65. That's a possible 47 years of gathering premiums, claims, etc.

[BurgundyNGold]

I am going to show my naivity on this subject, but here goes. Is there a program that exists, or existed, that states that anyone below the age of 18 have any kind of free or severly reduced cost for health care that may or may not of included prescription coverage?

I figure if there hasn't,then couldn't there be a conscious compromise to allow "children" Universal Healthcare, from birth-18. Then upon turning 18, they will have to either find their own healthcare (private insurances) or have possible situations that would further extend Universal Healthcare (disabilities that cause people to receive Medicare/Medicaid).

Essentially, private insurances would be allowed to be used from 18-65. That's a possible 47 years of gathering premiums, claims, etc.
Seems reasonable. Or something like 0-18, 65+ and the mentally disabled (or challenged, whatever) get full coverage.

[akhhorus]

Seems reasonable. Or something like 0-18, 65+ and the mentally disabled (or challenged, whatever) get full coverage.

I don't think that would cost too much more. Expand SCHIP to everyone 18 years and younger, and donut it to 65+(or retired people). You probably would reduce a lot of Medicare costs doing that.

[Dolla Bill]

I don't think that would cost too much more. Expand SCHIP to everyone 18 years and younger, and donut it to 65+(or retired people). You probably would reduce a lot of Medicare costs doing that.


I just think of the cost it would reduce for parents who carry kids on their primary insurances. Getting a "family" package from their insurance is usually 2-3 times greater than getting one for yourself and maybe your spouse. This could open the door for possible economic spending due to the savings that one would receive.

What? I have an extra 40-80 bucks per month?

There's no telling what people would do with savings like that burning a hole in their pocket. Also could be a deciding factor between renting and buying a home.

[BurgundyNGold]

Here's a great graphic comparing the House and Senate health care bills:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/health/compare-health-plans-2009/

Does anyone else think there's a whole lot more whimper than bang for all these bucks?

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

HR3200:

Page 58 - Every person will be issued a National ID Card

Page 59 - the government will "require direct real-time access to all individual bank accounts"

[Fathead]

HR3200:

Page 58 - Every person will be issued a National ID Card

Page 59 - the government will "require direct real-time access to all individual bank accounts"

Please actually post the provision.

[akhhorus]

HR3200:

Page 58 - Every person will be issued a National ID Card

Page 59 - the government will "require direct real-time access to all individual bank accounts"

Here's the text:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:

Here's what page 58 says about "national ID card":
enable the real-time (or near real-time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card


Page 59:

enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice;
‘‘(D) require timely and transparent claim and denial management processes, including tracking, adjudication, and appeal processing; ‘‘(E) require the use of a standard electronic transaction with which health care providers may quickly and efficiently enroll with a health plan to conduct the other electronic transactions provided for in this part


I can't find where the House bill says anything you claim it does. I can't find any mention of a National ID card or the term "bank account" in the bill. How about less parroting back what you read on some blogs and more checking it for yourself?

[Dolla Bill]

Here's the text:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:

Here's what page 58 says about "national ID card":


Page 59:


I can't find where the House bill says anything you claim it does. I can't find any mention of a National ID card or the term "bank account" in the bill. How about less parroting back what you read on some blogs and checking it for yourself?

I work for a Medicare Part D plan, and it sounds very similar to what we do for our members.

They would have an ID card that they would show to providers. As far as having access to your bank accounts, its only to pay premiums. People can sign up for our plan; then select how they want to pay the premium. SSA deduction, EFT deduction, or by sending in a check each month. If they choose EFT, then the plan would have access to your banking information to deduct premiums.

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

Of course theyll word this trash the best they can... step into reality

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf

Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans


Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.


Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.

Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the gov option!

Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.

Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.

[akhhorus]

Yet again, you're making stuff up(or you don't understand what is written):

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf

Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans


SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—
13
(1) INGENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish a temporary reinsurance program (in this section referred to as the ‘‘reinsurance program’’) to provide reimbursement to assist participating employment-based plans with the cost of providing health benefits to retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees.


So, not what you said it said. I'm guessing you don't know what reinsurance is.

Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.

There's nothing about that on page 195. On page 196, it says this about credit checks:
Return information disclosed
under subparagraph (A) may be used by officers and employees of the Health Choices Administration or such State-based health insurance exchange, as the case may be, only for the purposes of, and to the extent necessary in, establishing and verifying the appropriate amount of any affordability credit described in subtitle C of title II of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 and providing for the repayment of any such credit which was in excess of such appropriate amount.’’.


Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.


There's absolutely nothing on page 50 which is about this topic. But it says this on page 7:
No Federal payment for undocumented aliens.


And page 146 says this:
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

Thats the only part about illegals.

Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the gov option!

You're fabricating again. That section is called "Protecting the choice to keep current coverage." And there's nothing that says what you claim it says for several pages after page 16. In fact, there's a 5 year grace period if the private insurance doesn't meet the standards of the bills.

Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.


There's nothing that says that at all. This is what the section says about aging citizens:
(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to. ‘‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses. ‘‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy. ‘‘(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965). ‘‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

Omg, that evil government explaining someone's options. /sarcasm

Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.

Thats pretty clearly about living wills, which you would have known if you read page 428:
An advance care planning consultation with respect to an individual may be conducted more frequently than provided under paragraph (1) if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.


And there's nothing about ordering someone to end their life. Another fabrication by you.


Congrats Taylor, you're about as coherent and effective as Orly Taitz lol

[Fathead]

Its people like Taylor here that are pushing me more and more left each day.

[BurgundyNGold]

Its people like Taylor here that are pushing me more and more left each day.
I don't think he's pushing you or anyone further left. I think that some folks are stretching the bounds of what it means to be right beyond the absurd. The left has these folks too. It just so happens, it's the right's turn to act a fool lol.

Unfortunately, a few bad apples make true conservatism look bad. That and not having a sellable core ideology at the root of true conservatism.

[Fathead]

I don't think he's pushing you or anyone further left. I think that some folks are stretching the bounds of what it means to be right beyond the absurd. The left has these folks too. It just so happens, it's the right's turn to act a fool lol.

Unfortunately, a few bad apples make true conservatism look bad. That and not having a sellable core ideology at the root of true conservatism.



No, this is happening everywhere. Almost everyone I know on the right is coming across as a whiny baby, and then you get people like Taylor who stink so bad that you have to take a step to the left to try to get away from the stench.

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

There is a reason why every book on the best seller's lists is either an oprah winfrey book or an anti-government one.

[Fathead]

There is a reason why every book on the best seller's lists is either an oprah winfrey book or an anti-government one.

Because there is a sucker born every minute?

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

Because there is a sucker born every minute?

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1357

Let's see here.... Independents are now moving right, so Id argue people such as you are pushing US citizens towards basic common sense and to the right.

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling health care?
Total - 52% disapprove to 38% approve
Republican - 83% disapprove to 12% approve
Democraps - 20% disapprove to 69% approve
Independents - 60% disapprove to 34% approve

The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Ohio and the nation as a public service and for research.

[Fathead]

Links and rhetoric. Have you ever posted an original thought?

[shally]

Links and rhetoric. Have you ever posted an original thought?

that takes some heavy lifting..lol

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

Links and rhetoric. Have you ever posted an original thought?

No, links to cold hard statistics and facts... which obviously has you on "shut mouth"

[Fathead]

Uh, I haven't shut my mouth on anything. You are still the one who has yet to post an original idea in this forum.

[akhhorus]

No, links to cold hard statistics and facts... which obviously has you on "shut mouth"

Someone who makes up quotes and makes up items they claim to be in a bill really can't claim to be talking about facts without sounding like a fool.

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

Somebody who claims there's no media bias sounds like the king of fools.

On a side note... In an interview today with MSNBC, Obama said he and pro-abortion Democrats may have to approve the government-run plan without conservatives and moderates. Despite 70% of the american public not wanting a partisan bill

[Fathead]

Someone who makes up quotes and makes up items they claim to be in a bill really can't claim to be talking about facts without sounding like a fool.

When he addresses the dressing down you gave him, then he can try to talk about facts. Until then, he's likely to hit the ignore list very shortly.

[akhhorus]

Uh, I haven't shut my mouth on anything. You are still the one who has yet to post an original idea in this forum.

He's like if Kelly and Dukeuch had a love child lol

[Fathead]

Somebody who claims there's no media bias sounds like the king of fools.

On a side note... In an interview today with MSNBC, Obama said he and pro-abortion Democrats may have to approve the government-run plan without conservatives and moderates.




Well, since this country elected Obama and the Democratic majority, they've got every right to implement whatever plan they feel like.

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

I hope he does... his fate will be sealed... Jimmy Carter is looking like sliced bread.

It doesnt take a brain surgeon to figure out what happens when you separate the customer from the product.

[shally]

He's like if Kelly and Dukeuch had a love child lol



:eek::imshock:

it's what happens after closing time in a bar when far too much liquor has been consumed by both parties.. you wake up the next morning and ...OMG !!!!

[shally]

Well, since this country elected Obama and the Democratic majority, they've got every right to implement whatever plan they feel like.

absolutely true.. elections have significance...

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

absolutely true.. elections have significance...

And they are revolting b/c they were misinformed by most of the media and the obama campaign about this radical scum.
"I will allow five days of public comment before signing any bill?" liar
"I will negotiate health care reform in public sessions held on c-span." pfft
moderate? not.
transparent? nope.
bipartisan? hahahahaha.
transform the landscape of america? at least he's not batting 0.0000000

[shally]

And they are revolting b/c they were misinformed by most of the media and the obama campaign about this radical scum.
"I will allow five days of public comment before signing any bill?" liar
"I will negotiate health care reform in public sessions held on c-span." pfft
moderate? not.
transparent? nope.
bipartisan? hahahahaha.
transform the landscape of america? at least he's not batting 0.0000000

again, when a party wins an election, it is expected they are going to get their way on programs.. if the people dont like them, throw them out in the next election.

the problem is that it is very hard to beat SOMETHING with NOTHING and, for the most part, the GOP doesnt have many ideas of their own..that leaves them out in the wilderness politically..

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

again, when a party wins an election, it is expected they are going to get their way on programs.. if the people dont like them, throw them out in the next election.

the problem is that it is very hard to beat SOMETHING with NOTHING and, for the most part, the GOP doesnt have many ideas of their own..that leaves them out in the wilderness politically..

well, nothing's better than this something. zero is greater than negative one, that much I know

[Fathead]

All the pubs are offering is whining. That's about -30.

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

all the dems are offering is spending, deficits, and taxes worth about negative thirty trillion


even an "idiot" republican from the university of Idaho can have an above 50 approval rating as governor in this recession, yet elitist left of left democrats' approval ratings from columbia univ are dropping like stones, like the massachusetts governor and the president's .... why? b/c it doesnt take a genius... just some common sense


The best thing the dems have done is spend 3 billion dollars of taxpayer's money on depreciating assets(not to mention all the while theyre destroying assets)..... and they stole that idea from Europe.. LMAO

[akhhorus]

again, when a party wins an election, it is expected they are going to get their way on programs.. if the people dont like them, throw them out in the next election.

the problem is that it is very hard to beat SOMETHING with NOTHING and, for the most part, the GOP doesnt have many ideas of their own..that leaves them out in the wilderness politically..

Its impossible to beat a bad plan with no plan. Ask the Dems from 2003-2005. They didn't get anywhere with the "Bush sucks" campaign until Katrina. Whats even more mystifying about the complaints of the DC gop is that TARP, the prescription drug welfare of 40 billion a year and the auto bailouts were pushed by Bush and Cheney(along with the DC gop and guys like Kristol, Rich Lowry/National Review, fox news, etc). You can't turn around and bitch about spending, bailouts and corporate welfare when you were doing the exact same thing before the change in party in the White House.

[BurgundyNGold]

Its impossible to beat a bad plan with no plan. Ask the Dems from 2003-2005. They didn't get anywhere with the "Bush sucks" campaign until Katrina. Whats even more mystifying about the complaints of the DC gop is that TARP, the prescription drug welfare of 40 billion a year and the auto bailouts were pushed by Bush and Cheney(along with the DC gop and guys like Kristol, Rich Lowry/National Review, fox news, etc). You can't turn around and bitch about spending, bailouts and corporate welfare when you were doing the exact same thing before the change in party in the White House.
Ask McCain in 2008, lol.

[akhhorus]

Frum states the obvious:

Link (http://www.newmajority.com/what-if-we-win-the-healthcare-fight)

We’ll have entrenched and perpetuated some of the most irrational features of a hugely costly and under-performing system, at the expense of entrepreneurs and risk-takers, exactly the people the Republican party exists to champion.

Not a good outcome.

Even worse will be the way this fight is won: basically by convincing older Americans already covered by a government health program, Medicare, that Obama’s reform plans will reduce their coverage. In other words, we’ll have sent a powerful message to the entire political system to avoid at all hazards any tinkering with Medicare except to make it more generous for the already covered.

If we win, we’ll trumpet the success as a great triumph for liberty and individualism. Really though it will be a triumph for inertia. To the extent that anybody in the conservative world still aspires to any kind of future reform and improvement of America’s ossified government, that should be a very ashy victory indeed.

[RedskinsDave]

Hey, if you see anyone posting negative information on the health care farce, please report them to Big Brother. Change to what, modern McCarthyism?

[CNYSkinFan]

Frum states the obvious:

Link (http://www.newmajority.com/what-if-we-win-the-healthcare-fight)
while i agree with frum...there simply is no limit the some of the "conservative's" hypocracy. they will simply pretend they did not take a stand for medicare when they want to cut it later on, and the american public as witnbessed by the birthers tea baggers and town hall warriors that are willing to believe absolutely anything they are told.

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

while i agree with frum...there simply is no limit the some of the "conservative's" hypocracy. they will simply pretend they did not take a stand for medicare when they want to cut it later on, and the american public as witnbessed by the birthers tea baggers and town hall warriors that are willing to believe absolutely anything they are told.

you conveniently left out the democrat hypocracy to cry like babies over what they created.... union thugs, truthers, war protesters, acorn robots pulled off the streets to mindlessly protest and on call black panthers to intimidate voters. (who were recently found guilty and unexplicably dismissed by attorney general's peons)

[akhhorus]

you conveniently left out the democrat hypocracy to cry like babies over what they created.... union thugs, truthers, war protesters, acorn robots pulled off the streets to mindlessly protest and on call black panthers to intimidate voters. (who were recently found guilty and unexplicably dismissed by attorney general's peons)

We get that you're a partisan hack like Dukeuch is(was?) for the left, but its not asking too much that you make a remotely relevant comment to what you're responding to. Nothing you say here has anything to do with CNY's comment.

Oh, and the "truthers" aren't left or right, they're just conspiracy theory idiots, much like in the video you posted in another thread.

[CNYSkinFan]

you conveniently left out the democrat hypocracy to cry like babies over what they created.... union thugs, truthers, war protesters, acorn robots pulled off the streets to mindlessly protest and on call black panthers to intimidate voters. (who were recently found guilty and unexplicably dismissed by attorney general's peons)
http://www.charviinternational.com/images/big_vaginal_douche_spray.jpg

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

http://www.charviinternational.com/images/big_vaginal_douche_spray.jpg

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y139/bigkmart/Ultrasonic-Liposuction-Slimming-Mac.jpg

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y139/bigkmart/2rr41sg.jpg

[shally]

http://www.charviinternational.com/images/big_vaginal_douche_spray.jpg

is that a turkey baster, or a mini-douche bag ? is this an argument about
artificial insemination, lesbian rights, the French, or general douche-baggery?

i am so easily confused these days...lol

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

Never fear.... ACORN is here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--ZJhR3T4aw&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJLRF1ahFrU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXax-wjOW44&feature=related

[RedskinsDave]

That's what we get when the POTUS is from the uber-corrupt union town of Chitcago. They tell people to snitch on fellow Americans and then send in thugs to control the crowds who know Barry's health care is a pile.

[RedskinsDave]

http://www.dakotavoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/CartoonTownHall.jpg

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

Amazing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKyJonbbanM&feature=related

[akhhorus]

This is too funny not to post:

Link (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/7C2B91CFCB7B4D398625760D0008E6EA?OpenDocument)

An organizer of the anti-reform protesters(which have mysteriously disappeared) claims he was beaten up(the video of the "fight" doesn't back up his account:Link (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019423.php)) by counter-protesters. The following day, he showed up as a rally in a wheelchair and heavily bandaged, I'll let the article say the rest:

Brown finished by telling the crowd that Gladney is accepting donations toward his medical expenses. Gladney told reporters he was recently laid off and has no health insurance.

Irony, thy name is....

[shally]

This is too funny not to post:

Link (http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/7C2B91CFCB7B4D398625760D0008E6EA?OpenDocument)

An organizer of the anti-reform protesters(which have mysteriously disappeared) claims he was beaten up(the video of the "fight" doesn't back up his account:Link (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019423.php)) by counter-protesters. The following day, he showed up as a rally in a wheelchair and heavily bandaged, I'll let the article say the rest:



Irony, thy name is....

sounds like a scam to me..lol

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

"The White House deal with Big Pharma undermines democracy"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/08/10/pharma/index.html


Last week, after being reported in the Los Angeles Times, the White House confirmed it has promised Big Pharma that any healthcare legislation will bar the government from using its huge purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. That's basically the same deal George W. Bush struck in getting the Medicare drug benefit, and it's proven a bonanza for the drug industry.

[akhhorus]

"The White House deal with Big Pharma undermines democracy"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/08/10/pharma/index.html


Last week, after being reported in the Los Angeles Times, the White House confirmed it has promised Big Pharma that any healthcare legislation will bar the government from using its huge purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. That's basically the same deal George W. Bush struck in getting the Medicare drug benefit, and it's proven a bonanza for the drug industry.

1. Both sides say they don't have a deal(Reich and Salon are as liberal as HuffPo):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/10/white-house-insists-it-di_n_255682.html

In an interview with the Huffington Post on Monday afternoon, Ken Johnson, the senior vice president for the pharmaceutical industry's lobby, would not get into specifics about the conversations with representatives of the White House and the Senate Finance Committee. But he noted that his organization had made it clear from the very beginning "that we cannot support price controls."

Pressed about the discussions, Johnson added, "Among honorable people there can be honest differences of opinion..." Later, he would say that there was no distance between his and the White House's interpretation of the event.

"It's important to point out, there was never any quote-un-quote secret agreement with the White House," Johnson said.

The briefing by the White House aides was the latest attempt by the administration to control a story that has caused a fair amount of political and PR damage. The charge of backroom trading seemed to fly in the face of several promises made by then-Sen. Obama during the presidential campaign, among them that he would use the power of government to get more affordable drugs for seniors and that health care legislation would be conducted in an open and transparent manner.

On Monday, the trio of White House officials sought to clear the air of such criticism. Beyond the issue of rebates, they insisted no exchanges or promises had been made. The administration retained the right to use the leverage of the federal government to negotiate lower drug prices, they said.

2. Bush's prescription drug plan was a 40 billion dollar a year giveaway for the next decade(the Congressman who forced the legislation through promptly resigned and became the chairman of PhRMA). Thats rather different than what the rumored deal between the White House and PhRMA(which is supposedly PhRMA agreeing on thinking about 80 billion in cuts if the reform doesn't touch their medicare charging fees).

[Taylor21TheUndertaker]

"But neither the industry nor the White House nor any congressional committee has announced exactly where the $80 billion in savings will show up nor how this portion of the deal will be enforced. In any event, you can bet that the bonanza Big Pharma will reap far exceeds $80 billion. Otherwise, why would it have agreed?

Sunday's New York Times reports that Big Pharma has budgeted $150 million for TV ads promoting universal health insurance, starting this August (that's more money than John McCain spent on TV advertising in last year's presidential campaign) "

[akhhorus]

"But neither the industry nor the White House nor any congressional committee has announced exactly where the $80 billion in savings will show up nor how this portion of the deal will be enforced. In any event, you can bet that the bonanza Big Pharma will reap far exceeds $80 billion. Otherwise, why would it have agreed?"

Or Big PhRMA would agree to 80 billion in cuts to forestall deeper cuts in a reform package. That happens all the time in govt. spending(defense spending in particular).

Considering that both sides are denying any deal, its pretty safe to say they don't have a deal.

[shally]

Or Big PhRMA would agree to 80 billion in cuts to forestall deeper cuts in a reform package. That happens all the time in govt. spending(defense spending in particular).

Considering that both sides are denying any deal, its pretty safe to say they don't have a deal.

they will go eyeball to eyeball while twisting arms in congress, until someone blinks.. this is a real heavyweight match.. i would not bet against big Pharm, with billy tauzin they havent lost too many fights

[akhhorus]

they will go eyeball to eyeball while twisting arms in congress, until someone blinks.. this is a real heavyweight match.. i would not bet against big Pharm, with billy tauzin they havent lost too many fights

I wouldn't be surprised if PhRMA is looking to deal/lobby, but I think any industry will wait to see a senate bill before trying to deal anything away. Tauzin's no fool. There's no point in dealing away anything until they have an idea of where to make offers.

[shally]

I wouldn't be surprised if PhRMA is looking to deal/lobby, but I think any industry will wait to see a senate bill before trying to deal anything away. Tauzin's no fool. There's no point in dealing away anything until they have an idea of where to make offers.

exactly.. i think they will give away a little bit because it is better to compromise a tad than to have to deal with this again next session..if this is out of the way, or off the table because a deal has been reached, then it will be other players who will get hammered the next time.

they are no fools and they are tough negotiators who are still dealing from a decent level of strength

[akhhorus]

exactly.. i think they will give away a little bit because it is better to compromise a tad than to have to deal with this again next session..if this is out of the way, or off the table because a deal has been reached, then it will be other players who will get hammered the next time.

they are no fools and they are tough negotiators who are still dealing from a decent level of strength

I wouldn't be surprised if they have contingency deals, if the Senate passes X, then PhRMA agrees to Y if they don't touch Z. I just don't buy for a second(and the denials back this up) that they would have specific dollar figures agreed to now before a bill is even out of the finance committee.

[shally]

I wouldn't be surprised if they have contingency deals, if the Senate passes X, then PhRMA agrees to Y if they don't touch Z. I just don't buy for a second(and the denials back this up) that they would have specific dollar figures agreed to now before a bill is even out of the finance committee.

no, but i would bet they have internal benchmarks as to what to give up, depending upon what bill passes, or how they see the sands shifting