LGP Political Discussion Thread

[doublem]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/opini ... ef=opinion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[youtube][/youtube]

Sen. Bernie Sanders.

The cost are about 1 trillion, to 1.5 trillion for 10 years.

[Ron`]

I was just asked to participate in an advisory round-table discussion for one (reasonably top) US politician. He requested our opinions on a variety of economic topics - and healthcare is the one I know the least about. I always have the option to stay silent, but I suspect that the whole discussion has the potential to turn into a conservative love-fest. And because my friends know that I have no problem with acting as the devil's advocate (I think that the main benefit of similar discussions is to hear both sides of every story), I have one simple request:

Could somebody point me to website(s) that make a convincing (preferably, supported by the actual cost/benefit estimates) case FOR the universal government-sponsored healthcare reform? (Especially if those sites talk about how much it would cost to hire all those governmental employees running after old people and forcing them to choose how to DIE. )

Once again for people with reading comprehension problems: FOR the universal government-sponsored healthcare reform...

Thanks!!

Good luck Tomas, there is none much like the stimulus bill that was enacted and in place. Keep the masses uninformed and keep chanting "health care for all". This is the majority party pushing everything they ever wanted or dreamed for down the throats of the public despite the current economic conditions. It will take another generation to undo this political blitzkrieg. The american public is at fault though for not considering the extreme tilt of power with a largely emotionally based voter record. Pure genius politically, but pure pain to come for the populous.

[doublem]

I was just asked to participate in an advisory round-table discussion for one (reasonably top) US politician. He requested our opinions on a variety of economic topics - and healthcare is the one I know the least about. I always have the option to stay silent, but I suspect that the whole discussion has the potential to turn into a conservative love-fest. And because my friends know that I have no problem with acting as the devil's advocate (I think that the main benefit of similar discussions is to hear both sides of every story), I have one simple request:

Could somebody point me to website(s) that make a convincing (preferably, supported by the actual cost/benefit estimates) case FOR the universal government-sponsored healthcare reform? (Especially if those sites talk about how much it would cost to hire all those governmental employees running after old people and forcing them to choose how to DIE. )

Once again for people with reading comprehension problems: FOR the universal government-sponsored healthcare reform...

Thanks!!

Good luck Tomas, there is none much like the stimulus bill that was enacted and in place. Keep the masses uninformed and keep chanting "health care for all". This is the majority party pushing everything they ever wanted or dreamed for down the throats of the public despite the current economic conditions. It will take another generation to undo this political blitzkrieg. The american public is at fault though for not considering the extreme tilt of power with a largely emotionally based voter record. Pure genius politically, but pure pain to come for the populous.

What are you talking about? Health care has been an issue for decades, Clinton tried to get it passed, Nixon thought about it. Clearly the masses are uninformed when most people don't even know what socialized medicine is, or what they would be paying, or what the plan is. America is something like 37th in the world in health care, yet we pay more then anyone else, have more people uninsured then any other country, 20k people die every because they can't get proper care. America is outdated, it is literally a dying, old country, countries are passing us by all the time, why are we the last industrialized nation to not have health care for all its citizens?

[Ron`]

What are you talking about? Health care has been an issue for decades, Clinton tried to get it passed, Nixon thought about it. Clearly the masses are uninformed when most people don't even know what socialized medicine is, or what they would be paying, or what the plan is. America is something like 37th in the world in health care, yet we pay more then anyone else, have more people uninsured then any other country, 20k people die every because they can't get proper care. America is outdated, it is literally a dying, old country, countries are passing us by all the time, why are we the last industrialized nation to not have health care for all its citizens?

again you want to incite something when this was a side bar discussion between a long time friend and myself. We have had many disagreements over the years over views, but never have attacked each other. May your ideals lead you to a long life and prosperity.

[DelPen]

Two stats that Deomcrats are throwing around are the 14,000 people losing their health insurance everyday and the 47 million uninsured. Well seeing as how we are losing upwards of 500,000 jobs every month that easily explains part of that number, solve the unemployment problem and a that issue is solved as well.

But the breakout of the 47 million is very interesting. Out of that number, 20% are illegals or undocumented workers, if they don't want to play by the rules then why should we pay for their health care?. 40% make $50,000 or more, they could buy some form of coverage but I can see how that would be hard under the current prices or some can afford it but don't want to spend the money. 30% qualify for programs already in place like Medicaid and SCHIP but don't enroll. Finally we have just 10% or about 5 million people that don't fall into either category.

So why don't we have a bill that does two things. 1) allow insurance companies to pool across state lines so the individual can shop for their own plans whcih allows portability. This should bring costs down and some of those people who are chosing not to entroll can now afford to. 2) look to expand the coverage of Medicaid and SCHIP to include those 5 million people. I know there were some sob stories a few years back when Bush vetoed a SCHIP coverage bill but the income levels were ridiculously high and one story had a family who owned a business and chose not to buy a health plan so they could have a more lavish lifestyle but if Democrats want to get something done then do that to start.

They also need to reform the current programs top be more cost efficient, if they can fix Medicare, Medicaid and the VA Hospitals then maybe let them exapnd programs but they waste so much money now simply through inefficiencies.

Also, 76% of the country is happy with their current health care and don't want anything changed that would threaten their current service. Sorry to the other 24% but why screw over 76% to make sure that the 9% who have coverage but don't like it, the 15% of the country who is uninsured or really just the 1.6% that can't get insurance are taken care of?

[doublem]

Two stats that Deomcrats are throwing around are the 14,000 people losing their health insurance everyday and the 47 million uninsured. Well seeing as how we are losing upwards of 500,000 jobs every month that easily explains part of that number, solve the unemployment problem and a that issue is solved as well.

But the breakout of the 47 million is very interesting. Out of that number, 20% are illegals or undocumented workers, if they don't want to play by the rules then why should we pay for their health care?. 40% make $50,000 or more, they could buy some form of coverage but I can see how that would be hard under the current prices or some can afford it but don't want to spend the money. 30% qualify for programs already in place like Medicaid and SCHIP but don't enroll. Finally we have just 10% or about 5 million people that don't fall into either category.

So why don't we have a bill that does two things. 1) allow insurance companies to pool across state lines so the individual can shop for their own plans whcih allows portability. This should bring costs down and some of those people who are chosing not to entroll can now afford to. 2) look to expand the coverage of Medicaid and SCHIP to include those 5 million people. I know there were some sob stories a few years back when Bush vetoed a SCHIP coverage bill but the income levels were ridiculously high and one story had a family who owned a business and chose not to buy a health plan so they could have a more lavish lifestyle but if Democrats want to get something done then do that to start.

They also need to reform the current programs top be more cost efficient, if they can fix Medicare, Medicaid and the VA Hospitals then maybe let them exapnd programs but they waste so much money now simply through inefficiencies.

Also, 76% of the country is happy with their current health care and don't want anything changed that would threaten their current service. Sorry to the other 24% but why screw over 76% to make sure that the 9% who have coverage but don't like it, the 15% of the country who is uninsured or really just the 1.6% that can't get insurance are taken care of?

Where do you get where numbers? Unemployment may be a problem at the moment, but it won't answer the fundamental problems with HC, which has gone up in cost 119% over the last decade. Some jobs can't afford to get people covered, and this also doesn't explain why Americans pay more and get near the bottom of treatment. Reforming Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA would be great and are important, but those are programs for certain people. People that are certainly happy with their program, that is great nothing will change for them, it will simple be an option for others, and the people that don't have it now. 76% of the population won't be screwed over becasue they most likely won't be paying for it anyone, I really don't think this is an issue that is effecting just 1.6% of people.

[HomerPenguin]

Out of that number, 20% are illegals or undocumented workers, if they don't want to play by the rules then why should we pay for their health care?

"We" already do, every time they wind up in an emergency room.

[Ron`]

Out of that number, 20% are illegals or undocumented workers, if they don't want to play by the rules then why should we pay for their health care?

"We" already do, every time they wind up in an emergency room.

Hence why those that have coverage pay inflated rates....

[DelPen]

Out of that number, 20% are illegals or undocumented workers, if they don't want to play by the rules then why should we pay for their health care?

"We" already do, every time they wind up in an emergency room.

So then how about he get back to enforcing current laws on the books instead of creating a new layer of inefficient bureaucracy? Obama's solution won;t bring costs down for illegals abusing the system since they still won't be paying taxes and won't be contributing to the system. You'll just see higher taxes instead of higher premiums. A little better management in triage to send these people on to a clinic for a cold instead of seeing a doctor in the ER would be a great first step here.

[pittsoccer33]

So why don't we have a bill that does two things. 1) allow insurance companies to pool across state lines so the individual can shop for their own plans whcih allows portability. This should bring costs down and some of those people who are chosing not to entroll can now afford to. 2) look to expand the coverage of Medicaid and SCHIP to include those 5 million people. I know there were some sob stories a few years back when Bush vetoed a SCHIP coverage bill but the income levels were ridiculously high and one story had a family who owned a business and chose not to buy a health plan so they could have a more lavish lifestyle but if Democrats want to get something done then do that to start.

The reason those aren't part of the bill is because they do not work to further a nanny state or create any czars. Medicare is broke, Medicaid is broke, Social Security is broke, Cash for Clunkers is even broke. But somehow these politicians are going to save taxpayers all this money by spending more of it.

[HomerPenguin]

Out of that number, 20% are illegals or undocumented workers, if they don't want to play by the rules then why should we pay for their health care?

"We" already do, every time they wind up in an emergency room.

So then how about he get back to enforcing current laws on the books instead of creating a new layer of inefficient bureaucracy? Obama's solution won;t bring costs down for illegals abusing the system since they still won't be paying taxes and won't be contributing to the system. You'll just see higher taxes instead of higher premiums. A little better management in triage to send these people on to a clinic for a cold instead of seeing a doctor in the ER would be a great first step here.

So the problem with Obama's plan is that it's not going to fix something that's already broken and that it was never intended to fix in the first place?

[GaryRissling]

As hospitals and health care are not governed in the least by the free market, they are as corrupt and as inefficient as they come. Kickbacks to executives in exchange for their business is the norm. I haven't read the thread, but it's probably already been said that the best way to improve overall health care service and cost is to virtually eliminate, not expand insurance coverage. Expanding coverage will only serve to further line the pockets of health care administrators and executives. Limiting coverage will increase competition and drive costs exponentially lower.

Edit: IMO, we should be looking more to increase competition between hospitals more so than insurance companies.

[HomerPenguin]

As hospitals and health care are not governed in the least by the free market, they are as corrupt and as inefficient as they come. Kickbacks to executives in exchange for their business is the norm. I haven't read the thread, but it's probably already been said that the best way to improve overall health care service and cost is to virtually eliminate, not expand insurance coverage. Expanding coverage will only serve to further line the pockets of health care administrators and executives. Limiting coverage will increase competition and drive costs exponentially lower.

I think it has been mentioned earlier, but it probably bears repeating. Catastrophic coverage only; like car insurance. Of course, the lobbie$ for doctors, hospitals, and insurers would all soil themselves if you suggested something like this, which is why it won't happen.

[Shyster]

As hospitals and health care are not governed in the least by the free market, they are as corrupt and as inefficient as they come.

I agree that hospitals aren’t governed much by the free market. They are, however, heavily governed by the government. In fact, hospitals and the health care industry in general are some of the most heavily regulated businesses in existence. I'm a health care lawyer; a significant part of what I do for a living is health care regulatory compliance. Doctors and hospitals have to comply with thousands of pages of statutes and regulations, including laws that specifically outlaw kickbacks (the federal anti-kickback law, section 1128B of the Social Security Act) and quid pro quo patient referrals (the Stark anti–self-referral law, section 1877 of the Social Security Act), not to mention the Medicare Conditions of Participation for each form of provider. If you can name it, there are regulations affecting it. If you think that more government will improve health care, then think again. The government already has its fingers in pretty much every form of health care delivery.

[Ron`]

Lets see which program has the government managed effectively that provides a safety net for the citizens? Social Security, Medicade, Medicare.... need we look further?

[DelPen]

These Youtube's of the town halls where congressmen are getting dlammed are awesome. I love the one of Sibelius and Spector. Sibelius tells the crowd to stop booing Arlen for not reading a bill that hasn't been written and Arlen follows up with they have to move fast on this.

Why to all of these bastards think it's acceptable to tell us to pound sand when we expect them to read bills they are passing into law?

[CHF]

Health care reform is sorely needed, but this bill is not the answer. Well, it is, but it's the wrong one. I posted the paragraph in another thread, but am pasting it here to sum up my feelings:

Let me say I hate the plan that is being proposed. It will be disastrous and lead to worse and more expensive health care. On most issues I lean to the libertarian side of the grid. But free market arguments can not be applied to medicine where there is no possibility for a true free market. You can reject a merchant's price with no ill effect other than missing out on their goods or services. You can not reject medical treatment without detrimental health effects and/or death. A doctor in a "free-market" system would have power over your life or death, power they could choose to exercise based on your ability to pay. I am a free market advocate, but there is no such thing in health care.

[Ron`]

It's this simple in my opinion. We can't pay for what we have already enacted since the election in the next three generations. This is crazy to push through something that can't be paid for on top of it. Need or not, right or wrong, it can't be pushed through as a further deficit. It's time to tighten up, invest in what is wise and pay our bills.

[Ron`]

These Youtube's of the town halls where congressmen are getting dlammed are awesome. I love the one of Sibelius and Spector. Sibelius tells the crowd to stop booing Arlen for not reading a bill that hasn't been written and Arlen follows up with they have to move fast on this.

Why to all of these bastards think it's acceptable to tell us to pound sand when we expect them to read bills they are passing into law?

My last email to mister Spector was that I would never ever vote for him again after his position on the stimulous bill. Which should be relooked at now to draw back the available funding imo, you don't hear a thing about that though do you. That is pure pork yet to be spent. A enacted slush fund for the government which our children will pay for for generations.

[Geezer]

Lets see which program has the government managed effectively that provides a safety net for the citizens? Social Security, Medicade, Medicare.... need we look further?

To me that says it all Ron. To those of us that have been around to have witnessed how brown numbers are used to claim certain new programs would not be expensive; officials in both parties have played numbers games to justify their positions. We referred to brown numbers as being puuled out of an an area adjacent to your hip pocket.

[Ron`]

Agree Geezer, they all skew the data to support whatever they want, both major parties. At some point the american public has to realize how much eternal personal debt is being place on them and their children via legislation or just plain executive action. But maybe the vast majority is so far in over their heads already that they don't care or can't even recognize reality anymore. I believe the number is 80K for every living citizen right now just to pay for what has already been enacted and the war efforts. Surely we can absorb more for universal health care, cap and trade, etc etc. This is a foolish plan to get every issue or idealogical plan through in a failing economy.

[Ron`]

as a followup this should explain the seriousness of the problem. Taxes will have to go up to support what is alread in place, let alone what is yet to come. Notice the graph, personal tax revenue has dropped drastically, but corporate is a comlete crash...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_plummeting_taxes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[DelPen]

as a followup this should explain the seriousness of the problem. Taxes will have to go up to support what is alread in place, let alone what is yet to come. Notice the graph, personal tax revenue has dropped drastically, but corporate is a comlete crash...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_plummeting_taxes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We'll probably see raises in state income tax for those that have that and property taxes since preoprty tax reciepts ahve also plummeted. From my experience in the mortgage industry, if the bank won't recoup their costs on foreclosure and sale they will charge the loan off which means taxes go unpaid and the best thing that can happen is the town or county takes the property. Jefferson County in AL might need the National Guard deployed since it has to lay off pretty much their entire Sherif's Office excpet for prison guards to save money because they are broke. This is also why school busgets are being cut, because people stopped paying their property taxes when they stopped paying their mortgages.

It will be interesting to see how many people who are close to whatever threshold Obama wants to tax at the highest rate and if somehow reducing their income will save them money. We could see billions in tax revenues lost instead of lowering taxes which makes th cost of business cheaper, more people make more money and more tax revenues are gathered. It's work every time it's been tried with Kennedy, Reagan and Bush yet for some reason liberals always go back to punishing the succesful which hurts everyone.

[AlexPKeaton]

I can't believe that the Dems are this stupid.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32298122/ns ... itol_hill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[pittsoccer33]

I can't believe that the Dems are this stupid.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32298122/ns ... itol_hill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

just another reason why they wanted to ram this all thru and get it passed before the public started to learn whats in it. as an angry man (a democrat) said to steny hoyer in new york "you want to shove this bill down our throats in 3 or 4 weeks when it took the president 6 months to figure out what kind of dog he wanted"