LGP Political Discussion Thread

[topshelf]

A majority of money going in is not paying for CEO salries, etc. To say that is ludicrous and shows that you are incapable of having a rational discussion on the topic if you actually think that.

Hey man, I stated in my first post of this forum that I didn't understand the whole concept of the health care system. I based this off of these links:
http://machineslikeus.com/news/where-mo ... -us-system
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/ ... uch-money/ (The graph on this page tells a nice story).
http://www.healthcareforall.org/healthcare_crisis.html

At least I admitted that I wasn't overly knowledgeable of the situation. I am not attacking anyone, and was looking for good discussion. Your snap back actually shows you're incapable of having a rational conversation on a subject you disagree with. We're all just trying to figure everything out. Calm down.

I think the issue with this thing on page 72 would be the vagueness of it. What limit is placed on the governments regulations? Can the make the rules so prohibitive it forces "competitors" to leave the market?

All the nit picky stuff is open to interpretation. The overall issue is that this is a hybrid social/private health care solution that has no precedent of working anywhere else. I'm not sure I trust a government that just threw hundreds of billions at the economy in an attempt to quick fix (that didn't do anything really) to implement something totally new. Especially considering no one has read the damn thing.

I can see that. "What standards" would be a good question, indeed. If done right, it would be a great thing. Like you said, everything is open to interpretation.

[Ron`]

A majority of money going in is not paying for CEO salries, etc. To say that is ludicrous and shows that you are incapable of having a rational discussion on the topic if you actually think that.

If he really believes that, just insert federal employee instead of CEO. One that will not have to take the government plan.

This legislation esentially sets the stage for turning over the entire health care system to the government period. Not our representatives we elect, but government agencies and government employees. Held accountable by nobody or any market force.... Once passed there will be no legislation that can undo the federal control that will be held. Think EPA, FDA etc. they can act unilaterally without any legislative process required.... The American public will be completely shut out.

The other point is that once started there will be quickly no private options and no chance to return to a private system. Talk taxes against employers is you want, but the taxes will be cheaper than providing insurance. If they aren't they will just eliminate more jobs. The remainder of the costs will be passed on to the people once again either way. Figures/estimates right now are that those that are covered will be expected to pay 60% of the cost either way under this proposal. Along with the costs of being taxed for any employer contributions you may recieve.

[Ron`]

The ambiguity of the actual bill is by design. Once it's enacted the federal government will decide the details without any legislation required. Do you understand that point? They don't want anyone to know what they are selling, the fine print will be decided later by federal employees that will not be participating in the plan.... There will be no turning back either once the private systems cease to exist...

[HomerPenguin]

If he really believes that, just insert federal employee instead of CEO. One that will not have to take the government plan.

Really? You know a lot of people in the federal government making $24 million a year?

http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2 ... scene.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[HomerPenguin]

Admittedly, I haven't spent much time with the bill because I moved to Edmonton several months ago. I've experienced the social health care here and can say that it's done right here...

There is a lot of talk that the bill infringes on a lot of civil liberties...

Sorry for all the snipping, but can you square this for me? You seem to like single-payer in Canada, but I'm willing to bet that the people who are opposed to this reform plan on the basis of infringement of civil liberties would literally lay an egg if you suggested going to single-payer here. Is it your experience that the single-payer Canadian model does not infringe on your civil liberties?

[HomerPenguin]

Shouldn't there be, though? When the govt is trying to pass a bill that will affect the majority of the population in a dramatic way, the people should also have a vote.

I honestly don't know. Electing representatives whose job is to inform themselves on the issues and act according to their best judgment is, to my mind and apparently the founders' minds as well, preferable to entrusting our country to a never-ending series of referenda voted on by a bunch of people who "think" like Miss Teen South Carolina. On the other hand, whatever value is to be gained from electing informed representatives is completely compromised when those representatives realize that they can sell themselves to anybody who waves two nickels in their faces. IMO you're screwed either way.

[bhaw]

Admittedly, I haven't spent much time with the bill because I moved to Edmonton several months ago. I've experienced the social health care here and can say that it's done right here...

There is a lot of talk that the bill infringes on a lot of civil liberties...

Sorry for all the snipping, but can you square this for me? You seem to like single-payer in Canada, but I'm willing to bet that the people who are opposed to this reform plan on the basis of infringement of civil liberties would literally lay an egg if you suggested going to single-payer here. Is it your experience that the single-payer Canadian model does not infringe on your civil liberties?

The point is that if you're going to socialize health care at all, you might as well do it in full instead of this hybrid stuff that will probably lead to socialized medicine 10-15 years down the road anyways, but after trillions of dollars have been wasted.

I don't feel any liberty infringement with how they do it here. You can go to any doctor you want (assuming they are taking new patients). Everything we've experienced so far is paid for, so if you're talking competition: a) you don't need competition when everything is paid for and b) health care is universally free to everyone so it's not like I'm paying premiums while others are getting it for free.

As for personal info... we've never been asked for anything more than name, address, phone number, and social health insurance number.

It also isn't really single player... the socialized insurance is free to everyone, but the other insurances exist with the additional coverage provided by employers or by additional coverage you can purchase on your own. The government system covers most everything, but the few things it doesn't are covered by companies like Blue Cross.

I think what makes it successful in Canada is that the government isn't entering in direct competition to the other insurers.

[Ron`]

If he really believes that, just insert federal employee instead of CEO. One that will not have to take the government plan.

Really? You know a lot of people in the federal government making $24 million a year?

http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2 ... scene.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm betting the total bill for all the government employees to oversee health care will be a tidy sum. They don't have to make a profit to earn their paychecks either. Just keep reaching into our pockets.

[Geezer]

If he really believes that, just insert federal employee instead of CEO. One that will not have to take the government plan.

Really? You know a lot of people in the federal government making $24 million a year?

http://www.bobcesca.com/blog-archives/2 ... scene.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm betting the total bill for all the government employees to oversee health care will be a tidy sum. They don't have to make a profit to earn their paychecks either. Just keep reaching into our pockets.

The cost per clunker is 6,000 per car vs. the 4500 max per vehicle. That's goverment markup of over 33% per car since not all vehicles qualify for the max. That's for a program that is very simple as opposed to a complex issue like health care.

[HomerPenguin]

It also isn't really single player... the socialized insurance is free to everyone, but the other insurances exist with the additional coverage provided by employers or by additional coverage you can purchase on your own. The government system covers most everything, but the few things it doesn't are covered by companies like Blue Cross.

The fact that you can buy supplemental insurance to pay for things at the margins that the government system doesn't cover doesn't mean that the system isn't single payer. Medicare operates in the same way, and that's a single-payer model as well. When the government is handling the bulk of the medical coverage and is the primary agent negotiating with doctors and hospitals over rates, that's single payer.

I think what makes it successful in Canada is that the government isn't entering in direct competition to the other insurers.

No, because the only private insurance is supplemental plans to pay for things the government plan doesn't cover. There's no competition because there's no private major medical insurance market at all.

[bhaw]

Ok, well regardless, it doesn't correlate to the plan being offered by Obama. I don't know what point you are even trying to make anymore. If all of that was a lesson in what "single-player" means, then mission accomplished I guess.

[HomerPenguin]

Ok, well regardless, it doesn't correlate to the plan being offered by Obama. I don't know what point you are even trying to make anymore. If all of that was a lesson in what "single-player" means, then mission accomplished I guess.

I'm actually in favor of single-payer. I think, like you, that this half-measure giveaway to big insurance may be worse than doing nothing and certainly will be worse than a real reform. I just think it's helpful to have somebody who is actually living under that system note that they don't feel like it's been an infringement on their civil liberties, because that argument would certainly be made against any single payer proposal.

[bhaw]

Ok, well regardless, it doesn't correlate to the plan being offered by Obama. I don't know what point you are even trying to make anymore. If all of that was a lesson in what "single-player" means, then mission accomplished I guess.

I'm actually in favor of single-payer. I think, like you, that this half-measure giveaway to big insurance is probably going to be worse than doing nothing and certainly worse than real reform. I just think it's helpful to have somebody who is actually living under that system note that they don't feel like it's been an infringement on their civil liberties, because that argument would certainly be made against any single payer proposal.

If done right, there's no infringement.

To make people favor it: a) it would have to come from taxes (which aren't that much higher here contrary to popular belief), and this would probably mean re-evaluating government spending as a whole, b) they would have to find a way to execute it without asking for un-needed information, and c) it has to cut the out of pocket expenses down to pretty much zero for most routine health care.

If the bill made it so that people would not be paying out of pocket expenses (co-pays, deductibles, etc), you would instantly win a huge chunk of people. The slight bump in taxes we are experiencing by living here is outweighed immediately by the savings by having our first child. Instead of having to come up with 5-10k in bills even while covered by insurance, we will probably get out of this under $500. And all of that will be option items that one would never have to incur (private hospital room, 3D ultrasound). However, since the government option is simply another version of Cigna, Blue Cross, or what have you, it seems totally unnecessary. And what specifically are they doing to actually eliminate the waste currently occurring in health care?

I think we are in agreement... if they are going to reform it, they need to go all the way. What they are trying to push now won't accomplish anything but wasting money and paying off special interest groups.

[Hockeynut!]

I thought this was an interesting article discussing some of the info making the rounds.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/ ... tml?csp=34" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[shafnutz05]

I thought this was an interesting article discussing some of the info making the rounds.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/ ... tml?csp=34" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I thought this was interesting too...Pelosi essentially calling dissent "un-American". What is interesting is the fact that this same woman was the one trying to ram this bill through Congress with ZERO debate before the August recess...talk about speaking with a forked tongue.

And funny that conservative "radicals" are being accused of shouting down politicians at town halls. Are these the same people that are praising students for practicing their right to free speech when they yell and throw things at conservative speakers on college campuses?

[HomerPenguin]

I thought this was interesting too...Pelosi essentially calling dissent "un-American".

Very bad choice of words there, I agree. But it's worth noting that they're not calling "dissent" un-American, just the kind of dissent that seeks only to yell louder than everybody else to prevent any other voices from being heard.

Are these the same people that are praising students for practicing their right to free speech when they yell and throw things at conservative speakers on college campuses?

Who praises that kind of stuff?

[topshelf]

I thought this was an interesting article discussing some of the info making the rounds.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/ ... tml?csp=34" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for the link! Informative, as it sheds some light on all the stories that are flying around.

I thought this was interesting too...Pelosi essentially calling dissent "un-American". What is interesting is the fact that this same woman was the one trying to ram this bill through Congress with ZERO debate before the August recess...talk about speaking with a forked tongue.

And funny that conservative "radicals" are being accused of shouting down politicians at town halls. Are these the same people that are praising students for practicing their right to free speech when they yell and throw things at conservative speakers on college campuses?

That's politics in a nutshell, man. Not saying it's right, it's just the way that both sides operate. The Republicans did it if you opposed the Bush Doctrine, now the Dems are doing it if you oppose the Health Care Bill.

"If you aren't with us, you're against us."

[ExPatriatePen]

I thought this was interesting too...Pelosi essentially calling dissent "un-American".

Very bad choice of words there, I agree. But it's worth noting that they're not calling "dissent" un-American, just the kind of dissent that seeks only to yell louder than everybody else to prevent any other voices from being heard.

You mean like the Dems intention to use the Reconciliation process?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconcilia ... ongress%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[HomerPenguin]

I thought this was interesting too...Pelosi essentially calling dissent "un-American".

Very bad choice of words there, I agree. But it's worth noting that they're not calling "dissent" un-American, just the kind of dissent that seeks only to yell louder than everybody else to prevent any other voices from being heard.

You mean like the Dems intention to use the Reconciliation process?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconcilia ... ongress%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

OK, sure.

[GaryRissling]

***By reading the post below, you agree to not turn the poster in to the ministry of information at flag@whitehouse.gov****

But I also care about democracy, and the deal between Big Pharma and the White House frankly worries me. It's bad enough when industry lobbyists extract concessions from members of Congress, which happens all the time. But when an industry gets secret concessions out of the White House in return for a promise to lend the industry's support to a key piece of legislation, we're in big trouble. That's called extortion: An industry is using its capacity to threaten or prevent legislation as a means of altering that legislation for its own benefit. And it's doing so at the highest reaches of our government, in the office of the president.

When the industry support comes with an industry-sponsored ad campaign in favor of that legislation, the threat to democracy is even greater. Citizens end up paying for advertisements designed to persuade them that the legislation is in their interest. In this case, those payments come in the form of drug prices that will be higher than otherwise, stretching years into the future.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/08/10/pharma/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...and this is from Clinton cabinet member, and Obama fanboy (not to mention a member of his transition team), Robert Reich, though it sounds like it could have been written by the likes of Beck. Any health care bill passed by this congress and this administration will be an unmitigated disaster, full of cronyism and payoffs...if it stays afloat and even comes close to satisfying the needs of the public, it will be at an exorbitant cost in order to finance the corruption intentionally built into it.

[Ron`]

I thought this was an interesting article discussing some of the info making the rounds.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/ ... tml?csp=34" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for the link! Informative, as it sheds some light on all the stories that are flying around.

I thought this was interesting too...Pelosi essentially calling dissent "un-American". What is interesting is the fact that this same woman was the one trying to ram this bill through Congress with ZERO debate before the August recess...talk about speaking with a forked tongue.

And funny that conservative "radicals" are being accused of shouting down politicians at town halls. Are these the same people that are praising students for practicing their right to free speech when they yell and throw things at conservative speakers on college campuses?

That's politics in a nutshell, man. Not saying it's right, it's just the way that both sides operate. The Republicans did it if you opposed the Bush Doctrine, now the Dems are doing it if you oppose the Health Care Bill.

"If you aren't with us, you're against us."

You have found the truth... It's not what is in this bill's ambiguous facts, the real reason none of those pushing it have read it. It's a gateway to complete federal control of the health care system. Once enacted there will be no legislative action that can change, obstruct or shut it down going forward ... A complete steam roll of the system going forward.

[bh]

I just don't understand this whole thing. On the news they talk about so many people being without health care, but isn't it really that they just don't have insurance? Health care is a service and insurance is a service but they are two different things, not one and the same. It just seems that this whole effort is misdirected. Certain people need health care for various conditions, that's not debatable, but if the costs of care were small then insurance wouldn't be needed. The problem is that the cost of care is too high. Shouldn't the effort be directed at ways to reduce the cost of the actual care, not to try and reduce the cost of insurance to essentially nothing? When something is offered for free, demand will rise. When demand rises and supply remains the same, cost must go up. So to me it seems this whole thing is going to raise the actual cost of care which is what the main problem is anyways. I just doesn't make sense to me.

[pittsoccer33]

I just don't understand this whole thing. On the news they talk about so many people being without health care, but isn't it really that they just don't have insurance?

Yes and that is no coincidence. But this is not about reducing the cost of healthcare (if it was they would start with more limits on tort and open up competition across state lines). It is about forcing government control on behalf of power hungry Statists like Obama, Pelosi, Frank and company.

Once they are paying for your medical treatments they can begin banning anything and everything that could hurt you. They'll continue targeting caffiene, junk food, tobacco, alcohol, nutritional supplements, fast food, firearms, and more.

Bureaucrats will tell you what you must feed your children (and yourself), what drugs and vaccines they (you) must take, what physical activities they (you) must participate in. In the bill itself it says that agents of some new government agency will be showing up at your house making sure your kids are being properly cared for. And how is that going to save the country money (which is how this is being presented)? The President himself said they'll be advising senior citizens to take pain killers as opposed to undergoing procedures that attempt to increase the quality of their life in the name of cost savings.

They say it's "unfair" some people don't have/can't afford health insurance so they want to take it over and run it themselves. These are the same Statists who think its unfair people cannot buy perscription medicine, heat their homes, pay their mortgages, pay their student loans and on and on and on. Taking over health insurance just sets the stage for taking over the pharmeceutical companies, the oil companies, the energy industry at large, secondary education etc etc.

Government control cannot make anything cheaper. It just creates a ration and corrupts a free market.

[PensFanInDC]

I just don't understand this whole thing. On the news they talk about so many people being without health care, but isn't it really that they just don't have insurance? Health care is a service and insurance is a service but they are two different things, not one and the same. It just seems that this whole effort is misdirected. Certain people need health care for various conditions, that's not debatable, but if the costs of care were small then insurance wouldn't be needed. The problem is that the cost of care is too high. Shouldn't the effort be directed at ways to reduce the cost of the actual care, not to try and reduce the cost of insurance to essentially nothing? When something is offered for free, demand will rise. When demand rises and supply remains the same, cost must go up. So to me it seems this whole thing is going to raise the actual cost of care which is what the main problem is anyways. I just doesn't make sense to me.

Very well put I think. As I mentioned earlier, if we all of a sudden have 47 million more people with "healthcare" (read: insurance) then the number rises from about 700 people per doctor to 920 people per doctor. Either number is too high.

Im not against nationalized healthcare, I just think that if we do it (especially this plan) we need to increase the number of doctors to compensate.

[Hockeynut!]

The theory behind universal care lowering prices is related to supply and demand, but in a different way. A lot of people who don't have insurance are younger, healthy people who think they don't need it. If these people were all entered into the pool, it would be more people paying for insurance but not needing it, which would bring down overall costs - especially considering that people who don't have insurance but have emergency health issues usually get treated and those costs are absorbed by the insured anyway. That's the theory. Whether it would work is up for debate.