Congresspeople Worried About Jobs
Their own jobs, I suspect.
Growing discontent over the economy and frustration with efforts to speed its recovery boiled over Thursday on Capitol Hill in a wave of criticism and outright anger directed at the Obama administration.
Episodes in both houses of Congress exposed the raw nerves of lawmakers flooded with stories of unemployment and economic hardship back home. They also underscored the stiff headwinds that the administration faces as it pushes to enact sweeping changes to the financial regulatory system while also trying to create jobs for ordinary Americans.
President Obama’s allies in the Congressional Black Caucus, exasperated by the administration’s handling of the economy, unexpectedly blocked one his top priorities, using a legislative maneuver to postpone the approval of financial reform legislation by a key House committee.
Two buildings away, at a session of the Joint Economic Committee, Republicans escalated their attacks on Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, including a call for his resignation.
“Conservatives agree that as point person, you failed. Liberals are growing in that consensus as well,” said Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.). “For the sake of our jobs, will you step down from your post?”
Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-Tex.) took a different tack. “I don’t think that you should be fired,” he told Geithner. “I thought you should have never been hired.”
Even Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), a friend of the administration, suggested that Geithner had been inconsistent in addressing China’s practice of keeping its currency low against the dollar.
And Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) said Wednesday on MSNBC that he thinks Geithner should step down, pointing to his handling of the aftermath of American International Group’s meltdown.
Gee, our petulant 14-year old of a President nominates a group of people who cannot manage their personal finances to manage the finances of the most powerful country on Earth, and we are only nine months later surprised that they have absolutely no idea what they are doing.
This President has installed dozens of people who are unqualified for their jobs, then left them to deal with the country’s woes while he jets around the globe and apologizes for the conduct of the previous President, unnecessarily I might add.
We elected an empty suit, and now we have to live with the ramifications of that for the next three years.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 0846 hrs
Apparently they’re not worried enough to stop with the tyrannical takeover of healthcare.
I just have to ask after the mammogram fiasco, and now the pap smear fiasco of today:
Why do liberals want women to die of cancer?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1425 hrs
Here’s what I think. Geithner is an idiot and should not have been hired in the first place. The bailouts should have come with more strings, better regulations to prevent future recurrences. The stimulus package is working as expected but it takes time and was too small. We need—and will get—a second one called the Jobs Bill or Put American Back To Work Bill or some damned thing. Doug and GMan are again putting the bile and vitriol up to 11 right from the get go. And we’re off.
Posted by scott on November 20, 2009 at 1506 hrs
The fact that you think the stimulus is working as expected is the most laughable thing I’ve ever heard.
Don’t you remember the Administration saying that if the stimulus were passed unemployment wouldn’t go above 8%? We’re now at 10.2, 15+% if you count under-emloyed, and those who’ve stopped looking. AND RISING!
How can you possibly think that government spending should be higher? I could see doing another tax rebate or something, if, and it’s a big if, we were to bring all of our combat troops home. We both know that is not going to happen. We cannot continue this deficit spending, Bush was out of control, this is just nutty.
Scott, until you turn your bile and vitriol knob back from 11, I’ll leave mine right where it is, thank you very much. I admit the petulant child crack was a bit over the top, but the rest of my post is a pretty good representation of reality.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1518 hrs
Well, last I heard a lot of the stimulus money hadn’t been spent yet. And, “shovel-ready” though they may be, it does take time to get that money into the hands of the people hired to do the infrastructure and similar work. Furthermore, many of the tax cuts in the stimulus package are less effective than direct spending. But you guys insisted on having them in there, so…
The administration put its foot right in its mouth when it said the 8% unemployment thing. Even I knew it was likely to hit 10%, just from listening to smart people on the radio. Why they chose to say that I’ll never know—unless they thought it was the only way to get it passed. Which is still dirty, but still.
How can you possibly think that government spending should be higher?
Because the economy isn’t responding to the usual things such as lowering interest rates. They’re as low as they can meaningfully go, but people are still not spending. There’s no demand. And without demand, there’s no production. No production, no jobs. No jobs, no money. No money, no demand—vicious circle. It’s in these instances that the government must step in and spend, shore up demand so that employment can get jumpstarted.
People who think that the government should be balancing its budget right now are wrong. If the government were to cut back its spending we’d be doubly screwed. Not only are people not spending on new homes, cars and couches—now the government isn’t spending either! We’d be looking at 10+% unemployment for a friggin’ decade.
People who think tax cuts are far preferable are also wrong. Only a portion of the tax cuts go toward immediate spending. And only spending creates demand—and jobs. Any portion of a tax cut that goes to savings or paying down debt is lost to the immediate stimulus effort.
Yes we absolutely can continue this deficit spending. We have to right now. This is, I would argue, the ONLY circumstances in which big deficit spending is justified. Everything else we should be on a pay as you go basis, period. And we should be reducing the debt annually. I’ll support that. Just as soon as unemployment goes back below 7%.
Posted by scott on November 20, 2009 at 1534 hrs
Scott, why do you want women to die of cancer?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1540 hrs
And I’m the asshole here? Cut the bullshit. Jesus.
Posted by scott on November 20, 2009 at 1545 hrs
Scott, the problem with deficit spending is, eventually your credit dries up… Something we have already seen begin to occur, this administration has increased the money supply to levels heretofore unprecedented. China and India are starting to dump their dollars into gold, bringing foreign dollars back into the economy which further expands the money supply in this country. Inflation is far worse for our economy than is reduced consumer spending.
People are re-adjusting their lifestyles now to a bygone era. We are beginning to see that it is possible to live on very little if any credit again, a good thing. For the government to just be running the presses until they melt down and borrowing until the cows come home is absolutely irresponsible, and it destroys the value of your savings. We already learned this lesson…
This from USAToday.
The message for today: Beware overly confident government officials in possession of powerful policy remedies that “everyone” supports. Samuelson’s warning is worth remembering as a new U.S. administration readies a sweeping and expensive economic recovery plan.
In the late ‘70s, rising prices defied all remedies. Democratic and Republican presidents alike jawboned industry leaders and eventually imposed government controls on what companies could charge for their products. Nothing worked.
Nothing, that is, until Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker turned off the monetary taps and kept them off. Before inflation was vanquished, unemployment neared 11%, a painful tale told in greater detail in William Greider’s 1989 history of the Federal Reserve, Secrets of the Temple.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/books/2009-01-18-book-review-great-inflation-aftermath_N.htm
I suppose you will try and tell me that Samuelson is biased by big business somehow…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1547 hrs
No, I’m just going to tell you that this isn’t the 70s and we’re not battling inflation. This is 2009 and we’re battling unemployment due to a trillion dollar hole in demand. And I agree that inflation is a bad thing, but the idea that it’s a greater danger than the unemployment we’re barely controlling the worst of, is wrong. We have to spend and if inflation rears it’s head down the road we’ll deal with it then—in precisely the way the article cites. Government spending, and the borrowing we’re doing, are the lesser evil right now.
Posted by scott on November 20, 2009 at 1607 hrs
And I agree that inflation is a bad thing, but the idea that it’s a greater danger than the unemployment we’re barely controlling the worst of, is wrong.
The countries you are so happy to praise for their high standard of living and outstanding healthcare programs are consistently above 7-8% unemployment, and frequent the 10% range (Germany, France). Please explain.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1612 hrs
No, I’m just going to tell you that this isn’t the 70s and we’re not battling inflation.
Not yet… Try and tell me that we won’t be in the medium term.
Yes, near term unemployment is reaching near crisis levels. Medium term, inflation will be a crisis.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1632 hrs
Government spending, and the borrowing we’re doing, are the lesser evil right now.
Thats the problem with the way this country has been run for so long. We are too focused on the immediate. We are on the precipice of creating a situation in which my generation and the generation below me will be less prosperous than you and your parents. The reason for that is that you and your parents have used the government as a tool to feather your own nests on the backs of me and mine. We cannot continue to push the actual “paying” for things down the road and prop up our economy with credit. That is what this crash was all about… What we were doing was not working, and we need to be more conservative (fiscally) in the future to insure that my children are not paying the debts of social programs from bygone generations.
The stimulus is not working, because it is being spent to create MORE unfunded liabilities in government. The government is not an employment agency, and 100% of our population cannot be employed by it, but the “government class” seems to believe that this is the only way out of recession.
Ignoring history in these times seems especially dangerous to me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1642 hrs
I have praised the health care systems of other countries, yes. Are you suggesting that their health care systems—which, again, cost LESS than ours—are the reason why they have higher unemployment than we do? Think that through for a minute.
Posted by scott on November 20, 2009 at 1644 hrs
I"m sorry, you think America’s social programs are the cause of our economic crisis?
Posted by scott on November 20, 2009 at 1648 hrs
I"m sorry, you think America’s social programs are the cause of our economic crisis?
In part, yes.
Our government has created a situation in which the only way to pay for our current social benefits (especially Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid) is to borrow money. This has resulted in ever higher tax rates, which results in lower incomes, which results in reduced spending, which results in…. Well, a bad economy. Not to mention that our tax code itself has become a welfare program, which is absolutely insane. In order to actually fund, with a balanced budget, the number of liabilities that we currently have, taxes would have to double… Which would again, result in reduced revenues to the government as business owners find ways to avoid higher tax brackets.
Our country went credit crazy when it was pushed to do so by a government seeking greater tax revenues.
Lets not even broach the issue of the constitutionality of any of these programs, or the taxes required to pay for them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1657 hrs
the only way to pay for our current social benefits (especially Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid) is to borrow money.
This is not true.
This has resulted in ever higher tax rates
Borrowing money to pay for things is the opposite of raising taxes to pay for them.
Not to mention that our tax code itself has become a welfare program,
So you don’t believe in progressive taxation? It also makes me wonder: are there other wealthy democracies with less progressive taxation than we currently have? I’m pretty sure that taxes have gotten flatter over the last 50 years. Know what the top tax rate was in Kennedy’s day? In Reagan’s?
In order to actually fund, with a balanced budget, the number of liabilities that we currently have, taxes would have to double
I don’t believe that’s even close to true.
Lets not even broach the issue of the constitutionality of any of these programs, or the taxes required to pay for them.
Wait, don’t tell me—you’re a “tenther.”
Posted by scott on November 20, 2009 at 1710 hrs
“tenther”.... Ooooh another label. I was at the Madison tea party in April, are you going to call me a “teabagger” next, seems a bit uncouth.
“Progressive” taxes are not “progressive”, they are unfair. Everyone who lives in this country should pay the same percentage of their income to fund it. It is interesting to me that the people who pay the least (nothing) are the people who cost the most for the nanny state to “nurture”.
I see no problem with a flat tax, it is fair. I actually really prefer Paul Ryans plan, 10% below, 125,000 (I think, memory not perfect here) and 25% above with no exemptions, credits, or write offs. Doing taxes on a post card sounds good to me, and it prevents the super wealthy from paying less that those earning 50 or 60k by paying expensive tax lawyers to find each and every loophole, because there would be NO loopholes.
Everyone, whether they earn $5000/year or $50,000,000/yr should be paying something, and that is not how it works now. i just seek justice and equality, admirable is it not? Using the tax code as a welfare policy needs to end.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1726 hrs
Well, at least one bright spot in this whole mess is watching the in-fighting.
:zpopcorn:
Posted by hsgbdmama on November 20, 2009 at 1726 hrs
I was at the Madison tea party in April, are you going to call me a “teabagger” next
Yes, probably.
Everyone who lives in this country should pay the same percentage of their income to fund it.
If you want to start debating taxes and who pays them, be prepare to discuss not only federal income, but state, local, fees, sales—everything that we pay to fund government at all levels. Viewed that way—the real way—taxes are probably flatter than you think.
And I just can’t drop it—there’s no legal merit to the idea that the tenth amendment renders everything from Social Security to the US Air Force unconstitutional. Do some research on it
Posted by scott on November 20, 2009 at 1734 hrs
I’m not a “tenther”, Scott. My undergrad is in law studies, I know that Article I, Section 8 and the 16th Amendment provide (probably) limitless power for the Federal government to levy taxes.
The comment was supposed to be tongue in cheek.
The tax issue is way off the topic of the thread, but yes, it does flatten. Not to a degree of equality, but it is flatter. The lower classes spend a greater percentage on untaxed merchandise, and the wealthy are often subjected to excise and punitive taxes (gas guzzler, luxury, inheritance, et al.).Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1747 hrs
scott:
You are right, taxes wouldn’t have to double, only increase 81%
see this link for analysis
http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/14/taxes-social-security-opinions-columnists-medicare.htmlPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1807 hrs
oh, and before you tell me it is just an opinion, that is all any analysis is, but rather than just say that, how about saying where the weakness is if you disagree with it. The underlying numbers are from government reports and are facts.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1810 hrs
How about if I just hit you with one thing—fixing Social Security is very easy. Far from being the untenable ponzi scheme that must be dismantled before the entire country goes bankrupt, all we need to is…
Raise taxes or cut benefits or both.
For example. If we did away with the $90,000 cap on the SS tax the program would not only be solvent, but would run a surplus for like the next 100 years. But maybe we could soften that tax a little by doing more means testing for beneficiaries. Wealthy people aren’t relying on their SS check to get through the winter, you know. This is, after all, exactly what was planned to happen back in the early 80s last time SS was tinkered with. Nobody should be surprised that we’re here. it isn’t a mistake. This was supposed to happen. We planned for it.
Actually, I heard it said once that simply repealing the Bush tax cuts—restoring tax rates to where they were under Clinton—would essentially solve the problem, too.
Medicare? The way to start solving that problem is to start reducing the price of health care in America overall—something Republicans have been fighting every step of the way, I might add.
And listen, guys? If you get to paste links from any conservative commentator into the discussion and demand that I either respond to each and every point rasied in it or concede defeat, this is going to get really old really quick. I know for absolute sure you don’t want me doing it back to you. We’ll be playing dueling opinionated URLs. Not so fascinating.
Posted by scott on November 20, 2009 at 1848 hrs
And listen, guys? If you get to paste links from any conservative commentator into the discussion and demand that I either respond to each and every point rasied in it or concede defeat, this is going to get really old really quick. I know for absolute sure you don’t want me doing it back to you. We’ll be playing dueling opinionated URLs. Not so fascinating.
I posted an article by Bob Samuelson, hardly a partisan… He doesn’t vote.
If we did away with the $90,000 cap on the SS tax the program would not only be solvent, but would run a surplus for like the next 100 years.
No, because we would then have to pay out benefits to that level… Or else, we would be making SS into a ridiculously unfair welfare program, something that this country needs no more of.
Medicare? The way to start solving that problem is to start reducing the price of health care in America overall—something Republicans have been fighting every step of the way, I might add.
Out and out lie. Paul Ryan’s bill works very hard to reduce the costs of healthcare, you admitted in another thread, and on your own blog site that it is the Democrats who are doing nothing to reduce costs…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1854 hrs
To make SS solvent, we needed to make an actual trust fund (75 years ago, BTW), rather than another slush fund out of which to extract money for other things. We have learned this lesson in WI with the transportation fund.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1857 hrs
Paul Ryan’s bill works very hard to reduce the costs of healthcare, you admitted in another thread
Did I? I’m not recalling what you’re talking about.
To make SS solvent, we needed to make an actual trust fund (75 years ago, BTW), rather than another slush fund out of which to extract money for other things.
Be honest. You wouldn’t support it even then.
Posted by scott on November 20, 2009 at 1906 hrs
In Bartlett’s latest book, The New American Economy:The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward, he goes back to the economic roots of Impostor and abandons the conservative dogma in favor of a policy strongly based on what’s worked in the past. Bartlett explains what went wrong with Reaganomics and what the Obama Administration is doing to fix it.
Hardly a recalcitrant conservative or a GOP hack…...
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1907 hrs
Paul Ryan’s bill works very hard to reduce the costs of healthcare, you admitted in another thread
Did I? I’m not recalling what you’re talking about.
Let me post what I actually wrote, again, and maybe you can actually respond to it…. Can you even make a logical argument without using MSNBC tactics? Selective editing does not make you, Hannity, Olbermann, or Maddow right.
At least I am honest enough not to cut up and edit your posts.
Quoting myself:
Paul Ryan’s bill works very hard to reduce the cost of healthcare, you admitted in another thread, and on your own blog site that it is the Democrats who are doing nothing to reduce costs…
Quoting you:
I’m definitely in favor of the health care reform bills being considered in Washington right now. But there is one thing that bothers me and makes me view these bills as nothing more than a preliminary step toward solving one of the most in-your-face problems in American health care. While it manages to insure a lot of the uninsured and end the most egregious abuses by the private insurance industry, it does very little about the exorbitant cost of care.
As I said, the Ryan bill actually does address the COST of healthcare in this country, but since you are so in the tank for this administration you are totally unwilling to admit that there is even an alternative out there.
To make SS solvent, we needed to make an actual trust fund (75 years ago, BTW), rather than another slush fund out of which to extract money for other things.
Be honest. You wouldn’t support it even then.
Yes if the program were self sufficient, the way it was intended to be, I would support it. I think it should be abolished, or privatized at this point, because until someone invents a time machine it will never be self sufficient. The cat, as they say, is already out of the bag.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 1947 hrs
At least I am honest enough not to cut up and edit your posts.
Stop being such a dick about it. The fact is, it was your own awkward grammar that caused the confusion. It seemed like you were saying I “admitted” that Ryan’s bill reduces HC costs. And I never expressed such an opinion. Thanks for clarifying what you mean. Moving on.
As I said, the Ryan bill actually does address the COST of healthcare in this country
Does it? How? And what does it do for the other problems? Getting everyone covered and stopping the abuses of the private insurance industry?
Posted by scott on November 20, 2009 at 1958 hrs
Stop being such a dick about it. The fact is, it was your own awkward grammar that caused the confusion. It seemed like you were saying I “admitted” that Ryan’s bill reduces HC costs. And I never expressed such an opinion. Thanks for clarifying what you mean. Moving on.
Sorry for putting a comma in place of a period. I do not proofread, or even re-read blog posts. I am not anal retentive.
Does it? How? And what does it do for the other problems? Getting everyone covered and stopping the abuses of the private insurance industry?
Pricing transparency, HSA’s, high deductible insurance, opening the markets across state lines, reducing government requirements for what is or is not covered (state mandates) blah, blah, blah…. I know you know the answers to this, why are you even asking the question? You have yourself admitted that these ideas could work, why not try it? Why do we need to rush into a bill that has not even been made public for more than a few weeks? Why can’t we have a national debate on what it is we want to do? Why does this need to be done before Christmas this year?
Getting everyone covered… It would be simple to expand medicaid to cover those who genuinely have no other alternative (although I have doubts about whether or not there are too many of these people). The rest of the people that are not covered are so because they choose not to be, or are ignorant of the options the state and federal government already provides for them.
The abuses of the private system will be mirrored by the public system, I know you don’t believe there will ever be rationing, but it has to happen.
Not sure why I have allowed you to bait me back into this ridiculous circular argument, but I think it is time to get back on subject.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 2045 hrs
Stop being such a dick about it.
Btw, you are the one who does it… I’m just calling you out.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 2046 hrs
You have yourself
admitted that these ideas could work, why not try it?I did? I don’t think I’ve ever said that price transparency, HSAs or purchasing across state lines would do anything to solve any of our problems. In fact, to such ideas I say: Price transparency is intriguing—the rest I think sucks—but why experiment when we know what works elsewhere the world over? Ideology perhaps?
Posted by scott on November 20, 2009 at 2054 hrs
Yes Scott, ideology has a lot to do with it. We are not Europe, or Australia, or Canada. We do not, or have not up to this point, as a country, wanted to go down that road. A change this substantial should NOT be rushed into, and if the majority decide that they don’t WANT to go down that road, then the minority that does, needs to stop trying to incrementally inch us that way. Is that what you want to hear, that there are different ideologies other than your own? Does that come as a surprise to you? If the majority decide that this is NOT what they want, whether their decision is based on fact, fiction, gut reaction or from succumbing to ‘fear mongering’ will you agree to either drop it until you can get a majority or move your carcass to a socialist European nation?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2009 at 2220 hrs
A change this substantial should NOT be rushed into
We’ve been wrestling with these problems for decades. The solutions have always pretty much been the same. There’s nothing new under the sun that we’re “rushing into.”
will you agree to either drop it until you can get a majority
I already have a majority. It happened in the last election. You lost. We won. Elections have consequences. The fact that your side has managed to (yes) fear monger its way to a pluraity for non-reform in recent polls notwithstanding. I mean ‘death panels’ for god’s sake. And all the sheer lies that have been put out there by your side? it’s amazing that you haven’t convinced people to take up armed rebellion against it. I’m not worried about 2 points in a poll.
This IS a socialist country, isn’t it? we have social security, unemployment insurance, minimum wage laws, OSHA, environmental protections, bank regulations, Medicare… why do you believe this change, right here, right now—is the threshold between True Freedom and Hellish Communism? Get some perspective please. We’re not talking about becoming China. We’re not even talking about becoming France. Far from it. We’re talking about timidly, incrementally, joining the rest of the civilized world in ensuring our citizens have health care that we can all afford.
Posted by scott on November 20, 2009 at 2245 hrs
scott;
You are correct, Democrats won the presidential election the last time around, although whether that was due to support of the candidate or disapproval of the incumbent is open to debate. However, a composite of all of the major polls shows that those who oppose health care reform as it was at the time the poll was conducted, have out-numbered those who support it since July of this year. While opposition may not be in the majority it is hovering right around 49-50% (again this is a composite of ALL polls) and has been steadily increasing. Support for health care reform has not held a majority going back to at least the start of the year. So no, on this issue you do NOT have a majority, nor have you had a majority at any time this year. In fact you have not had a plurality since July.
Of course the US has certain socialist programs and institutions, there is no pure capitalist or pure socialist government in existence. But I and many others ARE concerned that a rush to take over one-sixth of the economy in one fell swoop IS crossing a threshold we are not prepared to accede to. Whatever else one wants to call the current propsal it is anything but timid or incremental. And last I checked, every citizen and non-citizen has access to basic health care in this country. As much as you want it to be otherwise, there is no guarantee that everyone has access to any medical procedure they desire.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2009 at 0011 hrs
I mean ‘death panels’ for god’s sake.
It’s hyperbole Scott, a literary tool I am sure you are familiar with being that you likely frequent the dailykos and the Huffington Post, while watching MSNBC….
Sarah Palin brought rationing into the limelight with that singular statement, and I personally thank her for it. It made Americans curious to see how other countries control the costs of their programs, and it turns out that the way to do that is to ration care. I understand that your own ideology either does not permit you to acknowledge that, or you acknowledge and accept it as part of what needs to be done “for the greater good”. The whole thing is just a bit too Orwellian for me.
The bill as it is now does not create a single payer system, but you and I both know that it is a means to an end. I understand that you favor a single payer system, I and many others do not. I think we should have a healthy national debate about this, I think we should try something different. Why? Because that is what the United States is about. I’m sure you don’t believe at all in American exceptionalism, but I still do. It is about ideology on both sides, that is what politics is.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2009 at 1034 hrs
However, a composite of all of the major polls shows
Polls also show consistent support for the public option. Look, laws aren’t passed by polls. They are passed by legislators who are elected at polls. We won the election, partly by running on health care reform. There’s nothing in the public opinion polls that indicate Democrats are now springing this shit on unsuspecting populace out of nowhere.
a rush to take over one-sixth of the economy’
What does that mean, “take over”? Because it sort of sounds like we’re going to establish a UK-style government healthcare system. What we’re talking about is regulating the private insurance industry more, expanding government insurance to 8 million people, and leaving the providers completely alone. That’s not a “takeover” of the entire industry.
It’s hyperbole Scott, a literary tool
It’s a fucking lie, Doug. The provisions she pointed out simply enable doctors to get compensated for discussing end of life care when and if their patients want to discuss it, whereas now they can’t bill for that time. Everyone with a brain knows what it means. Her claim was a deliberate lie to frighten the bejesus out of people, not a “literary tool.” Look at all the GOP legislators that went along with it, too. Disgusting. It has nothing to do with death panels and it has nothing to do with rationing, either. And while we’re on the subject, wake up and realize that we have rationing right here, right now. You want to have a “healthy national debate” about the subject? It starts there. When you’re there, I’m ready.
The bill as it is now does not create a single payer system, but you and I both know that it is a means to an end.
I really want you to hear me on this one. I do not see single-payer as the ultimate goal. I do not believe that these reforms are inexorably leading to it, either.
Medicare is single-payer. Like Canada. The VA is total government health care. Like the UK. Lots of other countries have a mix of public and private insurers and providers. It’s what we have right now. The changes I want are 100% coverage and cost controls. That is what these reforms are aiming at. It’s going a long way toward 100% coverage. Most of the cost controls are missing, in my opinion, because it was politically impossible to get a bill passed without the support of the people who would have to have their costs controlled—doctors and hospitals and drug makers. THIS is what I hope comes in the years to come—not single-payer. That’s too much to hope for in America and it’s unnecessary anyway.
Posted by scott on November 21, 2009 at 1113 hrs
Democrats are now springing this shit on unsuspecting populace out of nowhere.
Your words not mine, but I agree, it is shit.
What we’re talking about is regulating the private insurance industry more…and leaving the providers completely alone.
I find it amazing that you can contradict yourself in a single sentence.
Polls also show consistent support for the public option.
The polls supporting the public option are all over the place, with a low of 38% (Rasmussen, conducted July 14-15, 2009) to a high of 83% (Employee Benefit Research Institute, July 2009). So much for consistent.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2009 at 1142 hrs
Look, laws aren’t passed by polls. They are passed by legislators who are elected at polls.
Who are then supposed to do the peoples work. I am not saying that they should respond to every change in the wind, but they DO need to listen to what the American public is saying.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2009 at 1145 hrs
I find it amazing that you can contradict yourself in a single sentence.
Um, the insurers are the payers. The providers are doctors, hospitals, device and drug makers. We’re not messing with them.
So much for consistent.
Nit-pick it if you like, but I don’t think “consistent” is an outrageous word to use.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/public-support-for-public-option.html
Posted by scott on November 21, 2009 at 1150 hrs
but they DO need to listen to what the American public is saying.
Of course I agree. I just think it’s too strong a statement to say that the federal government is overstepping its election mandate.
Posted by scott on November 21, 2009 at 1153 hrs
Nit-pick it if you like, but I don’t think “consistent” is an outrageous word to use.
This is from the source you cite:
It is worth evaluating polling on the public option, which has begun to be widely cited…particularly by liberals who believe most of the polling favors them. The balance of this post contains a summary of the five six polls that I am aware of on the public option, which produce widely disparate results and all of which require careful interpretation.
Even your own source says that the results are not consistent. I fact it finds severe problems with the wording in some of the polls and recommends that further surveys take place with more neutral wording.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2009 at 1220 hrs
OKay, fine. But is it worth nothing that only one of them had a majority of respondents not in favor of the public option? 4 out of 5 favor it? Is it okay to note that or is it only appropriate to say that it’s inconsistent?
Posted by scott on November 21, 2009 at 1314 hrs
Forgive the partisan nature of the link, but the facts do speak for themselves on this one. Lest anyone be tempted to say that the public option was only sprung on folks after the election was won (as Lieberman did, apparently):
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/21/805913/-Joe-Lieberman,-liar
Posted by scott on November 21, 2009 at 1318 hrs
Yes scott, it is ok to point that out, as long as you also note that of those 4, 2 scored extremely poorly on non-partisanship and one of the others had questionable language in the survey itself. Either way, your statement that there was consistent evidence in the polls is false.
You also state that the providers, the doctors and other health care providers, are not ‘messed with’. If that is the case please explain the difference in conscience clause language in the Reid bill. It seems that there is definitely interference in how doctors will provide care in the way they seem fit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2009 at 1354 hrs
Without even looking, can we agree that whatever it is you’re referring to isn’t a “take over” of that part of the industry? Doctors aren’t, in fact, going to become government employees? That is what this was about, after all. What constituted a take over and what didn’t.
Posted by scott on November 21, 2009 at 1403 hrs
Actually, it was about your assertion that you had the support of a majority of the populace on your side. Overall, you do not. This is reflected in a composite of all major polls concerning health care reform. You countered with a small part of that, saying that there was consistent support for a public option, citing polls that are, in 3 of 4 cases, either politically suspect or have poor wording. These are not my evaluations, but the evaluations of the analyst in a website that you introduced to the discussion. This same analyst stated that, contrary to your assertion, the results are disparate.
Please, let’s try to keep on point. Do you still want to claim that your side has the support of the majority of Americans?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2009 at 1420 hrs
It sucks that the unemployment level is where it is at, and it will probably go higher before it comes down, though very slowly. The economy is resetting itself and has started to improve, but employment will be the last to improve. It’s like a hundred mile traffic jam. It’s not too bad for the first few cars in the jam, but if you’re the last few cars, you’re going to waiting for a while. It’s just a fact and there’s nothing that anyone, you, me, Obama, Limbaugh, Maddow, Ron Paul, or Paul Ryan, can do about it.
So sit back, turn the radio up, and wait for your car to start moving.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2009 at 1748 hrs
Do you still want to claim that your side has the support of the majority of Americans?
I’ll claim that Americans seem divided in polls. But our guys ran on this reform—public option included—and won the election decisively. That’s what I’m claiming. That is perfectly ok to do what you said you’d do, once you go to Washington, divided polls notwithstanding.
And actually, yes, we did go around quite a bit after you said that the reform bill was a takeover of the healthcare system. I said it isn’t. I said it was increasing regulation on private insurance (not a takeover), expanding government insurance (expansion is not a takeover), and that providers weren’t being “messed with” at all. YOU said that they WERE being “messed with” and cited something or other. I think it’s fair of me to ask: whatever it is your pointing to—is it a takeover of doctors? Because if it’s not I’m prepared to consider my point made and drop it.
Posted by scott on November 21, 2009 at 1758 hrs
Wow, according the the last Fox News Poll, the majority of the public still think that it’s George Bush’s fault that the economy is in the shape it’s in.
Go figure.http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/102909_poll.pdf
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2009 at 1802 hrs
For the record—I don’t. As irresponsible as he was, he didn’t cause the recession.
Posted by scott on November 21, 2009 at 1804 hrs
Telling a doctor when or if they have to perform a procedure that they are opposed to is ‘messing with them’. Is it a complete takeover of doctors? Of course not, but I never said the government was taking over the doctors, that was your phrasing. I said that the government was taking over 1/6 of the economy. Taking over as in becoming the biggest player in the game, not the only one. It has been said by POTUS and many on our side of the aisle that people who have insurance will continue to be able to keep what they have. But let me ask you something. If you were a business owner and it cost you an average of $6100 per employee per year to carry insurance for them, would you still carry that coverage if the fine for not doing so was $750/employee/year? What happens to the choice of those who currently have insurance when their employer is in a competitive industry and needs to trim those costs? It has been estimated that as many as 100 million will have there employer provided insurance dropped. If that isn’t taking over a sector of the economy, what would you call it?
If you are an employer with 50 employees and you have a chance to pick up more work and add another employee will you do it knowing that you will immediately get a tax bill for nearly $40,000 just because you added that last employee? Is this a smart thing to do while we are trying to create jobs? Ad while we are talking costs, why is it that the fees and taxes in the Reid bill begin immediately, but the benefits don’t kick in until 2014? Is it to hide the costs and give the CBO the chance to say the total cost in under the Trillion Dollar Barrier?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2009 at 1900 hrs
edit———-
It has been said by POTUS and many on your side of the aisle that people who have insurance will continue to be able to keep what they have.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2009 at 1923 hrs
I never said the government was taking over the doctors, that was your phrasing. I said that the government was taking over 1/6 of the economy
Yeah. The entirety of healthcare is 1/6th of the economy, ergo a takeover of that 1/6th would necessarily include providers such as doctors. It doesn’t. The government will surely be the largest insurer—but it’s been that for years. And it still won’t insure a majority of people who have insurance. That is, below 50%. Am I wrong?
All of this is simply to say describing this reform bill as a “takeover” is really not accurate and you should stop doing it. It’s not taking over providers. It’s not taking over insurance. it’s expanding government insurance moderately and it’s enacting new regulations on private insurers. That isn’t a takeover.
If you were a business owner and it cost you an average of $6100 per employee per year to carry insurance for them, would you still carry that coverage if the fine for not doing so was $750/employee/year?
Well, let me think. What’s the penalty for not doing so now? How many dollars?
It has been estimated that as many as 100 million will have there employer provided insurance dropped. If that isn’t taking over a sector of the economy, what would you call it?
I’d call it surprising! Because the CBO estimates that six million people would enroll in the public plan.
Posted by scott on November 21, 2009 at 1958 hrs
The CBO predicts 12 million people in the public plan compared with the Lewin estimate of 103.4 million people. The CBO also assumes that eligibility for the public plan is never extended beyond firms with fewer than 20 workers. Since the Commissioner of the Health Choices Administration will have the option of opening the exchange to all employees starting in year three, is t realistic to assume he won’t do so? Or will the wonder of the public option be limited to those only in small businesses? The CBO estimate is, in my opinion, extremely low on this point.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2009 at 2026 hrs
And there is no fine now, are you gong to argue that that is germane to this discussion? By paying the fine, your employees will still get coverage under the new plan. So it becomes, 6100 and they get coverage, or 750 and they get coverage, which would you choose?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2009 at 2028 hrs
And I noticed you didn’t address any of the points in the second paragraph. Oversight or no answers?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2009 at 2031 hrs
Lewin Group is wholly owned by United Health Group, one of the largest health insurance companies in existence. I think I’ll go with CBO on this one.
I’m just saying that a) we’re talking about very small employers—the kind that often don’t offer health benefits to begin with, and b) companies who, if the chose to, could stop offering insurance benefits at any time, fine-free. The fact that they might choose to do so tomorrow—and pay a fine—isn’t really all that scary to me. It’d probably help them a lot, don’t you think?
Posted by scott on November 21, 2009 at 2036 hrs
If you are an employer with 50 employees and you have a chance to pick up more work and add another employee will you do it knowing that you will immediately get a tax bill for nearly $40,000 just because you added that last employee?
First you’re going to have to show me where one employee past 50 is going to result in a $40,000 bill. Then when we both understand what you’re talking about, I might have more to say on it.
Posted by scott on November 21, 2009 at 2037 hrs
51 employees at $750 apiece, 38,250 fine for any company with over 50 employees who does not provide coverage for them.
That is just it, it would help the employers, which is incentive to put their employees into the public option and pay the fine. This takes away the coverage that I may be happy with, yet I was told I wouldn’t lose it. Second, it adds to the number of people in the option. These are not numbers included in the CBO estimate, or very few of them rather. Are you saying you do not think that larger employers (those over 20 employees) will be able to partake in the exchange starting in year 3?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2009 at 2107 hrs
And yes, Lewin Group is owned by UHG. But then, this is the same Lewin Group that Sen Wyden quoted to support his Healthy Americans bill. And the same Lewin Group that provided a report the Commonwealth Fund used advocate FOR a public option. I guess, once again, that because YOU have an issue with a source of independent research, then it is a useless source for anyone to rely on.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2009 at 2114 hrs
yet I was told I wouldn’t lose it.
No, you were told that the bill isn’t compelling any business or any individual to do anything different than they’re already doing.
How you can be hyperventilating over the fact that this bill might help small businesses who are struggling with healthcare costs is beyond me. But it surely doesn’t force them to do anything.
Posted by scott on November 21, 2009 at 2117 hrs
You are being either exceedingly coy or ruthlessly disingenuous. A small company is especially likely to drop health insurance for their employees knowing that they (the employees) will have a public option to fall back on in order to cut costs. Is it forcing them? Technically no, but it is Hobson’s choice. Either way, it is likely to cause a greater number of participants than are forecast in the CBO work-up. Which reinforces my argument that this is indeed a ‘take-over’.
You say that the government is already the largest insurer in the country, I will concede that point for the moment, only because I don’t have the numbers handy. And you say that even with the public option, they will have less than half of the population insured. Let’s look at some numbers.
2008-37.9 million over age 65
2008-12.5% of the population is at or under 100% of the federal poverty level. Let’s assume that half of these are also seniors (this is being generous since the % of srs. under the FPL is approx 10%) that leaves 6.25 % of the population both under age 65 and under 100% FPL or 19.25 million people.
Virtually all seniors are eligible for Medicare so let’s cal it 39 million. Federal guidelines for Medicaid is 200% FPL, but I can only find state by state breakdowns for that threshold, if you will agree that the number between 100% and 200% is at least as many as below 100%, I will agree to just double the number below 100% or 39.5 million people eligible for Medicaid, this does not include any who are over 200% but fall into another qualifying category.
This makes 78.5 million people currently eligible for either Medicare or Medicaid. Let’s say 70% of those are actually making use of the entitlement they have access to, that makes about 57 million people on Medicare or Medicaid.
CBO estimates 6-8 million will have access to a public option, Lewin group estimates in excess of 100 million. Will you agree to splt the difference for sake of argument and lack of solid numbers at this time? Good. That means an additional 53 million will go on government insurance as a result of a public option. That totals 110 million, or more that a third of the population. You are correct, that is less than half. BUT, it is a 100% increase of market share for the federal government, who, as you pointed out already is the largest insurer in the country. Sure sounds like a take-over to me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2009 at 2215 hrs
A small company is especially likely to drop health insurance for their employees knowing that they (the employees) will have a public option to fall back on in order to cut costs.
I’m still not convinced this is the floodgates you make it out to be. Supposing I’m a small business—I employ 15 people. Currently I’m providing health insurance—at exorbitant prices, for sure. I could decide not to provide such benefits and pay a fine less than the premiums were. But then where would my employees be? THEY would have to foot the bill for insurance. They get the choice whether its public or private, but the premiums are theirs alone to pay (presuming they’re not poor). Why would I, the employee, stay with such an employer? Would I not go to another employer who offers the benefits I used to have? And of course the first employer knows this. Dropping the insurance on everyone is giving everyone a pay cut—people will leave. So… I probably won’t do it.
You following that?
Posted by scott on November 21, 2009 at 2228 hrs
If you are a conscientious employer are you going to perhaps give your employees a raise equal to some fraction of the money you have saved? Not an unreasonable expectation. And with the subsidies for people up to 400% FPL, the cost of the insurance may be less than the employee portion of their current coverage, either way, the option of keeping what you currently have is gone.
I take it you have no problems with the numbers as I presented them?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2009 at 2250 hrs
I haven’t checked your numbers. Merely accepted for the sake of argument.
Posted by scott on November 21, 2009 at 2322 hrs
Well, we will never convert the other, but we have had a good discussion and have laid out our cases. I know you take some heat at times here. Hopefully, this will show that you can be reasonable when you are faced with a reasoned argument. It has been enjoyable, even if you do have an idiotic ideology *said tongue-in-cheek*
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 22, 2009 at 1125 hrs
Hopefully, this will show that you can be reasonable when you are faced with a reasoned argument.
As if there was any doubt!
Seriously, go back and read the first six or seven comments. Who starts shit? If I were a better man I’d ignore it completely… Alas.
we have had a good discussion
Quite so. Thanks for it.
Posted by scott on November 22, 2009 at 1136 hrs
The stimulus pretty much has failed and won’t do much going forward.. Can we say double-dip recession coming?
AP: ” Romer … said Thursday that the $194 billion already spent gave a jolt to the economy that contributed to growth in the second and third quarters of the year. She told a congressional panel that by the middle of next year, the impact of the stimulus will level off.
http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/1009/leveling_off_b1e35f37-54bc-4c12-91df-0c9e48cf6403.html
Support for the public option drops off when the trade-offs like costs are mentioned…
When poll questions were framed broadly, the answers seemed to indicate ample support for Obama’s goals. When required trade-offs were brought into the equation, opinions shifted — sometimes dramatically.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091117/ap_on_go_co/us_ap_poll_health_care
And why does allowing purchase of insurance across state lines suck?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 22, 2009 at 1306 hrs
I’m not sure how you’re getting “failed” out of that politico article.
The AP article makes me think about how fearful and ill-informed most people are on these issues. Suffering cost increases to pay for those who don’t have insurance is scary because of the exorbitant costs we’re already paying—until you realize that there’s a cost saver, too: Preventing serious conditions through regular care is a lot cheaper than paying for emergencies, for example. LIkewise with being forced to have insurance. Sounds scary until you realize that you’re compelling healthy people to participate, too, thus lowering costs for the rest of us.
Purchasing insurance across state lines worries some people because many people might purchase crappy insurance from states with little regulation for a cheap price—but not realize it until they’re sick. Or know it but just choose to gamble against not needing those kinds of coverage. Also some are concerned about being able to resolve disputes with insurance companies in other states. Can you call that state’s insurance commissioner? Your own?
Posted by scott on November 22, 2009 at 1430 hrs
OK - “failed” is my editorial… But an increasing unemployment rate and the Administration telling us that all the “benefits” of the “stimulus” have pretty much already been felt - its pretty difficult to call putting us almost another $1T in debt was worth it.
However, where do you get any cost savings out of either the House or Senate bills? The CBO notes that neither one of them bend the cost curve down. The only reason that either one of them was under $1T for the first decade was due to taking the DocFix spending out and the nifty accounting trick of increasing the taxes immediately but delaying outlays until 2013/2014. If you take a look at the 2nd decade for either plan they are well over $2T. The cherry on the sundae? Neither bill even covers everyone. Face it, these do nothing to actually fix anything that is wrong with the current system, but break parts of it that work well.
You mention the “Death Panels” earlier. You are aware that both bills use the recommendations of the US Preventative Task Force to decide what is covered? The same task force that said mammograms weren’t needed until 50? Oddly enough, every woman I know that has had breast cancer found out from a mammogram in their 40s. Two had agressive forms and wouldn’t have made it to 50. How’s that for a “death panel” for you?
As far as your concerns about the across state selling… We have interstate commerce for damned-near anything else. I also fail to see where it is the government’s responsibility to protect everyone from poor decisions. It is not for me (and my tax dollars) to protect someone from themself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 22, 2009 at 1454 hrs
nothing to actually fix anything that is wrong with the current system, but break parts of it that work well.
So, insurance companies denying preexisting conditions isn’t something that’s wrong with the system? Insurance companies rescinding coverage when you get sick isn’t something that’s wrong with our system? Allowing healthy people to opt out of the risk pool isn’t something that’s wrong with our system? Allowing the private insurance industry to refuse to cover sick people isn’t something that’s wrong with our system? You may disagree on one or two of those items, but I think every one of them is wrong and this bill goes a long way towards rectifying them.
Getting millions more people covered and stopping the most egregious insurance practices are some pretty big fixes if you ask me. As I’ve said elsewhere, the home runs of cost controls are somewhat lacking in this bill. I presume that’s because it was necessary to get providers onboard—and what do you think the AMA, pharmaceuticals and hospital systems would have said if the bill actually had provisions such that they were going to get less money?
And that’s what we’re talking about here, after all. Aside from some efficiencies gained from preventative versus emergency care and spreading the risk to healthy populations who currently don’t have insurance, we’re talking about paying doctors, pharma and hospitals less.
You are aware that both bills use the recommendations of the US Preventative Task Force to decide what is covered? The same task force that said mammograms weren’t needed until 50?
First of all, what does “use” mean in your first sentence? Second, I’m all for evidence-based medicine.
Posted by scott on November 22, 2009 at 1540 hrs
What “use” means is that insurance in the exchanges won’t cover mammograms before the age of 50.
As far as outcomes go - I’m sure my 48 year old sister going thru chemo after they found an agressive breast cancer during her routine mammogram this summer will appreciate the fact that you believe the government would have known better… We could have thanked them at her funeral.
In case you are wondering - this is one of those really good things that I don’t want broken. The US completely kicks ass in innovation and care and we have the best cancer survival rates in the world.
Both the breast cancer and cervical cancer screening recommendations were just released this week. Since the bills also make it so that the price of mens and women’s policies should cost the same even though women under 50 use far more services, I suppose the rationing is beginning with the women.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 22, 2009 at 1937 hrs
What “use” means is that insurance in the exchanges won’t cover
mammograms before the age of 50.Before you go off half-cocked I think you should check on that. I don’t think there’s anything in there that says any insurance plan MUST adhere to these recommendations. Can you show me?
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 0106 hrs
Yet the health reform language moving through Congress tells a different tale. Both the House and Senate bills create an “essential benefits package” which all insurance plans would have to offer. Neither chamber’s proposal specifies what those services would be, instead, empowering the Department of Health and Human Services to make those decisions at a later date. But the bills do outline broad categories of minimum services, including a mandate to cover those recommendations of the task force rated “A” or “B.” The new mammogram guidelines are rated “B.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 0706 hrs
No. These are minimums. Different from what you’re claiming above. It will establish minimums—the same way state insurance commissions do today. This is entirely different from the recommendations made by Preventative Task force you refer to. Nobody will be compelled to adhere to their recommendations.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 0748 hrs
Arguing these smaller points takes away from the larger picture with regard to health care.
Heavily taxed and subsidized gov’t public option will beat out private plans and force citizens into these gov’t plan.
The existing rationing that goes on in all socialized health care programs will go on here.
The huge cuts to medicare.
Unsustainable taxes…
Priviatizing 1/6 of the American economy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 0902 hrs
Priviatizing
I meant socializing
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 0902 hrs
Heavily taxed and subsidized gov’t public option will beat out private plans
A couple of thoughts occur. First of all, maybe it’s no bad thing if private insurers are forced to bring costs down through pressure from a public option. Some of these companies are paying less than 80% of their premiums out in claims (all while denying coverage to some of their sickest enrollees I might add). Second, didn’t I just read the other day that the premiums for the public option would likely be higher than most private plans?
The existing rationing that goes on in all socialized health care programs will go on here.
I really, really wish we could have a reality-based discussion about this “rationing” thing. I don’t believe for a minute that countries like the UK and Canada have draconian rationing at all. If that were true, you’d see a hell of a lot more dissatisfaction with those systems. Furthermore, we have rationing here! Surely you realize that. The idea that we have none and they have severe rationing is baloney.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 0934 hrs
And it’s not true that there are cuts to Medicare benefits. It is true that they’ve found a way to save money by not overpaying the private insurers in the Medicare Advantage—money that isn’t adding any value to anyone’s health care.
And it’s sure as hell is not “privatizing 1/6th of the economy.”
Reality, please.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 0936 hrs
A couple of thoughts occur. First of all, maybe it’s no bad thing if private insurers are forced to bring costs down through pressure from a public option. Some of these companies are paying less than 80% of their premiums out in claims (all while denying coverage to some of their sickest enrollees I might add). Second, didn’t I just read the other day that the premiums for the public option would likely be higher than most private plans?
If they are paying out anywhere in the range of 80% I would say that is astonishingly efficient. Since we know that the insurance industry averages a profit of 6-8% of revenue, that puts total overhead (wages, benefits, salaries, utilities, maintainance) at somewhere between 15-25% of revenue… Schools (public) spend 80% of all incoming funds on teacher and administrative salaries….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 0955 hrs
The government plan will be able to pay out 100+% of premiums, because they don’t have to make a profit, they can just raise taxes…. Which they will do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 0956 hrs
And it’s sure as hell is not “privatizing 1/6th of the economy.”
Reality, please.
Again with the misquoting… He clearly corrected himself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 0958 hrs
If they are paying out anywhere in the range of 80% I would say that is astonishingly efficient.
And I would say you’re on drugs.
Schools (public) spend 80% of all incoming funds on teacher and administrative salaries
Teacher salaries, oh my! Of all the idiotic things for a school to spend money on!
Stop already. I’m trying to drink coffee here.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 0959 hrs
Again with the misquoting… He clearly corrected himself.
As soon as someone explains what “socializing 1/6th of the economy means,” perhaps I’ll respond to it.
The government plan will be able to pay out 100+% of premiums
No it won’t. It has overhead costs, too. But I would expect it to be something along the lines of Medicare—maybe 2%.
they can just raise taxes…. Which they will do.
The law clearly states that the public insurance option must be paid for by premiums.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 1001 hrs
Again I ask:
Why is it, that with regards to abortion the liberal bumper sticker reads: “Keep your laws off my body.”
But, with regards to healthcare “regulation” it reads:
“Put your laws all over my body.”Hypocrisy? I’m sure Scott will say not.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1005 hrs
I don’t even understand what you’re talking about.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 1007 hrs
As soon as someone explains what “socializing 1/6th of the economy means,” perhaps I’ll respond to it.
It’s really not that complicated a statement…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1021 hrs
I was just able to log on for the first time since this morning….
Scott said…
No. These are minimums. Different from what you’re claiming above. It will establish minimums—the same way state insurance commissions do today. This is entirely different from the recommendations made by Preventative Task force you refer to. Nobody will be compelled to adhere to their recommendations.
And if you truly believe this I have some lovely beachfront property for you at a dynamite price… Good example of where we are going - GE is self-funded (to be phased out under both bills). They are dramatically changing their health insurance offerings in 2010 going away from the old HMO-type Co-Pay plans to various options of premium/deductible with an 80/20 plan after the deductible is met. But they will cover 100% (outside the deductible) any preventive screening as recommended by that same US Task Force. Since all the material was printed before the new mammogram guidelines so those will still be covered for women in their 40s next year. Any bets about 2011? Will others offer better - including the public option or Medicaid when we already know that costs will increase under these bills? Look at all the rationing already occurring with every government program?
And it’s not true that there are cuts to Medicare benefits. It is true that they’ve found a way to save money by not overpaying the private insurers in the Medicare Advantage—money that isn’t adding any value to anyone’s health care.
The folks in Medicare advantage like it for a reason… Perhaps because Medicare denies a higher percentage of claims than any private insurance company.
Page 5 Metric 12The Advantage plans also have the “advantage” of not having to deal directly with the government. The only reason that AARP endorsed this abomination is precisely because they don’t offer any Advantage plans. They will however make a killing selling Medigap coverage if it passes.
Factoid - those eeeeeeeevil insurance companies average about 2% profit - pretty weak by any other industry standards. And if you really believe that those 111 new agencies that ObamaPelosiReidCare creates will save money, then I have a fabulous bridge to get you to that beach.
For what its worth, I think some stuff needs to be done to improve our current system. But both HR3962 (buy it, pay a fine, or go to jail) and the beginning Reid bill will not make things better, they will make it worse. I have zero faith in government. I also have zero faith that we would have any recourse. At least I can sue an insurance company, or create such a PR nightmare that they are shamed into caving. Not thinking those avenues will work with the Feds.
Keep your laws off my body!
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 103
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 04:26 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).