Medicare More Likely to Deny a Claim than Private Insurers
For you government health care proponents.
According to the American Medical Association’s National Health Insurer Report Card for 2008, the government’s health plan, Medicare, denied medical claims at nearly double the average for private insurers: Medicare denied 6.85% of claims. The highest private insurance denier was Aetna @ 6.8%, followed by Anthem Blue Cross @ 3.44, with an average denial rate of medical claims by private insurers of 3.88%
In its 2009 National Health Insurer Report Card, the AMA reports that Medicare denied only 4% of claims—a big improvement, but outpaced better still by the private insurers. The prior year’s high private denier, Aetna, reduced denials to 1.81%—an astounding 75% improvement—with similar declines by all other private insurers, to average only 2.79%.
Wow, and you’d rail on them if they didn’t reject any claims!
Rejections are normally for poorly documented or duplicate procedures, and can be sent for review and reinstated. Why don’t you spend your time on less frivolous issues, like why the privates reimburse at 400% of cost, or deny procedures like mastectomies because a woman failed to report acne as a teenager, or deny transplants because they reduce profits? Is Medicare just too easy of a target?
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 21, 2009 at 1601 hrs
Rejections are normally for poorly documented or duplicate procedures, and can be sent for review and reinstated.
Could it be that these are also the claims most commonly rejected by private insurers as well? Nah, couldn’t be, they are evil corporations with no concern for anything but profit.
Jack, do you think that the government would be any more compassionate when a patients care were to come into conflict with a rule or regulation? What if the government policies (were there ever to be any) also required disclosure of pre-existing conditions? When the money runs out do you honestly think they won’t use whatever records necessary to ration care, or will every procedure, ever wanted or required, be performed without scrutiny?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2009 at 1646 hrs
“Medicare More Likely to Deny a Claim than Private Insurers”
What are the specific reasons why Medicare denies more claims than private insurers?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2009 at 1706 hrs
Doug, having been on Medicare for five years and never had a denial, if I ever get sick and need a lot of care, I’ll take Medicare any day. So would most physicians and nurses.
But you hang in there with the privates. Nothing demands that you take Medicare. Refuse it when you reach 65. And if they ever force you to take it, refuse it and just pay cash, the good old free market way.
Private insurers have this thing called “rescission” which lets them cancel a policy retroactively if they find any minor flaw in the application, such as the failure to report acne when you were a teenager. Even if you have major surgery scheduled.
What if government policies also required disclosure of pre-existing conditions? Wow. What if the sky started falling? What if… well, we could do a lot of “what ifs” couldn’t we?
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 21, 2009 at 1706 hrs
And incidentally, remember the 17 year old girl in California that was denied a transplant and died? That was Cigna, not Medicare.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 21, 2009 at 1710 hrs
Jack, you’re give cold hard facts about how the government (Medicare) denies claims at a much higher rate than private insurance companies, and you defend that by introducing anecdotal evidence of private insurance denials.
Wow…. just WOW.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2009 at 1714 hrs
Jason, I’ve been in health care for 40 years, billed Medicare for 20 of them, though retired now. I gave you real-life cases, not anecdotal evidence. But you believe what you want. Refuse Medicare when your turn comes up. And if you really want some numbers to challenge, TRY THESE.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 21, 2009 at 1737 hrs
The biggest reason for the denial differential is health insurers who provide managed care require pre-approval or mandate following a specific arrangement, so there is a pre-screening process that is followed.
Since Medicare does not pre-screen and or pre-approve, they follow a post approval process.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2009 at 1804 hrs
Ok, I tried them, and it didn’t wash…
Wow, just WOW!
And I suggest you research the definition of anecdotal… your stories, while true and heart-wrenching, are anecdotal.
Wow.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2009 at 1807 hrs
I repeat: Refuse Medicare when your turn comes up.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 21, 2009 at 1811 hrs
Keep repeating it Mr “40 Years in the business”, it makes you sound petulant and childish. I’m laughing at you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2009 at 1816 hrs
You forgot: “Wow, just WOW!”
But you keep laughing, even while the privates refuse you care.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 21, 2009 at 1836 hrs
I’ll use the reverse Jack logic….
I’ve been on private insurance for 22 years now and have never had a claim denied.
Therefore, we need to completely eliminate government care.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2009 at 1921 hrs
Medicare is private care, not government care. I see the same private doctor I’ve seen for years. But it is government paid.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 21, 2009 at 1938 hrs
Yes - and you are fortunate that your doctor continues to accept you as a patient. The government gives your doctor guidelines for your care along with extra regulations then doesn’t pay him enough to actually cover how much it costs to care for you. He makes it up by charging more to the rest of us that either pay cash or have private insurance.
You’re welcome.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2009 at 1949 hrs
Neomom, you don’t understand Medicare. Quit listening to the naysayers. Medicare reimbursements are calculated on local costs for labor, technology and overhead… PLUS a small profit. With no losses there is no need to cost shift. If my doctor was losing money on me he wouldn’t accept me as a patient. He’d cost-shift anyway and pocket the difference. He wouldn’t have to take the loss in the first place. And if losses were the norm, you can’t make them up with volume.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 21, 2009 at 2017 hrs
Medicare reimbursements are calculated on local costs for labor, technology and overhead… PLUS a small profit.
Evidently the Mayo Clinic didn’t get the memo
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2009 at 2026 hrs
Or this rather unhappy doctor/constituent of Ben Nelson in Nebraska
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2009 at 2033 hrs
Frankly, I don’t care what the Mayo says. They are all lobbying for higher fees and I see all of their studies as being twisted (or in this case “strategic”). They are trying to head off the reduction of Medicare rates on 2010 (see SRG or search on “Doc Fix”).
If Medicare rates were too low you wouldn’t have 60% of physicians favoring Medicare-for-all. And you wouldn’t have the hospital in California that has limited its admissions to Medicare patients.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 21, 2009 at 2036 hrs
-
Shall I go on? Or will you continue to listen to the Democrat talking points….Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2009 at 2036 hrs
60% of physicians favoring Medicare-for-all
hospital in California that has limited its admissions to Medicare patients.
Sources please?
Frankly, I don’t care what the Mayo says.
Oh yes, heaven forbid we listen to one of the most respected clinics in the world. They obviously wouldn’t know anything about the topic. Must listen to Harry Reid and Obama instead. Great businessmen and physicians that they are. They know all that is right and good.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2009 at 2039 hrs
The Democrats just passed a bill that I am 100% opposed to, so please don’t accuse me of using their talking points. You can see my full views HERE
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 21, 2009 at 2043 hrs
My apologies… I should have said the Socialist talking points.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2009 at 2049 hrs
Sources? Sure… try these.
Introduction: How Much Would a Single-Payer System Cost?
A review of government and independent studies of the cost of single-payer system.Administrative Waste Consumes 31 Percent of Health Spending
Woolhandler, et al “Costs of Health Administration in the U.S. and Canada,” NEJM 349(8) Sept. 21, 2003
Administrative Costs in U.S. Hospitals are More Than Double Canada’s
Woolhandler, et al “Administrative Costs in U.S. Hosptials,” NEJM 329, Aug. 5, 1993
60 Percent of Health Spending is Already Publicly Financed, Enough to Cover Everyone
Woolhandler, et al. “Paying for National Health Insurance – And Not Getting It,” Health Affairs 21(4); July / Aug. 2002
A Proposal for Financing National Health Insurance
Rasell, Edith “An Equitable Way to Pay for Universal Coverage,” International Journal of Health Services. 29(1); 1999
“Liberal Benefits, Conservative Spending”
Grumbach, et al. JAMA, May 15, 1991, Vol. 265 No. 19“Markets and Medical Care: The United States, 1993-2005”
Joseph White, Case Western Reserve University, The Milbank Quarterly, Volume 85, Number 3, 2007“Single Payer—Fifty Players: Alternative Payers for Universal Health Insurance”
Thomas Bodenheimer, Health/PAC Bulletin, Fall 1992Paying More, Getting Less: How much is the sick U.S. health care system costing you?
Joel A. Harrison, Dollars and Sense magazine, May/June 2008 issueCanadian Health Insurance: Lessons for the United States
June 1991; General Accounting Office (ref no: T-HRD-91-35)
Administrative costs consume 31 percent of US health spending, most of it unnecessary.
(Woolhandler, et al “Costs of Health Administration in the U.S. and Canada,” NEJM 349(8) Sept. 21, 2003)Medical bills contribute to half of all personal bankruptcies. Three-fourths of those bankrupted had health insurance at the time they got sick or injured.
(“Illness and Injury as Contributors to Bankruptcy,” Himmelstein et al, Health Affairs Web Exclusive, February 2, 2005.)Taxes already pay for more than 60 percent of US health spending
Americans pay the highest health care taxes in the world. We pay for national health insurance, but don’t get it.
(Woolhandler, et al. “Paying for National Health Insurance — And Not Getting It,” Health Affairs 21(4); July / Aug. 2002)Posted by Jack Lohman on December 21, 2009 at 2057 hrs
Um - thanks for all the propaganda and all. But how about just the 2 I asked for.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2009 at 2107 hrs
If I find them. They occurred 6-12 months ago and I did not anticipate this conversation (though I doubt you will believe them even if I do find them). Socialist, don’cha know…
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 21, 2009 at 2140 hrs
NEW YORK, Sept. 15 (UPI)—Sixty-three percent of U.S. physicians
support health reform that includes both a public option and traditional private insurance, a survey indicates.The survey, conducted by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, also found another 10 percent of the doctors support an entirely public health
system, therefore, nearly three out of four physicians nationwide support inclusion of a public option.The survey of 2,130 physicians, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, says 27 percent support a private-only option that would provide subsidies for low-income individuals to purchase private insurance.
Dr. Salomeh Keyhani and Dr. Alex Federman, both of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, queried physicians from a variety of practice backgrounds and geographic locations across the United States from June 25 to Sept. 3.
While the survey was conducted during different parts of the summer, no statistically significant differences were found.
Fifty-eight percent of the physicians say they support expanding Medicare eligibility to those age 55 to 64, the survey says.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2009 at 2143 hrs
Thanks Pat -
But if that is the survey that Jack is thinking about it says that 10% favor “Medicare for all”, 27% favor private insurance only, and 63% favor a hybrid version (like we have today).
Not quite 60% of physicians favoring Medicare-for-all
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2009 at 2153 hrs
The survey can also be interpreted as saying that 90% of physicians are against an entirely public-option insurance set-up…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2009 at 2231 hrs
Medicare is private care, not government care. I see the same private doctor I’ve seen for years. But it is government paid.
Then why are the denied claim rates so much higher than private insurance rates? You have still offered nothing to dispute or debunk that…. other than your “Is Medicare just too easy of a target?” logic.
WOW, I’M STILL LAUGHING
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 21, 2009 at 2342 hrs
Jack,
The “Medicare isn’t a government program, it is just paid for by the government” has to be the single stupiest thing I’ve read in a long time…and after the rest of your misquotes and shaky data that is saying a lot.
I wish I could laugh at the stupidity like Jason can, but it just makes me want to pound my head on the table and cry for the future of this country.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2009 at 0203 hrs
I did not say “Medicare isn’t a government program,” I said it is not government “care.” Unlike the VA system, where the doctors are employed by the government, with Medicare they are private employees but bill Medicare for their work. And yes, if you can’t understand that you should indeed pound your head on the table. It isn’t good for much else.
Here’s one source for the numbers asked for above. http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/12/09/two-thirds-support-3/
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 22, 2009 at 0642 hrs
Anyone that thinks this healthcare plan will work should look into how bad the worker comp program is. That should change your mind.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2009 at 0738 hrs
Jack is correct about one thing - the source he just sited is… suspect.
Try using a reputable polling firm like gallup or rasmussen instead of a single-payer advocate if you want to have some credibility.
Those firms have run similar polls and when people are simply asked “wouldn’t you like?’ questions, the initial support seems to be very high. I mean who doesn’t want a free lunch? However, the devil is in the details and as you begin to mention the trade-offs required - like the higher taxes, longer wait periods, some drugs and procedures not being allowed for cost reasons - then support pretty much ends up where we are today. Well under 50% approval.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2009 at 0801 hrs
That’s BS, but I’ve learned that you never try to convince a right winger that already knows it all. I dislike polling people who know nothing about the details. See http://tinyurl.com/ycylane
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 22, 2009 at 0825 hrs
Don’t you mean “Never try to convince a communist tool of anything, because they’re too dumb to think for themselves”, Jack?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2009 at 0831 hrs
Yea, yea, yea, GMan, that’s what I really meant. (Duh!)
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 22, 2009 at 0844 hrs
Hey, Mr “40 Years in the business”... all you little polls and editorial links do not take anything away from the fact that you have stated that the difference between Medicare and private insurance is not the doctors or clinics, but in the administration. So how do we understand the administrations denying at vastly different rates between public and private?
I mean, that’s what started your diatribe at Post #1 in the first place. And yet you’ve wasted all this time and “research” (I especially liked your link to a study done by the nurses union in California - which has been thoroughly debunked), you still do not support your disagreement with Owen’s posting in any way.
If Medicare denial rates being double private insurance rates is such a non-issue that Owen shouldn’t waste his time, then please explain to us all why it is as it is and why it is such a non-issue.
I think it is a HUGE issue, and Owen likely does too, because it’s the model that our Democratic senators and representatives and president want the entire nation to go to. And that’s extremely troubling to me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2009 at 0856 hrs
“So how do we understand the administrations denying at vastly different rates between public and private?”
This was answered in #8.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2009 at 0913 hrs
Duh, “Mr Jason,” are you F’ing 12??? You ACT like it!
First, everybody plays with polls and I’ve stated my dislike of them above. Sorry that it uses big words, but try to read it.
Secondly, denials run up to 6% with Medicare being the largest but within 1% of the next largest (Aetna). But what really matters is what finally gets done after the appeals, and most doctors prefer Medicare. (Those that are ripping off the private system do not, however.)
But you keep your private coverage and I’ll keep my Medicare. See you there, if you ever grow up.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 22, 2009 at 0918 hrs
Jack, I hope you’re not in the medical field. You fail at reading comprehension (sarcasm). I was saying that it’d be impossible to convince you, because you’re a communist tool.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2009 at 0920 hrs
I dislike polling people who know nothing about the details.
Why aren’t you just the little Progressive snob who think us serfs are just entirely too stupid to make any decisions about our lives on our own.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2009 at 1135 hrs
That in itself is a pretty stupid statement. We all know that YOU are a very brilliant serf, but what % of the people really know that, say, Medicare uses private physicians? Or whatever? People in general (present company obviously and very carefully excluded) to not understand the system.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 22, 2009 at 1143 hrs
Why aren’t you just the little Progressive snob who think us serfs are just entirely too stupid to make any decisions about our lives on our own.
Neomom, What the heck are you arguing about? What is your point?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2009 at 1206 hrs
Jack,
If your piecing of hack studies and shaky lefty talking points passes for knowledge, I’ll gladly stay the ignorant serf that I am. I’ve usually found that an argument that makes sense can be said simply and understood by most everyone, and that once someone starts pulling out a pile of stats and studies (especially ones from less than credible sources) that there isn’t anything behind the argument.
I still think your statement that Medicare isn’t government care is naive and stupid. It isn’t government care, because you see a private phyician (whose rules, approvals, funding, etc are set by the government) Ok, so when you ram this monstrosity down our throats and ALL physicians are part of one big government run health care system, it still isn’t government care, because the W2 from the physician doesn’t say Uncle Sam?
I can state my position very easily:
There is no way you can mandate coverage for everyone (if the consitution lets you) and claim that this is going to somehow save us money. It will be a huge drag on the economy that is already carrying the stupid stimulus bill.
And does anyone really buy an argument that government can run anything this big (I’d be hard pressed to find anything at all) well?
And finally, as to your continued childish rants that we should all refuse Medicare when we are eligible if we don’t like it. I would love to have that option. But unfortunatly I am stuck paying for it, and for leaches like yours too.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2009 at 1223 hrs
But you keep your private coverage and I’ll keep my Medicare. See you there, if you ever grow up.
Ok Jack, if that’s how you want to act, (petty, petulant, and 12 year old-ish), then I’ll keep my current system, and if you want something different, get the fuck out of my country.
Some tit-for-tat language that you should be able to grasp.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2009 at 1227 hrs
Oh Wow…. just WOW, Jason. Now it’s YOUR country! I’ve sure been put in MY place, haven’t I?
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 22, 2009 at 1350 hrs
I can put it just as simply, Curt. For the same amount of dollars we are spending today (16.5% of GDP) we could provide first-class Cheney-care to 100% of our population. Including those in BadgerCare and Medicaid, and those who are uninsured and under-insured.
We’d pay for the system through our national infrastructure… about 2% on individual taxes and 8% on companies (as opposed to the 15% they pay today). Businesses could spend the savings on keeping jobs in the US instead of outsourcing to countries already with universal healthcare. A bailout for 100% of our businesses, not just the banks and car manufacturers.
Now, that said, I recognize that the right-wing doesn’t like that a bit, and would much rather see the “private” insurance industry get its 20% of the action. But I’ll take my lead from the New England Journal of Medicine and Harvard and the like. We’ll have to see how congress goes on it, and with all of their taking bribes from the industry, you might just win.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 22, 2009 at 1413 hrs
Are you being intentionally obtuse Jack? Yes it is his country, just as it is MY country. Like in the song….This is MY country land of my birth. This is my country grandest on earth.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2009 at 1418 hrs
No, elovich, he has chosen to be an asshole rather than discuss the issue in an adult fashion. He thinks he’s real cute.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 22, 2009 at 1421 hrs
@ Pat - Check out Jack’s comment in # 35. He dismisses polls of the ignorant masses. The only polls that Jack believes in are those created and asked by his single-payer advocacy group.
It was more than a little elitist and condescending.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2009 at 1440 hrs
Jack - if those same “People in General” are too stupid to even answer a polling question, how on earth can you trust them with something far more important… like voting?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2009 at 1442 hrs
Jack,
I think the point you miss or do not care about is that the private insurance industry is just that - private. A person deciding what they want to buy for themselves or for their employees. Your Medicaid and the new “reform” is public funded; NOT GOVERNMENT FUNDED!!. You think it is okay to take from others to pay for your own health care and for others health care. That makes you a leech at best if not a Socialist. When you take my earnings, you take my labor. When you take my labor by force (i.e. government laws) to the benefit of others, you have made me a slave. I thought we had this discussion 150 years ago. It was wrong when it was based on race and it is wrong when it is based on my job status.
If I have to pay for your care - I should have a say in how you live your life so that I am get the most for my money.
Tad
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2009 at 1453 hrs
Tad, I’ve paid into the Medicare system (for other seniors) for over 4 decades and don’t have guilt when I (rarely) use it. It is efficient and a good system for the nation. That you are willing to fritter away 20% of our nation’s health costs on fat cat CEOs and shareholders is your business. I think it’s asinine.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 22, 2009 at 1502 hrs
No, elovich, he has chosen to be an asshole rather than discuss the issue in an adult fashion. He thinks he’s real cute
Sorry Jack, you were the first asshole in this thread, and you still can’t defend your stance in post #1. Just jump around in circles and hope that no one notices that you’re all talk and no substance. But the rest of the people that have posted here all realize it. But of course, Owen has better things to do with his time, right Jack?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2009 at 1503 hrs
Jason, Jack was the first and only. And even with the limited (and still awful bill) that is being floated, the CBO is showing hundreds of billions in new costs. I’ll never buy any argument that says that we are going to save costs somehow magically when we are increasing services. And add to that fantasy a vision in which our government does something cost effectively.
But if somehow I can smoke what you are smoking and believe we are going to save money doing this, it still would not be worth the trampling of our rights and the further slip into a socialist society. To me the cost issue is a the lessor of the two problems with this. The further expansion of what was intended to be a very limited government, and one more in what seems like an endless list of socialist wealth redistribution schemes are far worse.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 22, 2009 at 2303 hrs
Thank you for another great article. Where else could anyone get that kind of information in such a perfect way of writing? I have a presentation next week, and I am on the look for such information.
Posted by Acai juice on December 23, 2009 at 0236 hrs
I’ll never buy any argument that says that we are going to save costs somehow magically when we are increasing services. And add to that fantasy a vision in which our government does something cost effectively.
The bill is only deficit neutral over the first ten years. The reason being that we are paying 10 years of taxes for 6 years of benefit. Come year 11 or 12 the system will begin falling into deficit territory.
This is the dirtiest bill in the last 50 years. The President, Speaker, and Senate Majority leader are all LYING to the American people. These people, Jack included, with their excuse making and partisan hackery make me sick.
If we are going to reform the healthcare system in this country there are things we can do without spending billions that will address the actual problems with our system, but hacks like Jack, Pelosi, Read, and Obama don’t want to hear it… It’s just too bad.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 0637 hrs
Ah, yes, Doug, you can righteously lump me in with Pelosi, Reid, and Obama as much as you like, but I am not an Obama supporter (voted for McCain) and detest Reid and Pelosi and absolutely abhor the health care bill. I’ve asked our two senators to vote against it. But please, do not let facts get in your way when grandstanding.
I do, however, support a single-payer Medicare-for-all system because I think it’d be in the best interest of the country, and I am not willing to allow 30% of our healthcare dollars to be drained off by one for-profit industry. Yes, there are right-wingers who are okay with that.
But be assured that the insurance hacks and industry bribes are likely going to win this one. You can thank our corrupt system for your win.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 23, 2009 at 0807 hrs
It must be pointed out that Jack Lohman was actively pushing for “Healthy Wisconsin” to be passed. Remember that plan? When the state of Wisconsin can actually manage the Bagder Care programs in it’s various forms competently, then maybe, just maybe Healthy Wisconsin can pass and it can save people money like you think it will. I wouldn’t hold my breath though.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 0820 hrs
But be assured that the insurance hacks and industry bribes are likely going to win this one. You can thank our corrupt system for your win.
Maybe if you had taken the time to read my entire “grandstanding” post, you would have seen that I do believe that there are changes that need to be made in the healthcare system of this country. Again, I will say, there are many things that could be tried immediately that would bring down the costs of healthcare in this country, but these options are being ignored because the current regime wishes to set the stage for single payer.
I do not favor a single payer system. The cost burden of such a system would make social security and medicare look like childs play. I think that doing something like that would sink the economy of this nation and would relegate us to stagnation and quasi-prosperity in perpetuity, like most of western europe. If we were even going to consider a single payer system, for me to even listen to the idea, we would have to abolish Social Security, and all federal welfare first.
Just because you have been leaching off my generation for a couple years now without a denied claim means nothing… I have been paying for my own private healthcare for nine years without a single denied claim. I guess my anecdote is better than yours.
You can keep going on about the evil corporate insurance empire, but all it does is commit your opinion to the backbench. It matters little who you voted for, or who you abhor, you are a liberal. Supporting socialist policy stands in complete opposition of the tenets of liberty.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 0822 hrs
Indeed I did support Healthy Wisconsin, and would again. It would have used the same private doctor network that we use today, but would have excluded much of the waste and spent it on healthcare instead. Jobs would have stayed in the state rather than being outsourced. Get real, guys, or better, study the system before automatically labeling it as bad.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 23, 2009 at 0831 hrs
You mean the same network and efficient services provided by Badger Care and it’s related programs? I also find it humorous that you label the government a model of efficiency and fiscal restraint. Is it safe to assume that you don’t live in Wisconsin, because if you do, then you must be looking at some different form of government as the rest of us are.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 0852 hrs
I’ve read your “grandstanding” post, and saw not one suggestion on how to fix the system. So you don’t like single payer, what DO you like?
Does it not matter to you that every other industrialized country in the world has universal healthcare, at half the costs, and we are losing our jobs to them? The Big Three make more cars in Canada than they do in Detroit because healthcare costs there are $800 per employee versus $6500 here. And they have 90% public approval of their health care system.
Health care should not be employer-based. We could implement single payer at ZERO cost, compared to what we spend today. The 31% insurance bureaucracy waste would be instead spent on health care for the unemployed. But if you are an insurance industry employee or hack, you won’t like that.
And I love this: “I’ve been leaching off your generation.” Note that I’ve paid into the Medicare system for four decades, just as your generation is now doing and will leach off the next generation. But oh, I forgot, you’re going to be a hero and turn down Medicare. Great.
And yes, on this issue I am a proud Liberal. Perhaps a conservative that has not forgot the word “compassionate” might be a better description, but you call me what you want.
And Brainstew, I’ve worked with both private healthcare and Medicare for decades, and the latter is clearly more efficient. And it has 60% physician support. Not perfect, and I’ve written about that HERE, but a damned sight better than the vulture-based system.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 23, 2009 at 0911 hrs
Jack - make up your mind will you. Is it 20% or 30% that those evil insurers are taking?
How do you reconcile either of those numbers with the financial reports that show the insurance industry making about a 2% profit margin?
Like Doug, I think there were certainly improvements to be made with our system, but neither party did shit. And this bill will just make things much worse.
My favorite part coming out so far, that wanna-be “King” Harry put a provision in this bill that would prevent any changes to the rationing board without a 60 vote majority. That is yet one more provision that will face a constitutional challenge as they are trying to put restrictions on future Senates in perpetuity.
Merry Christmas everyone! We all got a great big lump of coal with this one. But in the amazing world of cognitive dissonence, the Dems are saying that we will just LOVE it when we find out what’s in it.
My question back. Why couldn’t we find out what was in it before you vote on it?
Vote them all out next year. Including Feingold. I mean he caved without getting any special deals for Wisconsin - no medicaid assistance ala NE, MA or medicare advantage carve-outs ala NY, PA, and FL.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 0929 hrs
Neomom, the 2% “profit” is only what they pay their taxes on, after all expenses are deducted. Like exorbitant CEO salaries and bonuses and broker commissions and actuarial and marketing and legal and denial costs. THEN and only then do they pay taxes on what’s left over, the 2%.
But incidentally, ALL of those costs are passed onto the patient. Aren’t you happy about that part?
The 31% includes all insurance bureaucracy costs also forced upon the hospitals and clinics. A single payer system will still take 11% to operate, making it a 20% savings. My message is not inconsistent.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 23, 2009 at 0946 hrs
C’mon Jack.
You can’t seriously believe that there is that much less bureaucracy with the government. There is every bit as much paperwork involved with medicare - why else would all of these scooter companies and the like advertising that they will do all the paperwork. I have a co-worker that is on a medication that is controlled by the government. Not only is a 30-day supply $750, she has to go in every month to her doctor for an office visit for a refill, then the doctor and the pharmacy and her have to coordinate on paperwork and then also have to go into a website to register every month. Yeah - the MODEL of efficiency! Sign me up!
And while I agree that CEO compensation is high, how big of a chunk is that to the total healthcare bill. What are there - maybe 10-20 “big” insurance companies? I don’t think they make this much, but what if all 20 CEO’s made $20MM each. That still is only $400MM. A big number to be sure, but a very small amount in the grand scheme. Hell, Chris Dodd, just got $100MM for a new hospital in CT.
That 11% final cost with that 20% savings is a friggin’ pipe dream man. Wake up already.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 0959 hrs
And incidentally, The CEO salaries and bonuses and broker commissions and actuarial and marketing and legal and denial costs are “tax deductible,” meaning that the TAXPAYERS are helping to subsidize them. We’d need a CPA to tell us exactly how much is passed on to the taxpayers versus patient, but one thing you can be assured of is that they ARE NOT going to patient care.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 23, 2009 at 1003 hrs
@ Jack
I am not willing to allow 30% of our health-care dollars to be drained off by one for-profit industry.
Health insurance is actually a very low profit margin industry… hardly 30%, more like 6% and they barely exceed 2% profit to revenue. See the AP article: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091025/D9BI4D6O1.html
Does it not matter to you that every other industrialized country in the world has universal health-care, at half the costs, and we are losing our jobs to them? The Big Three make more cars in Canada than they do in Detroit because health-care costs there are $800 per employee versus $6500 here. And they have 90% public approval of their health care system.
Try not to fool yourself by using polls generated from socialist pro-big government think tanks. They usually don’t tell the truth because they have an agenda, like the IRPP that did the dubious poll you cite. When you use data like that you lose all credibility in your opinions and arguments. Just a thought.
The $800 per employee number you cite originated with the Kaiser Foundation, again a pro-centrally controlled health care advocacy group. They were quoted in a WaPo story. The $6500 includes costs for union retirement benefits too, another failed liberal scheme that is having the consequences that were predicted by it’s detractors in the beginning. The real story is that there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch, Jack.
Canadians pay for their health care system through burdensome taxation. They have less than half the doctors per capita that we do, and in some cases, only 10% of the major medical equipment we rely on like CAT scanners and MRI’s. They wait a long time for some care, sometimes so long that they must choose to seek care in the US. Some areas are so under-served by physicians that people are unable to find a primary care doctor. Also, Canada is far from being a leader in medical innovation. That comes mostly from the US where companies spend billions on research in a for profit market…. research that saves lives and makes tens of millions more able to cope with chronic problems and live better lives.Yes, Canadian employers pay less for care… they let the employee pick up that cost through taxes and reduced wages that cover corporate taxation. In the end, the employee takes home less money, has less choice in health care, less quality in health care, long waits, rationing and less economic freedom overall. Yeah, sounds like a winner to me.
I’ve paid into the Medicare system for four decades, just as your generation is now doing and will leach off the next generation
Very true. Your money is long gone and the system that you allowed yourself to believe in is broke. Flat busted. Out of money. Perhaps you have a sense of how Bernard Madoff’s customers felt. They got stuck in a pyramid scheme… just like you did with Medicare. Your answer to continue with that broken system and even to increase it’s membership smacks of selfishness. Yes, you do deserve what you thought you paid for, but you got scammed by the government. We should make you whole and pay for what you were promised. We should definitely NOT perpetuate that system though.
Things will be even worse if we allow this crop of liberal power mongers to end private insurance. Since Medicare does not pay enough to cover the cost of many procedures, that cost is added to the price that people with private coverage pay. Like Neomom said, your welcome Jack. What do you think will happen to that care if no one is left to pay for it? Will it continue to be offered….by magic maybe? Will it be discontinued? Will taxes be required to soar in order to cover it? Will it be denied to you based on your likely life expectancy? Well, probably not the magic one, but definitely rationing, denial, and higher taxes.
That is the system you support? I’m amazed that you purport to have worked in health-care and claim expertise, yet you are so woefully knowledgeable about the big picture of where the money for that care originates. Be careful, you may soon get what you asked for, but it isn’t going to be what you want.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1010 hrs
What is it about money that you do not understand, neomom? The Medicare system is not burdened by “exorbitant CEO salaries and bonuses and broker commissions and actuarial and marketing and legal and denial costs.” Yes, they too have paperwork but even there it is now mostly electronic. But that is not where the waste is.
But yes, I will give you that the drug companies are ripping off the public. But that’s the drug companies and not Medicare. And yes, they must clamp down on the electric chair companies, as should the privates, but these companies gladly share a piece of their porfits with the politicians (via campaign contributions).
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 23, 2009 at 1027 hrs
Thanks Family Guy, that was very well written. I love the Ponzi scheme analogy. I’m truly amazed that someone could think that goverment is going to be 67% more efficient in administrative costs. Private firms want to make a profit and are constantly looking to drive down administrative costs. Government exists to fatten government unions and has absolutely no pressure on it to increase efficiency, and in many cases a lot of pressure to do just the opposite. That way they have bigger budgets, make the unions happier, and keep from having to make tough choices next year. Years ago, when I was in sales, dealing with government at the end of the year was like dealing with kids in a candy store. They managed their dollars all year, but it they were in danger of coming in under budget, they spent like drunken sailors, because next years budget was based on what they spent this year. I’ve seen government units switch out furniture in whole offices, and buy unneeded equipment, just so they wouldn’t “Waste” our money, by not spending it.
The only reason government can sometimes do some things cheaper than the private sector is that they don’t have to follow all the stupid government rules they mandate the rest of us follow.
Even in the most basic stuff like accounting, government has a fraction of the rules to follow as the private sector. If I was as sloppy with my accounting as the federal government is, I’d be doing time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1036 hrs
The Big Three make more cars in Canada than they do in Detroit because healthcare costs there are $800 per employee versus $6500 here.
I dare you to prove that health care costs is the proximate cause of job loss in the United States.
The 31% insurance bureaucracy waste would be instead spent on health care for the unemployed.
I want you to prove this as well. And then I want you to prove that a single payer system will result in only 11% administrative costs. Don’t just say it, back it up.
And finally, when you’re done with that homework, come explain to us exactly why Medicare has double the claim denial rate of private insurance.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1040 hrs
Jack is correct, the Medicare system doesn’t have CEO salaries and bonuses.
Medicare doesn’t have a single balance sheet or “Set of Books” with a line item for broker commissions, but the Feds certainly have administrative costs associated with signing people up as well as funding any number of “non-profit” organizations to do the same. There would also not be a line for actuarial - but they have the census. No marketing? I’ve seen the commercials, not sure why you haven’t, but they also have AARP carrying their water there. No legal costs? Nope - just the US Justice department - that is IF anyone can even get a legal claim against the government past the first layers of the judicial system. Denial costs? May I refer you to the original article and the percentage of denied claims.
The costs are certainly there, they just aren’t as obvious.
But what does Medicare have that increases the costs greater than any private company could ever hope to? The program is designed and funded by the US Congress. Therefore, it is a political beast and is fraut with pet giveaways, fraud, and inefficiency.
When the US Goverment can show they can run a deficit neutral Post Office, then maybe I’ll even BEGIN to believe they can handle the healthcare delivery for over 300 million people.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1040 hrs
Jack,
1st) You are a liar. You did not pay into Medicare. You had money taken from you for 4 decades. If you were given the choice of paying for others while getting pennies on the dollar for yourself or setting your money aside just for yourself, I have a hard time believing you would have joyfully chose the former.
2nd) We do not waste 20% or 30% of our health care dollars. Some people do not spend any on health care. It is individual’s money, NOT THE GOVERNMENT’S MONEY!!! If I want to waste 20, 30 or 100% of my money on health care - that is my choice not yours. You want to take my money because you think it is “asinine” to spend it on insurance. Great - lets apply that across the board. I get to take all of your money that I think you spend in an asinine way.
p.s. You better not have a new car, a tv, any books that are available in the library, or a house bigger than 1200sqft.
Tad
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1043 hrs
Oh - and Jack - you obviously missed the drug is “controlled by the government” part. It is $25 per pill because of all the added paperwork and inefficiencies. It took my co-worker 5 days, a doctor visit, about 10 calls to coordinate between the paperwork, web site, doctor, pharmacy, and herself to get her refill - all at work yesterday. She has to do that every 30 days.
As I stated before… sign me up! (sarc)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1045 hrs
Ok, this is admittedly an anecdote, but one that I have direct knowledge of.
The VA is exactly the type of system that Barack and Nancy and Harry have planned for the rest of us (not themselves though….hm). My very close friend is a 100% disabled vet. He broke his little finger one day… just a simple fracture. He went to the VA emergency room to get it taken care of. He was told (I heard them) that this was the type of thing handled by his primary physician and to make an appointment to get it fixed. They taped it and gave him pain meds for 3 days. It took 5 weeks to get in to his own doctor. By that time, the finger had begun to mend, but it was crooked. He needed a specialist now, who he saw after another month went by. The finger was now in need of surgery to be re-broken and pinned, which has been rescheduled twice due to a lack of OR space. When, and if, his surgery finally takes place in January, it will have been 10 months since the break.
That is how government health care wastes money. What could have been treated immediately was not, due to inflexible rules, uncaring administrators, and lack of sufficient staff. the $100 fix is now a $10,000 fix and countless hours of my friends time, and the VA’s time have been needlessly wasted.
I’ve been to the VA for care myself, from a service related injury. I now have a scar that my own doctor insists would not have happened in the real world. Thankfully it’s small and adds character… and it also added some real world knowledge that the government may promise to take care of you, but all it will wind up doing in the end is to take things away from you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1157 hrs
Lets not forget
More government care at its finest.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1204 hrs
Lets not forget
Don’t get sick after June
More government care at its finest.
Neomom brings the plight of the Native Americans into the forefront.
I’m glad she sympathizes with them and how they’ve continually been screwed over by this government with their land being stolen from them, genocide, and broken treaties.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1334 hrs
Nice try Pat.
I’m not going to apologize for anything that happened to the Indians as the US was being created.
However, the supposed government care that is being provided now is a travesty on multiple levels. One, that for that few of people, the government can’t handle it. Two, that the tribes continue to insist on being their own nations instead of integrating. Three, that with all the gambling monies they are getting, they can’t take care of their own a bit better.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1346 hrs
I guess what I can’t get past is the idea that govt is going to collect these taxes for four years before starting this program.
What makes people think our glorious “leaders” won’t dip into this thinking they’ll replace it later? Have they ever replaced funds from medicare in any significant amount?Just from that viewpoint I see a couple of things that are very possible.
1) Govt “borrows” from this fund causing it to go into deficit even faster than thought.
2) Again, govt “borrows” from the fund and then realizes its not sustainable in the current form and scraps the bill, spending all that money.
3) Govt actually keeps their hands off this fund, but scraps the bills and spends the money elsewhere instead of paying down our debt.All in all, I just don’t trust the govt to not pilfer these funds, “since they’re not being used anytime soon.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1410 hrs
lookin to move -
Of course they won’t dip into this money. They’ll put it in the Lock Box right next to the Social Security money.
(rolling on the floor laughing my ass off now)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1417 hrs
An excellent illustration of the government rationing that we will all soon be experiencing. Perhaps Pat is simply not able to be honest enough with himself to see the real point of Neomom’s ability to connect the dots. Liberals have deluded themselves into believing that America, capitalism, and liberty are the problems, rather than the solutions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1451 hrs
Okay gang,
What are the reasons why Medicare is more Likely to deny a claim than private insurers? This is the topic.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1509 hrs
Pat,
The topic of a thread, really is whereever it is at that point. So we are not off topic as you imply.
That being said, I’m not sure what we glean from the fact that Medicare is more likely to deny your claim than ANY of the private insurance companies. It could be that because they aren’t under the pressure to not deny claims that the private insurers are, that they don’t have to compete in the market with other insurers on that basis, that they are pretty much immune from litigation, or that they are just imcompetent. Or all of the above.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1537 hrs
“It could be that because they aren’t under the pressure to not deny claims that the private insurers are, that they don’t have to compete in the market with other insurers on that basis, that they are pretty much immune from litigation, or that they are just imcompetent.”
Curt, just so I’m clear as to what you’ve just said…..........You’re saying;
Medicare denies more claims than private insurers because they aren’t under the pressure to not deny claims at the same level that private insurers are. And that they deny more claims than private insurers because they are immune from litigation. Or they deny more claims because they are just imcompetent.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1552 hrs
Let’s not forget bureaucratic indifference and a rules is rules mentality… the kind we are all familiar with at the post office or the DMV. Many bureaucrats simply don’t give a rats ass about you, nor do they have any incentive to care. Their pay is the same, no matter how bad they screw you.
With Medicare, you have no recourse at all, now do you, Pat. What if you get the shaft unfairly at Medicare. Watcha gonna do? Sue? Nope, you can’t. Find a new medicare provider? Nope, there is only one. Call the media and threaten bad publicity? Nope, why would they care about that. The problem will be attributed to some nameless person, and it will be pointed out that, according to their interpretation of the rules, you are screwed. Watcha gonna do, Pat? Suffer with it, pay for it yourself, or die. That’s about the options.
Now, apply all those same arguments to the single payer public non-option.
I guess you could move to Nebraska, maybe you’d be exempt.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1721 hrs
Well based on the comment of mine that you highlighted you are going to tell me that the governement is under more pressure than private firms to keep denials down? Why would that be the case? They aren’t trotted out as the bad guys every day by the government and the left. They don’t have to compete with other providers in a free market, where levels of service are important. They are government bureacrats, I can’t think of a group of people in this country under less pressure on anything.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1721 hrs
I know this is anecdotal, but here is a timely example of government employee compassion.
EMTs let pregnant woman die because they were on a coffee break
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1739 hrs
“Well based on the comment of mine that you highlighted you are going to tell me that the governement is under more pressure than private firms to keep denials down?”
No, I’m not going to tell you anything. Do you have facts to backup your assertions that they aren’t under the pressure to not deny claims that the private insurers are, that they don’t have to compete in the market with other insurers on that basis, that they are pretty much immune from litigation, or that they are just imcompetent
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1813 hrs
“I’m not going to apologize for anything that happened to the Indians as the US was being created.”
Neomom, I’m not looking, or expecting, an apology from you for something that our founding fathers did, and for policy that was continued with after our country was created. So nice attempt at trying to make it appear like I was looking for an apology from you.
It’s just that you did your little cut and paste about a situation that is based on a 1787 agreement between the tribes and the U.S. government, and the government not fully funding it as they should. It could be understood that you were raging about the lack of funding for the 1787 agreement versus the quality of health care.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1828 hrs
Well Pat - Medicare Advantage is extremely popular with the over-65 crowd and their doctors for a reason. Could it be that the private insurers (Humana and United are the two biggest Med Ad providers I believe) handle all the crappola with the government instead of themselves?
Based on a multitude of evidence from oh - every other government agency whether it be the post office, DMV, the crew that oversees the WI daycare provider debacle, Amtrak, county cleaning crews sleeping on the job, and so on… I think its pretty clear that a government employee has little to no incentive to do a good job except for those that do so because they are self-motivated. btw - when was the last time you heard of any government employee (especially if they are in AFSCME) getting fired for doing a crappy job or for poor customer service.
I would also ask when you ever heard of the government being successfully sued for poor customer service or gross negligence/incompetence.
Or how about a governor doing a Ken Lay “perp walk” for cooking the books or stealing from the company (us).
Me neither.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1830 hrs
“Watcha gonna do, Pat?”
I don’t know TFG, what are you going to do?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1834 hrs
“I would also ask when you ever heard of the government being successfully sued for poor customer service or gross negligence/incompetence.”
I don’t know. So what are you going to do Neomom? How are you going to stop the run away train? Why don’t you run for Congress or the Senate. They could use some more people like you to run this country as our founding fathers wanted. What do you think your chances of winning are? I’d vote for you. Hell, I’d even vote for TFG he should run too.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1840 hrs
Actually Pat, my husband and I have discussed me running for some sort of office. Obviously starting with a local one. However, since I happen to be the family breadwinner at the moment, so for this go-round, I am working on a local campaign to oust a corrupt incumbent who has been in our State Senate for 42 years.
That and being a complete pain on blogs like this to get the “lurkers” out there to look deeper into what is going on.
For now - its what I can do.
What are you doing?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1846 hrs
You need a study to be linked to show you what all the rest of us find painfully obvious?? Pat, if your are trying to imply that government bureaucracies from the Pentagon to NASA and Medicare and from the DMV to the US Post Office and the DNR are not bureaucratic nightmares of waste and contempt for the customers and organizations that they serve, then I’m afraid I can’t take you to be a serious person at all.
I’m afraid those things are as painfully obvious as the sunrise each day: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.php the f,orce of gravity : http://mypages.iit.edu/~smile/guests/Newton98B3.pdf and taxes : http://www.irs.gov/ .
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1856 hrs
I’d vote for you. Hell, I’d even vote for TFG he should run too.
Voting twice? Now I know you are a Democrat, Pat
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 1900 hrs
“What are you doing?”
Neomom, I’m learning from the wisdom that comes from you and TFG.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 2141 hrs
“You need a study to be ked to show you what all the rest of us find painfully obvious??”
No, I believe I asked Curt, not you, to backup his statements with some facts. You, Neomom, Curt, Jason, Tad, and the rest of the group like to hold others feet to the flames by asking for facts to backup their statements, I will do the same.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 2146 hrs
You, Neomom, Curt, Jason, Tad, and the rest of the group like to hold others feet to the flames by asking for facts to backup their statements, I will do the same.
I haven’t made a single statement, other than the fact that the linked information from the AMA shows that Medicare is over double the denial of claim rates of private insurance. Since you have the same link to the study that I do, what the hell more do you want? Mr “40 Years in the business” Lohman was the one making outrageous claims without any sourcing. Ask him, not me, hell, I’m still waiting, maybe you can prod him into action, since this is such a hot button topic of concern for him.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 23, 2009 at 2302 hrs
Pat,
Quite the opposite, I’ve not ever asked for a “Fact” to back up your or Jack’s silly assertions. If I’ve asked for anything it was for some short statement of your beliefs that make sense. Anyone out here can pull together hundreds of links to back up their arguments. Heck in Jack’s case, his arguments consist of little more than a pile of links to hack websites. No where in there can I find an actual coherent thought of his. You asked for reasons why Government care would have a have a higher rate of denials than private care. I gave your four reasons, why I thought that could be the case. All of which I think make perfect sense and stand on their own merits.
I think I stand with Family Guy on his view that if you need me to point to a study somewhere that shows government to be inneficient, you don’t live in the world the rest of us do, where we all accept that as fact, and get reminded of it painfully almost daily.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 0132 hrs
“I think I stand with Family Guy on his view that if you need me to point to a study somewhere that shows government to be inneficient, you don’t live in the world the rest of us do, where we all accept that as fact, and get reminded of it painfully almost daily.”
We all know government can be inefficient. Owen’s cut and paste is about Medicare being more likely to deny a claim than private insurers, without any conclusions as to why. This cut and paste is no more than throwing a hunk of red meat to the lions with no facts as to the reasoning of why there are more denials.
You said, “Medicare denies more claims than private insurers because they aren’t under the pressure to not deny claims at the same level that private insurers are.” Now back it up.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 0834 hrs
Pat, like many of his statements, this one was (also) absolutely stupid and uninformed. There is no way he can back it up. Cut him some slack for being mentally retarded.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 24, 2009 at 0852 hrs
15 yard penalty - Personal Foul on Jack
Decidedly un-Christmas-like behavior
That said - Pat, Owen’s original post is from a report card on insurers put out by the American Medical Association. The same AMA that endorsed ObamaCare.Also, much of the wailing and knashing of teeth over the supposed need to completely decimate our existing health insurance and healthcare system is because of how the evil private insurers will do anything they can to deny claims so they don’t have to pay.
This same report card has shown for a few years running that Medicare denies a higher percentage of claims than the private insurers - without reasons - just that it does.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 0905 hrs
Mom, very few of the entries on this blog represents Christmas-like behavior.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 24, 2009 at 0922 hrs
I’d agree with that statement Jack.
Neomom, I take it that you’re a christian and believe what the bible it teaches. I also assume that you believe that this country was founded on those christian principles based on the teachings of the bible. Am I right to assume this?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 0927 hrs
That may well be, but you are the one who dropped the “retarded” bomb on Christmas Eve.
Just sayin’
Merry Christmas.
And lets join forces next year to kill this thing that we both hate, even if for different reasons.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 0928 hrs
Mom, I indeed do wish the right and left could come together and fix the system, but there is one basic problem that few understand and are willing to tackle: political corruption. That is WHY this bill passed in the first place, and it’s why our taxes are out of sight. I’ve written about it at Teabaggers overlook “cause and effect”, but they still have their heads on backwards.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 24, 2009 at 0939 hrs
Yes Pat, you would be correct that I am a Christian and that I believe this country was founded by Christians on Judeo-Christian principles.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 0939 hrs
Once again Jack. You just can’t seem to help yourself.
I agree completely with the corruption angle. However, you lose me with teabaggers.
If you know what that means, it is more than a little insulting and degrading. If you don’t know what it means, look it up in the urban dictionary.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 0941 hrs
“Yes Pat, you would be correct that I am a Christian and that I believe this country was founded by Christians on Judeo-Christian principles.”
Then how do think your political principles align with Matthew 25:31-46?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 0943 hrs
Mom, even when I look at the crude version of “teabaggers” and compare it with the videos of Green Bay, they seem to fit well. But get over it, the political corruption is the issue. The politicians we pay to run our country are taking money from our families to keep themselves in a powerful position that feeds their personal wealth.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 24, 2009 at 0948 hrs
According to the Urban Dictionary, it now includes Teabagger to be a right winger. Be proud of your teabaggerness and wear it like a badge of honor.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 0953 hrs
Nice try again in trying to lay the liberal trap of “conservatism isn’t Christian”.
First - how does the “liberal” support of abortion fit into that?
Second - why do you believe that taxation and government redistribution is the only way of taking care of our fellow man?
You know absolutely nothing about me. You don’t know what I have done volunteer-wise or in giving. Suffice it to say, that we have given more this year to charity - with my husband being unemployed - than Joe Biden gave in 2007 (the year they reported for the campaign). So save the holier-than-thou crap. Or the study by a liberal who was trying to prove how selfish that conservatives were, but found that conservatives are significantly more generous in their charity than liberals.
Merry Christmas.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 0954 hrs
Sorry - you lost me with the “videos of Green Bay”. What does Green Bay have to do with an aggressive sexual act?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 0957 hrs
“Nice try again in trying to lay the liberal trap of “conservatism isn’t Christian”.”
Nice try at answering a question with a question. You would indeed make a great politician. But I’m not laying a “liberal” trap. I’m asking you a direct question based upon our founding fathers christian principles and your belief that they were correct, how you align your political principles with the christian teachings in Matthew 25:31-46.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 1003 hrs
First, allow me to say a hearty Merry Christmas to everyone.
I am as light as a feather, I am as happy as an angel, I am as merry as a school-boy. I am as giddy as a drunken man. A merry Christmas to every-body! A happy New Year to all the world!
Ebeneezer Scrooge- a man who knew how to keep Christmas well.
Now that brings me to my point. Were we to simply take a single quote from Mr. Scrooge out of it’s complete context, say “Bah, humbug” for example… we might not understand the entirety of his character and the lesson he teaches us. The same goes for
Matthew 25:31-46
To take a single quote of the work does not convey it’s message. It is an oft used tactic, but it is as meaningless as quoting from slanted polling data.
Jesus wanted you to do good work, to be charitable… not to force your neighbor to be charitable. He would certainly not have been behind a scheme filled with graft and dubious intent, done, we are told, to benefit the poor, but truly done at their expense, both economic and personal.
Pat, if you seek to follow the path set for you by Christ, then I commend you on that undertaking…. I’d caution you to read the whole instruction manual he gave us rather than to proceed simply by reading step 127 on page 62. It’ll make your journey much more clear. If you wish to help the poor, or the sick…. again I commend you. Do so, but let each of do so in our own way instead of supporting this federal mandate that will not truly help anyone… but may cause GREAT harm indeed. I think working against such an abomination would be very Christian indeed.
Try this quote instead:
“Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”
It’s Patrick Henry. I think he was right.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 1011 hrs
Because, like our Founding Fathers, I believe individual freedoms, along with Judeo-Christian charity, are a better method of providing help for others in need than collectivism.
I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.
Benjamin Franklin - On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor (29 November 1766)Now answer my questions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 1013 hrs
Nice try at attempting to answer for Neomom, TFG. It doesn’t wash, try as you may. You get a B+ for a noble attempt though. You too would make a great politician.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 1016 hrs
Nice try again Neomom, you still didn’t answer my question.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 1018 hrs
Pat - I did answer you. Twice.
Just because it wasn’t an answer you liked doesn’t change that. Since you are obviously not a conservative - regardless of your moniker - you believe that Christianity is more compatible with collectivism than freedom.
Based on that, I would guess you go to one of the “mainline” protestant churches: Presbyterian, Episcopal, Methodist, Lutheran-ELCA, or a “Weakland” catholic parish that teach the same.
But I still eagerly await your answer of reconciling abortion with that same passage in Matthew. Are not the unborn the “least of those” among us?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 1031 hrs
Matthew 25:31-46 wasn’t addressing abortion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 1047 hrs
Now who is the politician?
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my bretheren, ye have done it unto me
Matthew 25: 40
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sactified thee,
Jeremiah 1:5
Are not unborn children the “least of these”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 1057 hrs
“You are obviously not a conservative”
You’re very right. I’m what’s called a free thinker.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 1057 hrs
I answered your question. Just because it wasn’t an answer you liked doesn’t change that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 1059 hrs
I forgot to put a face on the last reply.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 1103 hrs
I believe individual freedoms, along with Judeo-Christian charity, are a better method of providing help for others in need than collectivism.
It’s true, and neomom said it quite succinctly. Many have tried collectivism and all have failed to provide anything more than a subsistence lifestyle at the lowest common denominator, and it always comes with a generous helping of tyranny as well. Even the Pilgrims tried collectivism and they failed… but they were wise enough to abandon it before they perished of it.
Nice try at attempting to answer for Neomom, TFG.
Neomom does not need me to speak for her. She is quite eloquent in her own writings. I was answering your improper debating tactic of trying to turn the bible into sound bites. I have always suspected that the reason liberals often argue in bumper-sticker politics is that too much thought or dissection of those ideas eventually leads you to indefensible positions and circular arguments with no foundation.
What I said is absolutely true, even if you are unwilling to digest it.
You’re very right. I’m what’s called a free thinker.
It’s “free” because emotional opinions are free from both thoughtful value a solid foundational anchor. You did not answer her question either, FBP. You dodged it. If you are now using the Bible to back your politics, then you’ll need to know what neomom is trying to tell you. God knew you before you were born. You can’t go with the Bible AND with abortion, unless you choose to be a hypocrite. You’ll have to pick one or the other is you want to be taken as a thoughtful person.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 1121 hrs
To add further to the founding fathers question.
The document states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
No where is there a guarantee of fairness or equality of outcome. These wise men were laying the foundation for a society based on individual freedoms as provided by God. They were not establishing a nanny-state. If they had wanted a collectivist society, they would have set up as such.
The seeds of collectivism rampant today (ala Pat) were sown with the rise of the Progressive movement in the late 18th century. Every president that we have had since (with the possible exception of Reagan) have been Progressives to varying degree. This movement also spawned the governmental “experiments” of communisim (the rise of Lenin), facsism (the rise of Mussolini), and national socialism (the rise of Hitler).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 1131 hrs
I’m what’s called a free thinker.
Pat used Alinsky rule #6
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
First, satirists have known for centuries that humor, satire, and mockery can cut through a lot of BS and reveal truths that would otherwise be covered over by needlessly complex arguments. Getting your message across quickly and simply counts for a lot. Second, the more you encourage people to laugh derisively at some organization or institution, the less they will take it seriously. This will reduce that group’s social, political, and cultural power over time. Third, it’s difficult to effectively counter ridicule. It’s not amenable to logical counter-arguments. Finally, ridicule might make your opponent lose their cool, scoring you sympathy points in the court of public opinion.Instead - we will just point it out now.
and the attempt to catch me as being un-Christian in my opposition to collectivism using a bible verse?
Alinsky Rule # 5
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
If you opponent has internal rules that are difficult or impossible to live up to when taken to an extreme, then exploit that mercilessly. Their failure may not benefit you directly, but you can make them look bad for not living up to their own standards and this will help you in the long run. If a Christian Right organization offers free material to anyone who asks, get thousands to ask (and be sure to recycle it all). Take postage-paid envelopes and use them for other purposes — like donating money to different organizations. If a church is giving out free gifts to new visitors, organize several hundred people to visit then find a needy recipient for those gifts.We read the playbook now too.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 1140 hrs
“the rise of Hitler”
Godwin’s law surfaces.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 1224 hrs
“You did not answer her question either, FBP. You dodged it.”
Oh no, TFG, I did answer it. In the words of Neomom, “Just because it wasn’t an answer you liked doesn’t change that.” You can’t have it both ways.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 1236 hrs
Godwin’s law surfaces.
Not really. If you study the rise of Progressivism, you will find that all three government/economic systems - at least in their beginnings, before they turned tyrannical - were Progressive “experiments” as they tried to find the correct model.
So yes, communism (Lenin), fascism (Mussolini), and national socialism (Hitler) were all Progressive.
What did they all have in common? A group of elites made decisions for what was best for the people because they felt the elites were more intelligent and better suited to do so.
Sound familiar?
What else did they all have in common? They all led to tyranny.
“Progressive” does not equal “Good”. Its rather Orwellian that way.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 1242 hrs
“You can’t go with the Bible AND with abortion, unless you choose to be a hypocrite. You’ll have to pick one or the other is you want to be taken as a thoughtful person.”
I’ve given my position on abortion in the past. I know both TFG and Neomom read my position about it so I’m not repeating it.
“I have always suspected that the reason liberals often argue in bumper-sticker politics is that too much thought or dissection of those ideas eventually leads you to indefensible positions and circular arguments with no foundation.”
Every time a conservative gets backed into a corner they pull out the “L” word, even though the person they’re using it against isn’t a liberal. It’s a tactic that’s been used by conservatives for decades to demonize anyone who doesn’t march in lock step with them. It won’t work with me.“It’s “free” because emotional opinions are free from both thoughtful value a solid foundational anchor.”
This is another conservative tactic. You can’t (well I guess you can) link free thought with emotional thought that doesn’t have a solid foundational anchor. Our founding fathers were free thinkers. You instead have a belief system that is rooted in unquestionable blind faith. It’s great if it works for you.No bumper stickers there!
@Neomom,
I can’t believe you pulled out Alinsky rule #6. You have to be one of the most sarcastic, ridiculing individual on this site. Pot meet Kettle.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 1256 hrs
@Neomom,
I can’t believe you pulled out Alinsky rule #6.I told you we read the play book too.
But you certainly pulled it with your superior “free thinker” comment and the not-so-subtle intimation that if you are conservative, we are incapable of free thought.
If you want to list a specific of me doing that to you, call me on it as I called you.
However, I see that you aren’t denying using Alinsky # 6.
I will now bid you adeiu as the family prepares for church and our Christmas Eve festivities.
May all of you have a very Blessed and Merry Christmas!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 1340 hrs
“I told you we read the play book too.”
I never read the book.
“But you certainly pulled it with your superior “free thinker” comment and the not-so-subtle intimation that if you are conservative, we are incapable of free thought.”
I’m sorry, but I don’t believe you’re capable of free thought. I believe you march in lock step with what ever Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Glen Beck feed you. And I know it’s coming, because it always does….........Oh yah, well keep getting your talking points from Keith Obermann and Rachel Madau (or how ever the heck you spell her name). Well I don’t watch or listen to them either. I gave up listening to talk radio or the so called pundits on t.v. because it’s spoon fed propaganda on both sides.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 1354 hrs
We all know government can be inefficient. Owen’s cut and paste is about Medicare being more likely to deny a claim than private insurers, without any conclusions as to why. This cut and paste is no more than throwing a hunk of red meat to the lions with no facts as to the reasoning of why there are more denials.
That’s because there is nothing in the article he linked to draw conclusions from. Any conclusions we drew from the article would be pure speculation. Jack was the single person who came into this thread blasting Owen for even wasting time with this fact, and instead ordered him to work on other “issues”. Jack’s been the sole factor in this discussion throwing out numbers with zero support or research.
You said, “Medicare denies more claims than private insurers because they aren’t under the pressure to not deny claims at the same level that private insurers are.” Now back it up.
He clearly stated that it was his guess an in attempt to appease your silly request for us to do some research for you. The fact is that the AMA has found that Medicare is more that double the rate of denials of claims than private insurance. This was posted simply to show that modeling a nation-wide plan on Medicare would not be an improvement over private insurance.
If you want to get to the reasoning behind the disparity, please do… I don’t really care why, not when it’s being held as an example for the entire population to march lock step towards.
Grow up and do your own research and work.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 1407 hrs
“Grow up and do your own research and work.”
So Jason, you were taunting Jack for the sake of taunting him. Oh well, in another 5 + years you’ll be out of high school, then in another 10 years you’ll be out of your parents basement, and then, may, be able to finally act like an adult.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 1418 hrs
To Neomom and TFG:
I truly like you two, and I mean it when I say you should run for office.
May you have a Very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 1421 hrs
even though the person they’re using it against isn’t a liberal
If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and it wants higher taxes and bigger government…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 1536 hrs
No matter what kind of duck you may be, Merry Christmas to you all.
I’m off for the family festivities and then Midnight mass. If you are traveling, drive safe. I want you all back here sound and safe tomorrow so that I can explain to you why you are wrong.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 24, 2009 at 1541 hrs
So Jason, you were taunting Jack for the sake of taunting him.
I don’t know how many times I have to say this, so this is going to be the last one, and if you still don’t get it, then you have my sincerest pity. Jack was the one making claims (31% administrative waste, 20% more efficient and cost effective, something about 400% reimbursement cost), as well as a bunch of non-related anecdotal stories. On top of that, he decided to tell the owner of this blog what he should and should not post, and that it was a waste of time. That’s why I started taunting him.
Oh well, in another 5 + years you’ll be out of high school, then in another 10 years you’ll be out of your parents basement, and then, may, be able to finally act like an adult.
OK, so I guess you didn’t really mean anything by the taunting remark after all…. very telling.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 25, 2009 at 1006 hrs
Jason, why are you so damned stupid? Or are you an insurance industry employee paid to say stupid things?
Yes, I challenged Owen’s sources, and that if there were NO Medicare challenges he’d complain too. You notice that not even he has defended them.
Yes, Medicare has about 1% higher denials than Aetna, who is in second place. But I’d guess (and no, you are not worth the further time needed to source this) that Medicare’s rate of denying transplants aqnd other expensive procedures are lower than the rest, which is a more meaningful number than the 1% difference).
The 400%?
Personal experience. The company I owned provided a mobile echo service at a cost of about $300 per test. After interpreting the data the physician was reimbursed $400 by Medicare, a slight profit. But that same physician billed the privates up to $1800 for the same test, and got it. More than 400%, but who’s counting.
And oh… cost shifting? When there is a slight profit what costs are left to shift?
I’ve given you the 31% source (Harvard), but here it is again.
Suffice it to say that you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. And you’re an asshole to boot.
Merry Christmas.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 25, 2009 at 1033 hrs
“OK, so I guess you didn’t really mean anything by the taunting remark after all…. very telling. “
Jason, I honestly believe you’re just a nerdy kid that has nothing better to do with his time, as your posts reflect that of a juvenile. Let me guess, you’re either in 7th or 8th grade.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 25, 2009 at 1216 hrs
Calling Jason names because you don’t like him calling into question facts that you’ve played fast and loose with? Not really useful to prove your point to anyone… but it IS becoming all too common in the liberal lexicon to simply hurl names, slurs, or to call into the question the integrity or intelligence of the people who confront what you claim is incontrovertible evidence.
I guess neomom is right about the rules for radicals. Looks like those plays are getting around.
Jack, I’m not really sure that I believe all the test, cost, and profit ratios that you are throwing around. I suspect that you have rather a huge agenda to drive, and you have quoted slanted partisan polling data in the past.
I will note one thing though… the doctors who used your service billed the privately insured patients in order to cover for the lack of adequate compensation by medicare. Perhaps what you believe is fair profit really isn’t. Perhaps the costs to the doctor are higher than you imagine. One thing is true though… once the profit motive is completely removed from health care, the adequate supply of services that we enjoy now will falter and die. We will see rationing. We will see a system that benefits by NOT providing services… just the way big government health care is doing in every other country.
You guys may cheer about this Pyrrhic political victory now, and those liberals who have always hated a successful America may be happy, but our nation is going to suffer for this foolishness for many years to come. We deserve it though… a bare margin elected the amateurs in power. We got what we deserved.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 25, 2009 at 1329 hrs
I have no “huge agenda,” other than getting care to those in need of care and to stop our politicians from benefiting from the mass ripoff of the public by the industry. But you can see my complete disclosure HERE and HERE . Unlike those who use handles to hide their identity I’ve been very open. And I get very sick of these hollier-than-thou types that want to deny care even while going to Christmas mass.
And for those that have little or no knowledge of the amount of “profits” needed to keep doctors and hospitals interested in staying employed, you have a lot to learn. Nobody says profits have to go to zero, but give me as break. Is 400% or 600% needed?
As well, there are few people who would design a system with this waste in it, other than those whose employers are picking up the tab (at least for the moment).
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 25, 2009 at 1401 hrs
Jack, you know very well that medical care is freely available to anyone regardless of ability to pay. If you say that is not true, then you are lying. You also know that there are many programs that provide insurance for the poor already. If you say there are not, then that’s a second lie. You claim to have worked in health care, so you must be aware of that multitude of mechanism already in existence.
The current health care bill is more about power and control of the economy. It will not bring improved care to anyone. It is you, and the other dictocrats that want to deny people care… that is clear because of your support of this huge blow to our economy.
There are some very well thought through reform plans that I have seen on the Republican side of the aisle. They were never even discussed in congress. Why would that be, Jack? Why is the Democrat party afraid to hear other ideas like private health insurance exchanges. That is the system currently working well for the Swiss. It would offer excellent competition, individual rather than government control, and the ability to insure all those people who the current health care disaster bill leaves still uninsured…. all through the private sector and using the government to set up a market place for us to voluntarily shop in. If you are so desperate to help the huddled masses, as you seem to imply, then why not support legislation that does that?
I think we know why.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 25, 2009 at 1445 hrs
You have not been following my comments. I do not support the current giveaway to the insurance industry, and you can see my related blog post HERE. This “huge blow to our economy” is the direct result of our corrupt political system. You obviously have not followed the law, which requires hospitals to “stabilize emergencies” but they need go no further, and if they do go further they can bill the patient and if the patient has assets they can sue to get them, and thus more bankruptcies involve high medical bills than not. But don’t you worry if you have yours.
But of course, that must all be lies.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 25, 2009 at 1508 hrs
Personal experience. The company I owned provided a mobile echo service at a cost of about $300 per test. After interpreting the data the physician was reimbursed $400 by Medicare, a slight profit. But that same physician billed the privates up to $1800 for the same test, and got it. More than 400%, but who’s counting.
You think $100.00 is enough margin to pay the employees in the office, the doctor himself, the loans for equipment and education, the lease or property taxes for the office, the electric bill, the gas bill, the water bill, compensation if the test needs to be redone wasting even more time, and create a warchest for future improvements…? How much volume do you think the average family practitioner is doing?
Again… What you think a doctor should be making is irrelevant, because you are not one. I think your social security and medicare should be abolished, does that make me right, or even make it likely that it will ever happen? You have got to stop passing your opinion off as facts on which to base your opinions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 25, 2009 at 1520 hrs
That last sentence makes no sense…
edit: your dogmatic response to businesses as “evil entities” out to rip people off makes the rest of your arguments fall on their face. The fact of the matter is that doctors need to make money. It is very expensive to operate a practice, and very expensive to become a doctor, a healthy profit is not bad, it is to be expected.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 25, 2009 at 1530 hrs
Doug, the $300 I charged covered the technologist labor to do the procedure, my $150K scanner and my $100K van to transport the equipment. If the doctor could not make it on the $100 margin for 30 minutes of room time he would have sent the patient to the hospital instead. But he did “okay.”
I’m not saying that Medicare rates should not be increased; they should, by at least 5% and better 10%. And I have been fighting to protect their payment level (Googhle SRG or “Doc Fix”).
But even as it stands today a doctor could have a 100% Medicare load and still do okay. And doctors should be paid very well. Not the $2m or so that some are making, but easily in the $500K level (though most family docs are in the $100-200K range).
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 25, 2009 at 1542 hrs
$2M is a reasonable amount of money for someone with a great deal of talent, dedication, and motivation. Again, it is not up to you, Nancy, Harry, Barack, Michelle, or Russ Feingold to decide how much any given person is worth. The hypocrisy here is so laughable as to make my side ache, how much did President Obama make in sales from his last book?
I’m not saying that Medicare rates are ok either, I am saying it is not the role of government to provide citizens with healthcare, let alone retirement benefits.
Your goal is a single payer system. My goal is to create a private insurance system that works better than the one we have now. My goal is a logical extension of where we are now, yours is to tear the system down and fashion the new one after socialist western europe…
There have been dozens of ideas floated on this blog, and by the Republicans in congress, yet the leadership and our President are constantly saying that opponents present no alternatives. That is lying, blatantly. Creating a healthcare system for this country on the basis of lies and a seventy year old wet dream are a recipe for disaster, and the sad thing is that you baby boomers, and generation xers will not be around to reap the whirlwind of this travesty. You’ll keep kicking this multi-trillion dollar can down the road, leaving our nation in a consistent state of “crisis” on which to continue this agenda, leaving the pieces to be cleaned up by future generations. That is what is wrong with this country…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 25, 2009 at 1604 hrs
I sure appreciate the opportunity to be put in my place, and I do apologize for having an opinion. You are so right.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 25, 2009 at 1610 hrs
I sure appreciate the opportunity to be put in my place, and I do apologize for having an opinion. You are so right.
Typical liberal deflection… Whatever.
I apologize for expressing mine.
I am right, thanks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 25, 2009 at 1614 hrs
Jack, I see patients everyday who have no means to pay, and yet they take expensive ambulance rides to the hospital where they clog the emergency room, often with simple issue that would have been precluded by simply following prescribed treatments. I see people who have often told me that they prefer the ER because their public health plan would make them pay a $4 co pay…. and the meds are free in the ER.
Hospitals all over are failing because of the amount of unbillable care they are forced to provide, even as the Jack’s of the world rail against 400% and 800% profit margins. Please show me the public hospital that is getting a 400% profit margin…. or the private insurance company that getting 800%. You can’t Jack…. it isn’t happening except maybe on MSNBC and Air America.
Government meddling has mucked the system up so much already that even Medicare can’t stay afloat… and that after they pay out less than procedures cost, and they tax everyone to pay for care that only covers15-20% of the people.
Yet somehow, there are actually people who think that the government, the same one that is failing on every social and service battlefront, the government will be able to provide health care for everyone, at a reduced cost, with no long waits, no denial of care, no rationing, and with no reduction in quality. This is what you believe Jack? Really?
I hope the next salesman who sells you a car appreciates how easy you are.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 25, 2009 at 1645 hrs
You are even more making the case for single-payer, though I recognize that was not your intent. If these patients could simply go to the doctor, or even a rapid clinic at Wal-mart, they wouldn’t waste the time of the ER. And co-pays would influence their direction.
There is no question that the system is failing, but if we did as Canada does (give the hospital a guaranteed budget) and properly funded it we’d not have that problem. We are spending twice the per-capita dollars and we should continue doing that, but you are telling me that you are satisfied with the insurance industry sharing in the healthcare dollars. Actually blowing 1/3 od the dollars. 60% of physicians disagree with you.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 25, 2009 at 1738 hrs
You’re right TFG, I shouldn’t have called Jason a nerdy kid. I take it back. He’s probably not a nerd.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 25, 2009 at 1808 hrs
My position on health care can pretty much aligns with what Dan Carlin says in his podcast, Common Sense, Show #152, Sick Politics. I think this is recommended listening. Hopefully this link will work for you.
http://cdn3.libsyn.com/dancarlin/cswdcb52.mp3?nvb=20091225233444&nva=20091226234444&t=04be5d05c0f0cf9603d9dIf not, you can find it in his archive
http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php?page=csarchivePosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 25, 2009 at 1845 hrs
There are several things that you really can’t argue…. well, I take that back, a liberal can argue anything that he wants to believe is true. Just staying on the intellectually honest side though:
America creates far more in the way of innovation, medical and pharmaceutical advancement than any other nation in the world. The reason for that is capitalism and the reward for your work and risk motive. We make new and better things because that will make us money… whether you are an investor, doctor, researcher or patient, you will benefit.
The actual quality of health care in America is better than any other nation. Some few may be on par with us, but there is no better place to be sick than the United States of America.
People from nations with single payer health care often have to wait for care… sometimes very long waits, and sometimes that wait is more than the patient can bear. Sometimes, certain levels of care are denied because of cost or lack of availability.
People from nations with single payer care often come to the United States (if they have the means) to be treated in our hospitals after being denied care in their own countries. Once denied, there is no other source to turn to for care in that type of system. You are out of luck.
Lastly, government bureaucracies always serve themselves rather than the customer. They create “rules are rules” and “9-4:30” mindsets among the staff and management. There is no example of a successful and cost effective federal civilian bureaucracy…. ever.
Starting from those simple points, I could never believe that single payer is the answer. There are many competent plans out there that would actually solve some of the problems that our health care system currently has (Yes, it has some problems) Our system currently offers very good care to about 75% of the population, and adequate care to most of the rest. There are solutions founded in privatization, collective marketplaces, and subsidy for the poor that would offer everyone the advantages of our system and do so without bigger, uncaring government. That is where we should be headed and anyone going the other way is not really interested in better care, but rather in more government control of the people.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 25, 2009 at 1952 hrs
First, I hope you all had a fabulous Christmas!
TFG has a very big - huge - point with the innovation. I worked in healthcare field as well - not on the providing side, but on the equipment/research side.
I saw first hand what it took, and how much it cost, to bring a new product or pharmaceutical to market. The research and the overhead that supports it, the clnical trials (even for those that never make it to market), the proto-types, and then all of the global regulatory approvals. All that ain’t cheap.
We don’t get that innovation out of the other “wealthy” countries with single payer. What was the last life-saving procedure, drug, or breakthrough in diagnostic technique or equipment to come out of Canada (since Jack picked them above)?
Why?
For the same reasons those same countries spend a lot less of their GDP on national defense than the US does. They rely on the US to cover it for them.
Also, note the level of care in Canada (since Jack brought it up). The government is being sued for the [url=http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/10/15/waittimes-fraser.html]waiting lists for diagnostic tests like CTs and MRIs or surgery.
[/url]The denials of certain drugs or treatments.
The lack of primary care doctors - like when they have lotteries to get one.
Hospitals close to the border routinely send patients to the US for better care due to lack of beds or specialists - whether it was the preemies sent to the NICU in Montana or the patients needing cardiac treatment sent to Detroit daily. Also note that if you end up in the hospital, expect a 4-bed ward instead of a private room - because that’s what the government pays for. I don’t know if any of you have ever been seriously ill to the point of hospitalization. I have, and let me tell you that you can barely hold onto whatever dignity you have in a private room. I’m quite sure that a ward would have have helped speed up my recovery.
Single payer ain’t “all that and a bag of chips” either Jack.
We need something that keeps the best of what we have today, but fixes what needs to be fixed.
At least we both whole-heartedly agree that the Senate bill sucks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 25, 2009 at 2053 hrs
Yea, but even though the senate bill sucks, the Righties had best continue to support the corrupt political system, with all of its exorbitant costs to society and our democracy, because without the corruption the politicians would have voted in the best interest of the nation (single payer).
And incidentally, all of those great new drugs? Supported by 1/3rd funding by the taxpayers, and then turned over to the drug companies to patent. So much for free-market capitalism.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 26, 2009 at 0036 hrs
Yea, but even though the senate bill sucks, the Righties had best continue to support the corrupt political system, with all of its exorbitant costs to society and our democracy, because without the corruption the politicians would have voted in the best interest of the nation (single payer).
Are you getting tired of hearing yourself say this yet? This has been your only argument in this entire 160 post thread…
The righties do not support this “corrupt political system, with all of its exorbitant costs to society and our democracy” we support common sense, logical , and methodical repairs for a broken system, that will reduce costs to our republic. Scrapping the system that drives so much innovation would be the biggest mistake we could possibly make, and you don’t even bother to address that. You just keep right on accusing us of supporting 30% waste, or 400% profits, opposing the wonders of medicare which you have so successfully used for the last five years, or any of the rest of the garbage you keep spewing. Keep ignoring the FACT that there are solutions to these problems that are in keeping with the free market tradition that has made the United States so prosperous, keep right on supporting the losing side in this thing…
Evil insurance companies, evil doctors, graft, greed and corruption….. Yep, that must be true, Nancy Pelosi tells me so.
Try looking here: http://www.house.gov/ryan/issuepapers/healthcareissuepaper.html
These are some of the ideas that have been floated by the “righties” that have been ignored and lied about by Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the media. All of these are ideas that would address the many issues that the American healthcare system suffers without putting downward pressure on innovation, med school enrollment, or liberty. Our goal needs to be to protect the vibrant, innovative environment in the American medical research and development industry that the rest of the world depends on. If the United States were to go to a socialized medical system, either single payer, or government run healthcare, I wonder if it would be possible to quantify the number of people who would die world-wide as a result of slowed medical innovation… Oh, yeah, thats right, you don’t deal in hypotheticals.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 26, 2009 at 0812 hrs
Yea, I’m about as tired saying that as I am hearing well-wishing from Christians who could give a damn about the 50,000 Americans that die annually because they lack proper “payment” for health insurance (which includes some of our Vets with non-service-related diseases). And yea, I’m a Christian, albeit with a little more compassion than some I hear here.
And I’m also a little tired of having Righties totally ignore the catalyst to the very problem we discuss; political corruption. What is it about money do you not understand? How would YOU solve that problem?
Scrapping the system that drives so much innovation? The insurance industry drives innovation? Seems to me it has been mostly the medical colleges, with a third of the costs coming from the NIH (taxpayers). The insurers just drain 30% of the dollars; don’t even see patients.
And oh… “free market tradition that has made the United States so prosperous???” How are you liking our “free-for-all, unfettered capitalistic” system so far? It trashed the world’s economy, but what the hell. The Forbes 400 increased their wealth by $30 billion while the rest of us lost our retirement accounts. And that is not a “hypothetical.”
And your “fix?” The Ryan plan that keeps the insurance industry in the loop? That’s a non-starter and deserves to be ignored.
Your hypotheticals are typical, so let’s be careful with wild-ass projections. Yea, I know. Innovation will crash and the world will be eaten up by global warming, but let’s stick with things we can control (like eliminating the known wastes, as a starter).
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 26, 2009 at 0943 hrs
Yea, but even though the senate bill sucks, the Righties had best continue to support the corrupt political system, with all of its exorbitant costs to society and our democracy
um - Jack… This bill was voted on by all the lefties. So I guess they are the supporters of corruption eh?
And what of all the problems with the vaunted Candadian system as I pointed out?
And what the hell are you talking about that the government supports 1/3 of drug research? The org I worked for got bupkus except for some tax incentives for R&D costs. Or are you confusing the government-supported funding at all the universities?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 26, 2009 at 0950 hrs
I’m about as tired saying that as I am hearing well-wishing from Christians who could give a damn about the 50,000 Americans that die annually because they lack proper “payment”
I suspect you are using this study to “cite” your 50,000 number. However, there are a couple of flaws here. One of the authors of this “study” - Himmelstein - is one of the co-founders of your Physicians for a National Health Program (can you say creating a “study” to fit my agenda ala Climategate?).
Second, They used data from a health survey conducted between 1988 and 1994. The questionnaires asked a sample of 9,000 participants if they were insured and how they rated their own health. The federal Centers for Disease Control tracked the deaths of people in the sample group through the year 2000. Drs. Himmelstein, Woolhandler, and company then crunched the numbers and attributed deaths to lack of health insurance for all the participants who initially self-reported that they had no insurance and then died for any reason over the 12-year tracking period.
At no time did the original researchers or the single-payer activists who piggy-backed off their data ever verify whether the supposed casualties of America’s callous health care system had insurance or not. In fact, here is what the report actually says:
Our study has several limitations,” the authors concede. The survey data they used “assessed health insurance at a single point in time and did not validate self-reported insurance status. We were unable to measure the effect of gaining or losing coverage after the interview.”
Himmelstein et al. simply assumed that point-in-time uninsurance translates into perpetual uninsurance – and that any health calamities that result can and must be blamed on being uninsured.
So the bottom line is - nobody knows if or how many people die per year due to lack of insurance. Because nobody in this country is denied care for lack of it. Just ask the hospitals in GA and NV that are going bankrupt providing free dialysis to illegals.
And for the umpty-ninth time - I detest political corruption as much as anyone else. But I simply don’t understand your cognitive dissonence with your belief that handing more money and power to the politicians will make that any better. I think we should “starve the beast” and take away their power and take back our money.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 26, 2009 at 1003 hrs
No, Mom, the corruption today IS the D’s, but if the tables were turned the R’s would have also left the insurance industry in the loop (See Ryan above). Our government is not run by the D’s *OR* the R’s, it’s driven by the special interrests that do not run for office. They don’t have to. They OWN both sides through their campaign contributions ($2 billion in the 2008 elections alone). That’s CASH BRIBES given, not including lobbying costs). You are wrong about Canada, though not totally. See my blog article at We can do better!
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 26, 2009 at 1016 hrs
If I have to chose which study to believe—between a researcher with an agenda and one paid by the insurance industry to prove that everybody’s wrong except them—it’s a no-brainer. PNHP is a group of 14,000 physicians whose only agenda is to force down their throats a terrible socialized single-payer system that is “bad for the country”
My solution to political corruption is public funding of campaigns, and at $5 per taxpayer per year it would be one hell of a bargain. It’s what Obama promised and then abandoned. But if politicians are to be beholden to their funders, those funders should be the taxpayers. See more here: www.wicleanelections.org and a current effort at www.fairelectionsnow.org
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 26, 2009 at 1046 hrs
I’m more LIbertarian than Republican. and, I guess Jack, I simply subscribe to the philosophy of “Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely”.
Giving 100% of the decision making power to that group of politicians and their appointed hacks with god complexes will not squeeze corruption out of the system. It might look different, but it will still be there and will set up even more of a 2-tiered level of care than we have now. Those that can afford private care will get better care than the “public”. Private hospitals will turn the sick away for lack of ability to pay.
I don’t think insurance should be for basic health services, but as a catastrophic back-stop for things like cancer and other severe illnesses, organ transplants, severe injury accidents, etc. like other types of insurance. Your car insurance doesn’t pay for your oil changes, your homeowner’s insurance doesn’t pay for your new water heater, etc. The government should be another back-stop for those that are truly poor or cannot take care of themselves like the developmentally disabled. But I don’t think a 26 year-old is a child and I don’t think a family making $88K is poor.
When my employer changed over from a PPO with co-pays to a deductible-based system, it was a shock at first. Now we have a low-premium, high-deductible plan with an HSA and I like it quite a bit. I am a better consumer. I am much more involved with my health-care and lifestyle choices. I was shocked at how much more we allowed my employer to pay for with extra tests and such when all I had was a $30 co-pay instead of having to pick up the tab. And we are just as healthy. What our private “insurer” does for us now is negotiate the group rates and handle the paperwork.
Do you really think that people will be better consumers if everything is provided “free” by Uncle Sugar? Or will we get increased rationing of tests and procedures and increased government intervention in our lives via the nanny state. i.e. - that Type 2 diabetes is awfully expensive because so many people are fat. So I guess we better start banning trans fats and other fatty foods. Or smoking is bad for you, so we will ban it everywhere… Oh wait that is happening now.
I say - you want to be sedentary and eat a bunch of crap until your blood pressure and cholesterol are sky high and you get diabetes? You want to drink excessively or smoke or do drugs until your body can’t handle it anymore? Have at it, but pay your own way.
That is the only way to change those lifestyle choices. And by pushing those choices back to the individual, you reduce the corruption. I have more faith in the individual than any government, or insurance company.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 26, 2009 at 1049 hrs
Sorry, those two links are:
www.wicleanelections.org
www.fairelectionsnow.org
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 26, 2009 at 1050 hrs
As long as we are putting in links that we think could help get the special interest corruption out of Washington… How about we look at the tax codes too?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 26, 2009 at 1059 hrs
Mom, if you believe that “Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely” please reread #164.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 26, 2009 at 1116 hrs
How about the No Tax Plan
The No-Tax Plan
How about a plan where everything you earn is tax free - period. No income taxes, no sales taxes, no business taxes, no fees or tariffs. As long as you earned the money by using your muscles or your brain you get to keep 100 percent, and your can do or buy anything you want with it without taxes. Get your entire paycheck, spend or save without any taxes, fees, tariffs, or anything that would increase the price of good or services. Absolutely no business taxes as long as all your employees work in America.
That’s not the half of it. There will be so much money coming into the treasury that every American can have 100 percent free health care, free prescription drugs, free surgeries, free dental and free optical, and even free plastic surgery! You can have free education, free college, free classes, free certifications. There will be enough money in the first year to pay off the national debt, fund the military at current levels, fix all the roads and bridges, and help every poor person to get off welfare.
So what’s the catch? Money you didn’t earn or work for is taxed at 50 percent - no exceptions. Why? Because it’s welfare and that is un-American. Money that you get for free is taxed. This includes inheritance, gifts, lottery winnings, gambling winnings, interest income, income from stocks, bonds, etc. Companies that outsource labor will have to pay a large tax. (because their profit wasn’t worked for or earned by Americans) Privately held corporations must convert to publicly held corporations or be liquidated when the owner dies. It’s a very simple concept. Retirement funds and 401K plans are tax free because you earned them and the yearly contributions are limited.
Where does all the money come from? Currently just the top few percent of the population owns or controls 70 percent of the wealth. Notice I said wealth and not income. Income is a fanciful term dreamed up by tax lawyers and tax accountants that has virtually no basis in reality. A billionaire can, and sometimes does, show zero income on his tax return. (If you own the company you can reward yourself in many other ways than giving yourself a high salary). Wealth, on the other hand, is net worth. All the things of value that you own like property, houses, boats, stocks, bonds, investments, etc. These are things that can not be easily removed from America or hidden like income can. They can be accounted for and seized if necessary. There is so much wealth in America that taxing wealth could fix all of Americas debt problems in one tax year. While the FairTax billionaires whine about how people hide money outside the country, with the No-Tax Plan that all goes away because real estate can’t be moved, stocks and bonds are registered, and banks won’t lend people money without collateral.
This would eliminate all tax-free shelters, trusts, foundations, and would provide incentives to work hard and be productive. Business would have no taxes and not need to worry about deductions or liabilities. As long as they provide a product or service using American labor they will never pay a red cent. No more sin taxes, luxury taxes, property taxes, cigarette taxes, or any other taxes on money you worked for and earned. Foreigners would have to move themselves and their wealth to America to benefit.
The FairTax is more like Communism. Everyone is supposed to be equal but, in reality, there is a ruling class consisting of wealthy old money heirs who contribute nothing to society. The No-Tax plan is more like what our founding fathers intended - people who work hard get to keep and spend all they work for tax free.
http://fairtaxfraud.com/alternatives.asp#notax
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 26, 2009 at 1254 hrs
pat, that’s almost workable. Doesn’t sound regressive, but assuming that it is in the best interest of the country, it’ll never happen. Too many fat cats like the current tax system and they’re the ones funding the elections. The problem with the flat tax is that it is regressive as hell.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 26, 2009 at 1307 hrs
And Jack, the fair tax isn’t “fair”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 26, 2009 at 1309 hrs
No, I know, Pat. Just have to look at who’s funding the effort.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 26, 2009 at 1311 hrs
@FBP I won’t even begin to address that silly tax plan, as it is full of so many holes that to even propose it shows that you don’t really grasp how capitalism works or why it has, up till now, made America so prosperous.
I’ll just offer you the most glaring error in your plan. If all businesses are forced to go public, and all income from interest and stocks is taxes at 50%... where does the capital to start and operate a business come from? Banks would be forced to charge unacceptable rates for all loans, car, home. capital improvement. US stocks would become instant losers and the investment capital would dry up, as would peoples incomes and jobs. All these odd “all politicians are evil, the rich control everything” conspiracy theories are really pointless.
@Jack Have you read either the Paul Ryan health care plan or the Patients Choice Act. There is also an Empowering patients first act. Both plans create private health care exchanges that use competition to reduce costs, provide everyone health care, and give individual citizens the power, not the government. Why would you rather see bureaucrats in charge than patients. That does not make any sense to me at all.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 26, 2009 at 1544 hrs
TFG. Just because you say it’s so, doesn’t make it so.
I suppose you support the so called “Fair Tax”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 26, 2009 at 1707 hrs
So Pat - how is taxing consumption rather than production “like communism”.
Taxing consumption absolutely catches the most wealthy. You spend/buy more, you pay more taxes. Think of it as the Paris Hilton tax. Every time she spends some more of Grandpa’s money, some of it goes to the treasury.
And how is that not “fair”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 26, 2009 at 1951 hrs
TFG, I sort of liked the “silly tax plan.” And if it turns off the fat cats and politicians I’ll like it even more.
And no, I haven’t read the Ryan plan and won’t waste my time doing so. If it keeps the insurance industry in the loop it’s a non-starter, as I said before. And if you are a physician you’d better hope like hell the insurance industry is not left to “compete.” The last thing they’ll sacrifice is high executive salaries and broker commissions and shareholder profits. The first to go will be physician payments.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 26, 2009 at 1957 hrs
Mom, a consumption tax or VAT is regressive because it takes a bigger percentage of the low income person’s total wealth.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 26, 2009 at 2002 hrs
Jack - then you need to look into the FairTax further. There is a “prebate” provision to cover your first $xx to allow for the neccessities for those low income folks.
Not to mention you get your full paycheck. No income tax, no payroll tax - both which help low income folks right away instead of having to wait to file a tax return.
After that - you buy more, you pay more.
Bonus? All the money that the “special interests” put into lobbying for loop-holes and favors in the tax code? Gone. All those gazillionaires that shelter their money to get out of paying any taxes? Doesn’t matter. Tax attorneys and the like would need to find a new profession, but… oh well.
Oh - and queen Nancy wants to put in a VAT on top of all of our current taxes to pay for this ... deficit neutral monstrosity.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 26, 2009 at 2024 hrs
And if it turns off the fat cats and politicians I’ll like it even more.
I’m sorry, but this sentence is very telling. Your disdain for the “fat cats” shows that you think anyone that is successful is to be hated or ridiculed. You have some very interesting and well intentioned thoughts on politicians and wealthy people, but labeling them all as “fat cats” is just as bad and sophomoric as being a racist.
Here’s my thoughts on it all.
Yes, things are broken in health care today in the USA. Government intervention is not what is needed… it’s a causative issue in it all.
I’m not a teenage anything (geek, nerd, etc), but a father of four, and my thoughts are first to my children and wife. Ancillary to them is my extended family, friends, community, country, and world, in that order. A free pass to anything was never given to me, and I never expect it for me or my family. I was laid off from my career of 12 years at a fortune 100 company last month, the main cite being “financial reasons”. I’ve lived through a number of these layoffs for the past 8 years at this company, while the senior management continues to thrive. The CEO of this company made over 100 million in salary, bonuses, and stock options last year, but I don’t hate the man.
Anything that is modeled after another country’s single payer, or socialized medicine is against my fiber, for most of the reasons discussed (free market, innovation, socialism) mentioned above.
I got in this thread and started lampooning Jack because of post #1. How dare he attempt to tell the owner of this blog what he should and should not be spending his time pursuing… and not much more than that.
I’ve been attacked and I’ve attacked, whether or not it’s in the spirit of Christmas or Christianity is not my concern, or anyone else’s… it is what it is. Raw and unmoderated emotions from smart, intelligent, and caring people from a number of political spectrums.
I don’t think there’s much disagreement from anyone who’s posted so far that the current legislation is going to do little to nothing to help those that need help, and is instead going to help those that need none… that’s my biggest concern with our government involvement for the recent past…. it’s ALL special interest, and so, I’m against it all.
As long as I can provide for my own “special interests”, in the order that I have listed above, I’ll continue to be happy and content, and that’s my end goal in life.
I wish the best of luck to everyone who has participated or simply read all of the thoughts shared so far.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 26, 2009 at 2209 hrs
Jason, you just can’t help yourself. I’ll skip over your stupid criticism of post #1, and go right to the meat. Your blind trust in the CEO of the Fortune 100 company that laid you off is, well, naive. These are exactly the guys I talk about. They are usually interlopers and not founders, and had a choice to make between his over-$100 million package and keeping even long-standing employees. It’s obvious which was more important to him. He likely outsourced the need for your job years earlier, and those jobs are likely not coming back. See more here, but also on the right you can subscribe to their newsletter.
http://www.toomuchonline.org/tmweekly.html
How our politicians sold out America
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 27, 2009 at 0703 hrs
What You Gain Under the FairTax
1. New 30 percent tax on every New House or property you buy.
2. New 30 percent tax on Cars, Boats, Campers, Home Appliances, TV’s
3. New 30 percent tax on Food, Clothing, Shelter, Rent, Electricity, Gas, Phone Service
4. New 30 percent tax on Medicine, Surgical procedures, Hospital stays, Dental Services
5. New 30 percent tax on Legal Services, Trial Services, Legal Advice, Legal Winnings and losses.
6. Double Taxation on Roth IRA’s or retirement money you took as a lump sum.
7. Your consumption is now directly linked to inflation - prices go up - your taxes go up.
8. Interest on Credit Cards, Loans, and Mortgages now taxed at 30 percent on top of what you owe.
9. You now have to pay the government for permission to live in America by paying taxes on all you consume.
10. To buy or start a company just cost you 30% more.How Much is my “Prebate”?
Probably the saddest part of this scam called the FairTax is the prebate. The Tax plan supporters claim it doesn’t tax the necessities of life so everyone gets a prebate check in the mail each month supposedly to cover the tax on life’s necessities (just the tax). What they don’t tell you up front is that the maximum prebate per person is only $187 per month and they are only refunding the “FairTax” tax a person at the poverty level would pay. No real tax exemptions. So FairTax prebate = the fairtax a person at the poverty level would pay or $187 a month. Since they are only refunding the minimum a person in poverty would get, then the middle class loses big time. But wait a minute! I’m not at the poverty level…so where’s my tax rebate on my necessities that I actually purchased? Answer: You lose it all except $187 under the FairTax.
The poverty level is ridiculously low and has no basis in reality. Real necessities per month = food + clothes + rent + heat + electricity + gas + healthcare. For a single person living in the ghetto and eating the cheapest foods imaginable and wearing used clothes and the minimum on everything else stacks up like this: Necessities per month = $400 + $80 + $600 + $100 + $50 + $150 + $200 = $1580 minimum per month for basic life support. At a rate of 30 percent that means our true poverty level prebate should be $475 a month to cover the taxes on minimum necessities. It reality it should be as high as $1500 per month for a middle class family to truly cover the minimum costs (not just the tax) of living at the poverty level.
But oops, there’s even more bad news, if the FairTax is passed, all those prices (food + clothes + rent + heat + electricity + gas + healthcare) go up by 30 percent. This means the true cost is this (adjusted up 30 percent): Necessities per month = $520 + $104 + $780 + $130 + $65 + $190 + $260 = $2054 minimum per month for basic life support. At a rate of 30 percent that means our true poverty level prebate (With FairTax) should be $617 a month to cover the taxes on minimum necessities. It reality it should be as high as $1950 per month for a middle class family to truly cover the minimum costs (not just the tax) of living at the poverty level.
The generic exclusive tax rate is 30% on all consumption (sales tax) under the FairTax. The sales tax is the tax agent - not the income tax rate. The rate of consumption is vastly different among the working poor (100%), middle class (80%), and rich (5%). The FairTax proponents would have you believe that, in the above example, the tax was only 30% of $30,000 consumption ($9000) for the working poor person, and 30% of $500,000 consumption ($150000) and that’s perfectly fair in their opinion. Even if you look at it like this the tax rate is 1% of the INCOME for the rich and the max (30%) of the INCOME for the working poor. They try to further blur the situation by subtracting (not adding like they should) prebates for monster sized families. That’s why we kept it to one individual and not a large family. Mathematically speaking: The tax on a working poor person is “30 percent of 100 percent of their income.” The tax on the rich is “30 percent of just 5 percent of their income.” There isn’t anything remotely equal or fair about that.
http://fairtaxfraud.com/fair.asp
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 0858 hrs
Pat, your arguments are, if not sound, certainly deserving of unbiased review. And that’s not possible under the current corrupt political system.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 27, 2009 at 0916 hrs
Sorry, here’s the correct link to “How our politicians sold out America”
http://moneyedpoliticians.net/2009/11/28/how-our-politicians-sold-out-america/
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 27, 2009 at 0955 hrs
“So Pat - how is taxing consumption rather than production “like communism”. “
The FairTax is more like Communism. Everyone is supposed to be equal but, in reality, there is a ruling class consisting of wealthy old money heirs who contribute nothing to society.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1023 hrs
One problem with taxing “sales” is that the tax can be bypassed through bartering. Taxing wages seems less complex, but off-shore tax havens are a problem. I do strongly object to taxing corporations that employ American workers, but of course, we also do that through our health care system. See Why zero corporate taxes make sense…
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 27, 2009 at 1057 hrs
Everyone is supposed to be equal but, in reality, there is a ruling class consisting of wealthy old money heirs who contribute nothing to society.
Ummmm….. That’s what we have now.
And while I don’t pay 23% (not 30%) on all of my purchases right now. I do pay 7.75% on those. And a Fed income tax, and a state income tax, and a medicare tax, and a SSI tax, and property tax, and a satellite tax, and an energy tax, and a phone tax…. Shall I go on? In fact, when added up, our very middle class family (under $90K for the 4 of us) pays between 46% and 47% of our income in all of those various taxes. 23% is a friggin’ bargain.
The FairTax says nothing about everyone is supposed to be equal. But it would have the advantage of giving you some control over the tax you pay. A little short this month, you put off purchasing stuff. As far as the food, look up the prebate. I would suggest looking at the actual Fair Tax site for those that are interested. It answers a lot of those questions.
But I must say that I am growing very weary of this pervasive undertone by Jack and Pat that everyone is supposed to be the same - life should be fair...
Lets revisit that pesky line from the Declaration of Independence again.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
We have the right to the pursuit of happiness… not a guarantee of the equality of the outcome.
Life is not fair. We are all born into different “places” and have our own personal circumstances. Overcoming that adversity is what makes us free and builds our self-worth. We have to do it on our own, nobody can do it for us.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1102 hrs
Mom, please don’t put words in my mouth. I believe in “regulated capitalism,” not wild-west, free-for-all capitalism that allows the greedy to rip off the unsuspecting or unpowerful. I support zero taxes up to $25K, a highly progressive tax rate beyond $150-200K, and a flat tax in the middle. I want our politicians to do what they are paid to do: “protect society,” especially from the bankers and others who fund their campaigns and want to rip us off. With these guys in charge we don’t need Al Quida.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 27, 2009 at 1116 hrs
What about all the other taxes we pay besides on income Jack?
What everyone misses is that with the FairTax, all of those other taxes go away. You get your entire paycheck. The prebate table is here.
And I would argue that “regulated” capitalism is what caused our mess. Groups like ACORN pressured banks to give out risky loans. Congress enabled the reduction in the lending standards because all the mortgages would be picked up by Fannie/Freddie. Fannie/Freddie cooked their books under the watchful eye of that same Congress. Their CEO’s like Franklin Raines got millions - actually their CEOs are getting big bonuses this year too. While their watch-dogs like Frank and Dodd got special favors from companies that benefitted highly from having Fannie/Freddie buy their crap mortgages.
If not for the government “regulation” and allowing Fannie/Freddie to do what they did, there would be no mortgage bubble because most of those loans would have never happened in the first place.
Yeah - government intervention really helped us out there didn’t they?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1132 hrs
Give me a break, Mom. It was a combination of (70%) deregulation in 1999 (Glass-Steagall repeal) and the Dems (and banks) wanting more freedom with risky loans (30%). The banks were willing contributors.
But, that said, let’s blame it all on the D’s and forget about the 8 years under Bush.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 27, 2009 at 1149 hrs
“Everyone is supposed to be equal but, in reality, there is a ruling class consisting of wealthy old money heirs who contribute nothing to society.
No, the actual quote, in context is, “The FairTax is more like Communism. Everyone is supposed to be equal but, in reality, there is a ruling class consisting of wealthy old money heirs who contribute nothing to society.
“But I must say that I am growing very weary of this pervasive undertone by Jack and Pat that everyone is supposed to be the same - life should be fair… “Gee I don’t recall ever saying that everyone is supposed to be the same - life should be fair… Refresh my memory where I said that.
I believe you were the one who brought up the the subject of the Fair Tax. If it’s not “Fair” then maybe it should be called the Unfair Tax.
“We have the right to the pursuit of happiness… not a guarantee of the equality of the outcome.”
Isn’t the rational you’re attempting to use right out of the Rules for Radicals?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1201 hrs
Jack, it looks like we don’t pass the “Purity Test”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1210 hrs
We don’t Pat, and that should be our first priority, as nothing else will come together until the bribes stop.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 27, 2009 at 1213 hrs
I’m not sure if you are aware of this, Jack… but you really come off as a bit of a conspiracy theorist. The Rothschilds and the tri-lateral commission are not running the global economy. The evil wealthy are creating and providing most of the jobs that are the backbone of our economy. That classicism rhetoric is a bit out of style these days.
I will agree with you that corporations should not be taxed. I’m not a supported of the fair tax. It seems to have too many rules. The more rules, the more loop holes and exclusions.
A national sales tax would solve most of our problems. Simply levy the tax on all non-food, shelter, clothing, health care or energy purchases. That automatically exempts most of the purchases made by the poor. Include the tax to apply to exchange of goods or services as well. No other exemptions or loop holes. If you are rich and wish to enjoy the fruits of your wealth, you would have to pay taxes… even the Teddy Kennedy trust fund babies would have to pay tax. No tax shelters available. You buy, you pay. Buy it overseas and bring it here… pay the tax at the border. It would save billions of dollars in record keeping and tax preparation costs every year, and it would incentivise saving money and investing
You could then, as neomom said, decide on how much to pay in taxes, or how much to save. Add to that a balanced budget amendment and many of our problems would be solved. If the liberals want to raise the sales tax, everyone would know it immediately. No hidden taxes, no with-holdings that confuse what you really pay. The tax would be very plain for everyone to see. Simple, effective, and easily enforced.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1254 hrs
“A national sales tax would solve most of our problems. Simply levy the tax on all non-food, shelter, clothing, health care or energy purchases. That automatically exempts most of the purchases made by the poor.”
That’s not what the Fair Tax does.
Plus, the enactment of the Fair Tax, or National Sales Tax would create a black market with which consumers would flock to to escape tax payment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1329 hrs
Conspiracy theorist? Well, TFG, when I see health insurance executives conspire (and bribe) politicians to get certain aspects of healthcare laws passed or killed, or I see bankers and financial institutes conspire (and bribe) politicians to get regulations passed or killed, or I see road builders conspire (and bribe) politicians to get taxes diverted to their coffers… yea, I’m a conspiracy theorist.
What is it about money do you not understand? What is it about greed do you not understand? Money does indeed work as intended.
I am not a tax expert and would like to leave those decisions to our nation’s board of directors, but I’d first like to see that my board is not taking money from my enemy.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 27, 2009 at 1337 hrs
Problems with a National Sales Tax.
1. A sales tax would be a regressive tax; i.e. low-income individuals would pay a much higher share of their incomes than wealthy individuals.
2. A national sales tax is a risky system that may not raise near enough money to support all our needs in defense, education, health care, etc.
3. Consumer spending, which drives a thriving economy, would likely drop as people save and invest more rather than spend.
4. Many incentives built into our tax system (such as education, home ownership, charity, etc.) would be eliminated.
5. Hundreds of thousands of attorneys, accountants, and human resource workers would likely lose their jobs due to the simpler tax system.
6. Real estate values would likely plummet since the tax advantages to ownership would vanish.
7. Mortgage and other consumer debt would likely explode since consumers would be forced to finance the taxes also.
8. We would have to come up with another way to raise or set aside funds for social security.
9. The transition costs of such a change would be extremely expensive.
10. Tax evasion and instances of black market purchasing would likely skyrocket.
11. Consumer prices of many items would go up by a much greater rate than the sales tax rate since raw materials would also be taxed.
12. Retirees and others who have earned the majority of their life income have already had their money hit with income tax; thus, they will pay extra sales tax with money already subjected to income tax.
13. A sales tax is more insidious; i.e. it’s easier for the government to raise taxes without the people knowing it, as opposed to an income tax which shows up on the W2’s and 1040’s every year.http://www.balancedpolitics.org/national_sales_tax.htm
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1341 hrs
Give me a break, Mom. It was a combination of (70%) deregulation in 1999 (Glass-Steagall repeal) and the Dems (and banks) wanting more freedom with risky loans (30%). The banks were willing contributors.
You’re correct Jack. We can look at the The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that was drafted by Enron that helped take down the economy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1407 hrs
Ok Jack - as I have stated before - ad nauseum - that both political parties are corrupt.
Hence the reason I don’t want them to have ANY say in my healthcare decisions. I want them out of it completely. But that won’t happen with the current Washington (and Pat and Jack) mentality of cradle to grave care. You guys do understand the inevitable rationing and the further restrictions on our freedoms and life choices with this right?
To add on - I want means testing on SSI and Medicare. All those wealthy baby boomers globe trotting? Sorry, Charlie, you don’t need to be on welfare - which is basically what it is. Medicare and SSI aren’t trust funds, they are ponzi schemes. Which is why most of us “GenX’rs” have been planning to take care of ourselves since our mid-20s - we understand that these programs are bankrupting us.
Repealing Glass Steagal was a bad idea. Agreed. It was with an R Congress and a D president. Dual corruption. But also note that there were at least 5 attempts by the Bush admin to try an reign some of the shenanigans in. Blocked by the “obstructionist” D’s in the House and Senate.
But don’t tell me that community organizations pressuring banks - ala ACORN to get them to loosen lending standards didn’t contribute.
Further proof of dual corruption - TARP. Started under Bush, continued under Obama.
So I guess my ultimate question to Jack and Pat is….
Why would you trust these idiots with more of your money and more control over your lives? Regardless of which party is in charge at any given moment?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1445 hrs
Problems with a National Sales Tax.
You now just link posts from other blogs? Not much of an argument there, nor much thought. As to your purloined opinions:
1) I already described the items that are exempt….so it’s not regressive at all.
2) No risk… just set it at the correct rate for the revenue you need… and cut spending to boot.
3) People will still buy consumer items, they won’t suddenly become misers. Their pay will increase by a large sum when withholding ends, allowing for a higher percentage of discretionary income. Also, savings and investment is good for the health of the economy. We want more of that, not less.
4) So what?
5) Less attorneys? And the downside is what?
6) No plummeting real estate. Your primary residence is exempt, and only well off people own multiple homes.
7) Finance what debt? If you can’t afford the tax, you wait to make the purchase. You choose when to pay the tax.
8) It won’t affect FICA, but that whole system needs to be replaced with a “public option” anyway. It is failing.
9) The transition would be easy as most retailers already collect sales taxes.. The IRS could be trimmed down too, saving more money.
10) There is already tax evasion. It goes mostly unchecked as tax returns are cumbersome and difficult to audit. It would be easy to track production and sales of goods. If you find people who avoided the tax, simply levy a sizable fine or confiscate the property. If the penalty is stiff, people won’t risk it.
11) Raw materials could be exempted or taxed at a lower rate if need be. The bean counters can work that out. Not an issue
12) Most retirement savings are tax exempt, so no problem. As for the few sources that were taxed already, that might be a valid point. I’m sure that it could be solved by some sort of one time credit or other system. That is hardly a deal breaker
13) Not true at all. No one pays attention to what they had withheld. That’s why the politicians went that route. There are people who think that because they got a refund, they did not pay anything. Sales tax increases would affect taxpayers every single time they bought something. It would be far MORE difficult to raise them.
14) Got anything of your own to add FBP? I have thought this subject through for years. It works well, and far better than income taxes.the enactment of the Fair Tax, or National Sales Tax would create a black market with which consumers would flock to to escape tax payment
All taxes have scofflaws that try to avoid payment. What’s your point? Should we just abolish taxes because some people don’t pay? Perhaps we should also dump speed limits, DWI laws, laws against retail theft…. heck, there are people that want to violate almost every law we have… now aren’t there. Do we still have the laws? Of course we do, because most people obey them and those that don’t are punished. Same goes for national sales tax.
Also, almost every state has a sales tax to some degree, and they seem to be creating some pretty nice revenue streams. No one is flocking anyplace but the malls and Walmart. Sales Tax works…. nuff said.
yea, I’m a conspiracy theorist.
@Jack Yes, I believe that’s what I said.
I’m not going to argue about theories like that. People wind up saying stuff like “No proof? Well, that’s because it’s all hidden from us. No proof IS proof”. It’s like the 9-11 goof-balls. No matter what you tell them or show them, they will always ignore it and claim that “they” are hiding something. Not really worth my time. If “they” have managed to dupe the world into believing, then I’d say they have done yeoman’s work… “they” are entitled to the spoils from we foolish 6 billion deluded Stepford mortals.
——Yes master——what is your bidding——- (I sound like Chris Matthews talking to Obama, don’t I? lol)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1446 hrs
OK Jack - This one just came to me as I was reading an article in our local rag and they were discussing the $18B in earmarks that got stuffed into the Defense Bill this past week.
Couple this with the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback and the U-Con, et al in this healthcare abomination….
Do you think a line-item veto (a real one, not the Frankenstein veto the WI Gov has) would drive some of this corruption out? I think it could certainly tamp down some of the House and Senate vote-buying.
Just a thought.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1528 hrs
TFG,
“I have thought this subject through for years. It works well, and far better than income taxes.”
It works well where?You should think it through for a few more years.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1541 hrs
But that won’t happen with the current Washington (and Pat and Jack) mentality of cradle to grave care.
More Rules for Radicals being applied.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1544 hrs
TFG,
You now just link posts from other blogs? Not much of an argument there, nor much thought.So you came up with the theory of the National Sales Tax and how it will work as an original thought of your own?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1547 hrs
Mom, I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I actually agree with means testing SSI and Medicare.
But having watched and worked with Medicare since its inception, if 100% of the population (including politicians) were in it I think it would be okay. Not perfect, and it certainly isn’t now, but it’s a decent public-private partnership. I’d want it controlled by a non-partisan board, however. And there arer aspects of Healthy Wisconsin that I liked as well.
Glass-Steagal, incidentally, had 90 of 100 senators on board, not that Clinton would have vetoed it anyway. He was as bought as the rest.
On the true veto I have mixed emotions. Under our current moneyed system it will only drive more of it to the president to ensure a correct vote.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 27, 2009 at 1552 hrs
Ok Pat - which rule?
And show me where you aren’t for cradle to grave care furnished via Uncle Sam?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1552 hrs
“So I guess my ultimate question to Jack and Pat is….
Why would you trust these idiots with more of your money and more control over your lives? Regardless of which party is in charge at any given moment?”
When did Jack or I ever say we would trust these idiots with more of our money and control over our live? Is this more Rules for Radicals that you’re whipping out?
You’re thinking about it as either Black or White, Right or Left. We’re attempting break out of the paradigm that both the Right and Left are trapped in and think outside of the box.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1600 hrs
if 100% of the population (including politicians) were in it
Ah - Jack - that is the rub isn’t it. The politicians always seem to exempt themselves from what they impose on the serfs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1600 hrs
“Ok Pat - which rule?
And show me where you aren’t for cradle to grave care furnished via Uncle Sam? “
I think you’re doing it again.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1601 hrs
“And show me where you aren’t for cradle to grave care furnished via Uncle Sam? “
Ok, I’ll play…............show me where I ever made the statement that I am for cradle to grave care furnished via Uncle Sam.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1603 hrs
I’m for a line item veto.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1607 hrs
That’s certainly part of it, Mom, but there is more (See Ten needed fixes for the health care system). If you or I took cash from an outsider and gave away employer assets in return, we’d be prosecuted. If we had inside knowledge and bought or sold stock to benefit our portfolio, we’d again be prosecuted. These guys are immune, and thus are blatantly corrupt. They rip off the taxpayers and don’t even try to cover it up.
And just once I’d like to see the right wing (Owen included) recognize and acknowledge that such corruption has doomed our democracy and we must get private money out of the political system.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 27, 2009 at 1613 hrs
It works well where? You should think it through for a few more years.
Pat, have you got any coherent arguments of your own against it? I gave you my rebuttal to the arguments that you googled up. Nothing substantive to say at all? Well, it’s even a better idea than I thought. As to your question of where it has been tried… well, in almost every state of the union to some extent. It is used by many municipal and county governments as well, to great effect. Since you are so dead set against it, could you show anyplace where a sales tax has failed? Anyplace? Go ahead Pat, I’ll give you some time to google it <key Jeopardy music> ...
So you came up with the theory of the National Sales Tax and how it will work as an original thought of your own?
No, but I did not plagiarize my thoughts and arguments about it either. It is a sound idea and it is in use all over the United States, and all over the world… with great success. You get that counterpoint googled yet? Ok, we’ll go to commercial while we wait…
corruption has doomed our democracy and we must get private money out of the political system.
Entitlements have doomed our Democracy, not corruption. When you have 50% of the populace paying all of the bills, and the other half living off of the labor of the productive 50%, you are doomed. When it becomes in the best interests of voters to vote for a party that is willing to engage in income redistribution to get votes, you are doomed as a nation. When the government directly controls more of the economy that the people do, you are doomed as a nation.
In fact, every time some bill is passed that promised to remove special interest money, the incumbents seem to get a bit more entrenched in office. Heck, just look at Mr. Obama. He had the opportunity to set a good example by following McCain’s lead and going with public financing… and instead, he sold out. Even with public financing, there will be shill groups like Move-On, ACORN, and the unions that will interfere in elections using outside money (or in the case of ACORN, tax-payer money). How can you stop that without ending free speech? You take a great risk when you make laws that outlaw an individuals right to be heard in the public market of ideas during an election. I think that the purely government funded election idea sounds even more dangerous to me than the current system. You want to put the financing of elections into the hands of the very government that is controlled by those same elected officials? Sounds like a great pathway toward tyranny to me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1638 hrs
And please, what in the world is wrong with cradle-to-grave healthcare? Medicare-for-all would be the best thing that could happen to the economy of the US, and you object? Is somebody going to get care they didn’t pay for? The shame of it all.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 27, 2009 at 1641 hrs
So no one has tried a National Sales tax that you’ve been thinking through for years. Well, it sounds far better than the Fair Tax. But, I don’t care much for sales taxes either. I’m not much for taxes at all for that fact, but if there needs to be a system I like the No Tax proposal.
As far as coherent arguments of my own against the National Sales Tax, they would align pretty much with what I cut and pasted for you to read. I’m not quite as eloquent at writing as you are. I could repeat them in my own words if you’d like, but that would be a waste of time for the both of us.
“Since you are so dead set against it, could you show anyplace where a sales tax has failed? Anyplace? Go ahead Pat, I’ll give you some time to google it <key Jeopardy music>”
That would be rule # 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.Neomom taught me that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1655 hrs
“How can you stop that without ending free speech?”
With *OPTIONAL* public funding of campaigns. Politicians can opt out, and take private money, at their peril. Or the can opt in and say goodbye to private obligations. The politician has a right to turn the spigot off, and in the states that have it (AZ, ME, CT) the government makes no attempt at running the campaigns. And 70% of the politicians were elected by choosing public over private cash, so I doubt they’ll change the rules. (Besides, in MA and AZ it was voter initiated.)
Yea, Obama turned it down, but understand that business contributes 8-to-1 over labor. What beat McCain was 8 years of George Bush.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 27, 2009 at 1656 hrs
recognize and acknowledge that such corruption has doomed our democracy and we must get private money out of the political system.
I think is this where you and I differ just a bit Jack. I agree that the addition of private money corrupts the system. Where I disagree is that if, just for giggles, it were even possible to get all private money out of the system (which I doubt) that our politicians would be any less corrupt.
Go back to the philosophy of absolute power corrupts absolutely. If you give them the money from our taxes and the power to make decisions as to how to disburse it to this same group - I don’t think they would do anything different. I believe they would be absolutely, 100%, the same group of corrupt bastards that they are now.
Why? Because they forgot that they went to Washington to serve their constituents.
So while getting private money out is a fine idea, I still believe that the best way to make them less corrupt is to allow them less power and to give them less of my (our) money - not more of it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1707 hrs
Entitlements have doomed our Democracy, not corruption.
To add on to this sentiment by TFG, if I may.
These entitlements put the growth of the government and the money requirements into overdrive. The power and money combined breed corruption.
what in the world is wrong with cradle-to-grave healthcare?
What ever happened to the virtues of free will and self-reliance. I don’t want the government taking care of me, nor do I want the strings that go with it. I also don’t need to push my actual combined tax contribution above 50% (see my post 187) to get my “free” care. Protect me with that provide for the national defense thing - fine. Make personal decisions for me? Nope. You can keep that change.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1715 hrs
Best way to answer that, Mom, is “IF politicians had not taken $125 million in campaign contributions from healthcare interests in 2008 alone, and IF they did not have future contributions now locked in, would they have voted for the giveaway that they did?”
I would argue that they would not have, especially with the majority of voters opposing it. Why would they? There would be zero reason to, with all of the contributions now gone. Why would they have voted to repeal Glass-Steagall with no cash at stake?
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 27, 2009 at 1720 hrs
That would be rule # 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
No, it would be TFG rule number one. Never let people argue against facts with feelings and suppositions. Always call their bluff when you know they have no cards to play.
The politician has a right to turn the spigot off, and in the states that have it
...and what happens to the politician in a tight race who accepts the meager government funds? Well, Obama bowls him over with massive special interest spending and wins easily. I don’t hold it against Obama that he took private financing… except for him lying about it. Taking public financing is a great way to lose an election. The other danger of public financing is deciding who does, and who does not, merit financing. If we leave it as a voluntary system, then there is no problem. Few will utilize it… really only secure incumbents will go that route for the most part. If we talk about legally banning private donations though, that would something I would be very much against.
I still believe that the best way to make them less corrupt is to allow them less power and to give them less of my (our) money - not more of it.
I’ll buy that. If we went back to a weak Federal government that lived by the 10th amendment, we would see far less corruption. Take away all of the progressive nonsense that was added to the federal repertoire and go back to the basics… less power centrally located in that inbred political sewer that we call D.C. Perhaps we could get back to more self reliance and less cradle to grave nanny state. Less Power, Less Corruption.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1725 hrs
“What ever happened to the virtues of free will and self-reliance.”
Yea, and keep those fire trucks off my property, and I have guns so I don’t need you cops near me either!
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 27, 2009 at 1725 hrs
>>> “...and what happens to the politician in a tight race who accepts the meager government funds?”
In the states that have public funding of campaigns, 70% of them won. The people in those states understand the difference.
>>> “Obama bowls him over with massive special interest spending and wins easily.”
No, 8 years of Bush gave Obama the win.
>>> “Taking public financing is a great way to lose an election. “
Not true. See above.
>>> “The other danger of public financing is deciding who does, and who does not, merit financing. “
Not true. If you get the required number of signatures you get the funding.
>>> “Few will utilize it… really only secure incumbents will go that route for the most part.”
Not true.
>>> ” I still believe that the best way to make them less corrupt is to allow them less power and to give them less of my (our) money - not more of it. “
Oh, I see. Why don’t YOU do that then?
See how it works HERE: http://www.wicleanelections.org/
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 27, 2009 at 1740 hrs
Thanks Neomom for bringing the Rules of Radicals to my attention. It’s helped me understand the radical rights tactics.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1741 hrs
And oh…
>>> “... really only secure incumbents will go that route for the most part.”
IF TRUE, that would be great (but it’s not true).
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 27, 2009 at 1743 hrs
what in the world is wrong with cradle-to-grave healthcare?
Cute Jack
But I would argue that public safety - be it police, fire, or the army - would a constitutionally enumerated responsibilty of the government.As Chairman Obama has so eloquently expressed in his disappointment - the Constitution is largely a document of negative responsibiltities - those that the government cannot do to you or compel you to do.
Not seeing how we get providing taxpayer-funded health insurance (or medicare) for all out of that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1809 hrs
ahem - that should be
responsibilities
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1810 hrs
Russ Feingold will be having his annual Washington County town hall next week @ the Farmington Town Hall.
I plan on attending.
Posted by Smeety on December 27, 2009 at 1853 hrs
>>> “But I would argue that public safety - be it police, fire, or the army - would a constitutionally enumerated responsibilty of the government. “
Where?
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 27, 2009 at 1854 hrs
Smeety, I keep getting these requests for money from the Feingold campaign, so when you see him please tell him that “I’ll keep his thoughts in mind the next time I consider donations.”
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 27, 2009 at 1858 hrs
Ok - you technically got me on the fire and police department with the Feds - but that becomes a state issue with the 10th Amendment. However, there are all sorts of stuff in there about the army, navy, and militias (National Guard).
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
...
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Oddly - I wonder how the Cornhusker kickback and the Medicare Advantage/Medicaid carve-outs with the other states can stand up to this one. Yes, I understand that NE doesn’t have a port, but this seems to limit Congress from making other states pick up the tab for others with regulated commerce….
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
...
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
...
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1928 hrs
Frankly, I think they have several legal issues (mandates, et al), that is, IF it passes… and my gut says that it will not pass.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 27, 2009 at 1931 hrs
I pray your gut is correct.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 27, 2009 at 1941 hrs
I think (hope) it makes it through conference, passes the House, but fails in the senate.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 27, 2009 at 1949 hrs
Even if it passes, I find it highly unlikely that it will stand up to constitutional scrutiny when challenged. Especially with the favorable treatment it gives select states.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1011 hrs
Shouldn’t there be a law against Legislating While Intoxicated? I mean one drunk driver can harm a handful of people. Imagine the damage from a drunk Senator.
As Allahpundit over at Hot Air put it - “When they said they were filled with the spirit of Ted Kennedy, they weren’t kidding” or “Well, I guess this explains why they think the bill will be good for the economy.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1015 hrs
I suspect that there will indeed be constitutional challenges, not just in favoring states but also mandating purchases.
And Mom, chances are he was coming from a five-martini lunch with a lobbyist.
Posted by Jack Lohman on December 28, 2009 at 1025 hrs
Chances are that Max is the type of guy that will be administering the government single payer health care system. God help us all.
Constitutional challenges to health care? Perhaps, but a single Obama Supreme Court appointment could change all of that. Challenges will take years to reach that point… unless the GOP is scrappier than I give it credit for. There are too many “let’s get along” middle of the road Newt Gingrich followers out there for that party to be able to influence the process much. Perhaps BHO will even try to pack the court the way Roosevelt did. If he does so before November, there is no one who would stand in his way.
Nothing will surprise me over the next 12 months, neither in it’s extreme nature nor it’s speed of passage.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 28, 2009 at 1106 hrs
Wow, this thread has certainly been active since I left. It seems since I gave Pat four reasons that she asked for off the top of my head why government health care might deny more patients than private health care, I’m a retard. Jason questions one of Jack’s less than credible sources and is a deemed a nerdy 7th grader.
TFG and neomom, you have infinitely more patience than I could ever muster. You are arguing with people who decry name calling, but are the only ones are the board calling anyone names, who demand documentation, for every statement, while backing theirs up with almost random uncredible sources, some of which are plain silly, others that contractict each other. (I really love the don’t tax income worked for, but tax the crap out of every other type of income) Way to tax your way straight to socialism.
I’ll stack my 25 years in cost accounting and finance and teaching economics against Jack’s running a mobile scanning truck as creditials any day. But you aren’t going to win any arguments with these two. Jack has to pin his failing on some imaginary group of shadowy figures conspiring to keep him down. I actually can understand that mindset, but trusting the government ( a much bigger group of thieves) to solve all of our problems, is just naive.
Pat (claims to be above right versus left) yet argues every topic from a socialist point of view.)
I’m socially moderate, fiscally conservative, (pretty libertarian) and in some ways I have the same distrust of government that Jack has of capitalism. I can usually find some common ground with most people, but arguments with these two just aren’t worth the time.
That being said, I hope all of you have a blessed new year, and I hope that I’m wrong and somehow the final health bill isn’t the absolute nightmare I fear it is going to be.
Doug, while I agree that parts of this will be found unconsitutional, I don’t think that will invalidate the entirety of the bill. We are going to be stuck with this drain on the economy for a long time to come.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 30, 2009 at 1614 hrs
Curt -
From a fellow mostly Libertarian - may you also have a blessed New Year.
But this doesn’t have to be over yet. MA is holding their special election to fill Teddy’s seat on Jan 19. There is a somewhat subdued (ie - not the hoopla of the Doug Hoffman campaign) groundswell for Scott Brown. Its out on blogs, getting onto the Tea Party sites and is also making the rounds on the As A Mom sites.
Its a long shot, but a Scott Brown win would bring the D’s back to 59.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 30, 2009 at 1730 hrs
Feel free to email me anytime you think an extra phone call or email or showing up somewhere will help. I wish I could be involved more than I am, but I have a family and a very demanding job. But I do pitch in when I can. I’m proud of the tea party movement, and I hope they can keep their focus on limited government and lower taxes. The right gets derailed on the social issues. And yet if you can rein in government, many of those issues will correct themselves.
I still live and vote by “Government isn’t the solution to the problem it is the problem”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 30, 2009 at 1817 hrs
I think all of us here were in need of something like this , thanks for providing writing this post.
Teeth Whitening
Acai Berry
Acai BerryPosted by Teeth Whitening on January 19, 2010 at 0125 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134037
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:32 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 82
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 03:05 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).