Advertisement

Archive for Friday, November 19, 2010

Brownback, Roberts join legal challenge of federal health care overhaul

November 19, 2010, 10:33 a.m. Updated November 19, 2010, 10:45 a.m.

Advertisement

— U.S. Sens. Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts, both Kansas Republicans, have joined a legal brief challenging the new federal health care reform bill.

The brief, signed by 32 Republican senators, was filed in the lawsuit brought by Florida and 20 other states against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Related document

Republican Senators Challenge ( .PDF )

Related document

Federal Defense of Health Care Overhaul ( .PDF )

The senators contend that the Congressionally-approved requirement that people purchase health insurance oversteps the bounds of the commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution.

"Indeed, in more than 200 years of debate as to the proper scope of the Commerce Power, the Supreme Court has never suggested that the Commerce Power allows Congress to impose affirmative obligations on passive individuals, or to punish individuals for failing to purchase a particular product," the legal brief states.

The brief further states, "Defendants would turn the Commerce Power into an impermissible federal police power."

Brownback, who is the governor-elect, has vowed to fight the federal health care bill.

But the federal government has argued that Congress has broad power to regulate interstate commerce under the commerce clause, and that the minimum coverage provision regulates conduct that has substantial effects on interstate commerce.

The penalty for not having insurance is an addition to an individual's tax liability, thus it falls within Congress' authority to levy taxes and make expenditures for the general welfare, the federal government argues.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson of Pensacola, Fla., will hear arguments in the case next month.

Comments

nomorebush 3 years, 9 months ago

They should all drop their unlimited health care and try life with none.5.000 $ ER or 100$ walk in clinic.witch would cost us taxpayers less?

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

As U.S. Senators, they participate in the same health plan available to other federal employees. But thanks for playing.

0

Bob_Keeshan 3 years, 9 months ago

They aren't federal employees, they are elected officials.

Regardless, it is government run and government subsidized health care.

0

grammaddy 3 years, 9 months ago

Paid for by all of the rest of us.

0

Joe Blackford II 3 years, 9 months ago

Get a CLUE:

Fed employees pay premiums, just like anyone else who has insurance. Their large # = > competitive bidding by insurance companies & reduced premiums. I ran the FEHB program at Ft. Leavenworth, 85-86. Those insurance companies are actively raising their rates, while trying to appear to offer more than each other.

0

Bob_Keeshan 3 years, 9 months ago

And who pays the majority of the premium?

The taxpayers do.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"They aren't federal employees, they are elected officials."

Article One, Section Six of the Constitution of the United States (maybe you've heard of it):

"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States."

That pretty much defines an employer/employee relationship, bobbie.

"Regardless, it is government run and government subsidized health care."

Um, no, it's not "government run" health care. It's an insurance program. You "subsidize" it the same way you subsidize the health care of Wal-mart employees when you make a purchase there, or the Exxon-Mobil employees when you put gas in your car. There's a slight difference between someone whose employer pays part of their insurance premiums as part of their compensation for services performed, and someone standing there with their hand out begging for welfare - like you.

0

Bob_Keeshan 3 years, 9 months ago

Didn't realize paying taxes was just like shopping at Wal Mart.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Of course you didn't, bobbie. Heck, I'm constantly amazed that you realized how to plug in your computer ... or did you have to get help with that, too?

0

Bob_Keeshan 3 years, 9 months ago

It saddens me that now I'm mandated to shop at Wal Mart.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

It saddens me to realize you don't understand the connection between the money you hand over at the cash register and the products you walk out of the store with, but then, your posts are always a little sad, bobbie.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Even if there was a severability clause, it wouldn't matter. The whole thing falls apart without the mandate. If you enforce the pre-existing clause without expanding the pool, rates would skyrocket as never before.

0

olddognewtrix 3 years, 9 months ago

Brownback and Roberts are political lemmings running over the cliff to spite Obama with their sucideal manuevers.

0

countrygirl 3 years, 9 months ago

I for one am getting tired of people screaming that the healthcare reform needs to be repealed but they don't offer any other suggestions on how they think healthcare reform should be handled. The system is a mess--so just how do you suggest we fix it?

0

Orwell 3 years, 9 months ago

The answer they'll give us is the same as with everything else – "Just let the free market handle it."

Because the free market has done such a great job providing access to affordable health care to date, right?

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"Because the free market has done such a great job providing access to affordable health care to date, right?"

When is the last time it was attempted? You aren't seriously contending that there was a free market system in place before Obamacare passed, are you?

0

Betty Adema 3 years, 9 months ago

"I for one am getting tired of people" ... spouting talking points with little or no indication that they are thinking for themselves.

0

Mike Ford 3 years, 9 months ago

Firstly, as an Indian, I can quote the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, otherwise known as article one, section eight, part three verbatim. Congress shall regulate the commerce between the foreign nations, the several states, and the Indian tribes. What is health care? commerce, What is the supremacy clause? the power of the federal government over the states. What are US States and federally recognized Indian tribes to the US Government? dependant sovereigns upon the US Government for protection. What kind of money wasting hypocrites are these lawsuit filing republicans? big ones. What does all of this bs sound like? states rights bs. By the way, I belong to a state recognized tribe so I do not get BIA or IHS healthcare, so that is immaterial to this arguement. And lastly, Mr Roberts is the clown who misinterpreted aboriginal title in the City of Sherrill New York V Oneida Indian Nation case by using the aboriginal land laws of Alaska and misapplying them to New York State to do away with 200 years ofl land claim lawsuits caused by violations of the Indian Non-Intercourse Act of 1790 and the illegal seizing of hundreds of thousands of acres in NY State. His advice to Ruth Bader Ginsberg after working on the Venetie Case in Alaska in 1989 was the cause for that miscarriage of justice. I wonder if the dumblicans will employ the very trial lawyers that they give so much grief to in stump speeches. Hypocracy at it's highest thanks to the dumb constituency of this country.

0

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

The question is whether the individual purchase of health insurance is rightly seen as an interstate commerce issue.

I tend to think it is not, since people are not buying health insurance across state lines.

And, the "part of a broad regulatory scheme" logic is too broad for my taste.

0

Mike Ford 3 years, 9 months ago

so much wisdom from Bonner Springs....nevermind the fascists at Fox... how can a republican go to D.C. to work for a government you want to dismantle? why not give the clowns their states to run like PTA meetings? articles of confederation anyone?

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

I guess eddie won't be complaining about any of our recently elected state officials any more.

0

llama726 3 years, 9 months ago

I guess nota won't be complaining about any of our recently passed legislation from the Congress we elected before that. Get real, people can't get out of their ideological boxes long enough to work on anything. Look at START, look at Health Care, look at all of it.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

I'm not the one who said "We won, ha ha, live with it." If people had that wonderfully Utopian attitude, llama, there wouldn't be a whole heck of a lot of posts on these message boards.

0

llama726 3 years, 9 months ago

It's not a utopian attitude. Look around at American history. We always come together as a people to rise to a challenge. We need to do it again.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"It's not a utopian attitude. Look around at American history. We always come together as a people to rise to a challenge."

Uh, yeah, great. Oh, except that wasn't the Utopian attitude in question. I was referring to the whole 'we should just hold hands and get along' thing. Not gonna' happen. Mostly because it's always the other guys that have to cooperate and compromise, because it's always the other guys whose ideas are faulty.

Americans ARE rising to the challenge, llama. We're not just accepting attitudes expressed by the poster that I replied to, saying "It was approved. Get over it." We're not going to allow the government to force something down our throats that the majority of us are against. We're not going to just say 'Well, it's better than nothing, so let's take it.' It's the people that think 'Hey, look, they did something at least, so let's call it a day' that aren't rising to the challenge, llama.

0

meggers 3 years, 9 months ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't folks eligible for Medicare required to accept it, along with the deductibles and co-payments associated with it? Many have another private insurer that serves as primary insurance, so they pay their deductibles and such to that insurer, but if they did not have that insurance, they would still be subject to the Medicare requirements.

This battle was fought long ago, and the winner was society at large. I suspect that will be the case this time, as well, despite the fact that many are attempting to capitalize in it politically. If the legislators wasting our tax money challenging the law would agree to give up their own government-subsidized health care coverage and go buy their own on the private market that they so favor, perhaps we could begin to take them seriously.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't folks eligible for Medicare required to accept it"

Okay, you're wrong.

First of all, the payroll taxes that pay for Medicare are exactly that - taxes. The government does not have to give you anything back for what you pay in for Social Security of Medicare, i.e. you have no ownership rights to that money.

And while under present law the government will cover you with Medicare when you meet the requirements, you don't have to use it. You're free to continue working to get employer sponsored group coverage, purchase your own insurance, pay out of pocket, etc. You don't have to limit your options to providers that accept Medicare, either.

0

meggers 3 years, 9 months ago

What you wrote doesn't contradict my assertion at all. I didn't say that everyone eligible for Medicare has to use it, but everyone eligible does receive Medicare once they qualify.

I'm not sure what you're really getting at with the payroll taxes. That is money that we all pay, and it is earmarked for Social Security and Medicare. Hence, we are required to purchase those entitlements. The fact that we have no ownership rights to those funds underscores the point that we are required to pay for a product that we did not voluntarily choose. I happen to believe that SS and Medicare are good programs and I agree with the logic behind them, but my point is that we are already required by the federal government to purchase insurance (Medicare).

0

Liberty275 3 years, 9 months ago

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't folks eligible for Medicare required to accept it, along with the deductibles and co-payments associated with it? Many have another private insurer that serves as primary insurance"

OK. Medicare is always primary. You have been corrected.

0

meggers 3 years, 9 months ago

I don't consider having my tax money used for roads, schools, libraries, fire departments, police, etc. "robbery". I consider the health of the general public as much of a necessity as those things, not only to minimize the spread of disease and contagion, but because I want to live in a humane and civilized society.

From a societal perspective, the loss of our collective humanity is far more consequential than the monetary sacrifice required to ensure that all of our nation's citizens have a right to access health care.

It really boils down to the type of society you wish to live in. I prefer to live in a society that values the lives of all of its citizens, even if it costs me a little bit more to do so.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Gee, nice speech, meg. Touching. Really, there might be tears.

Except nobody's saying people shouldn't have access to health care.

0

llama726 3 years, 9 months ago

The fact is, Republicans offer nothing that is an improvement to the current health care system. If they offered something, they could have passed it 9 years ago. They have no interest in it.

And "nobody's saying people shouldn't have access to health care?" Pardon me, but isn't that what insurance companies say almost exactly when they tell people they cannot be covered for a pre-existing condition?

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"The fact is, Republicans offer nothing that is an improvement to the current health care system. If they offered something, they could have passed it 9 years ago. They have no interest in it. "

You know, you gave the appearance at one time of being somewhat objective and open-minded, but you're really reverting to partisan sound bites more and more of late.

1) This is not a new problem. It pre-dates the last time the Democrats had control. And the time before that. What did they do, again?

2) The Republicans have offered numerous proposals. To say otherwise is flat out dishonest. You may not like their proposals, you may not agree with their proposals, you may not think their proposals will work. But to say they do not exist is completely disingenuous.

3) Insurance is a large part of the problem, not the solution to the problem. Insuring more people, let alone everyone, makes the problem worse, not better. I'd rather have a return to the status quo than making it worse.

4) All I hear from the liberals is some variation of your statement, that at least the Democrats did something. That's like putting air in your tires when your car won't start in the morning - you have no understanding of what's wrong or if your intervention will work, but at least you did something. (Actually, that's not a completely valid analogy, since putting air in the tires isn't going to make the problem worse.)

"Pardon me, but isn't that what insurance companies say almost exactly when they tell people they cannot be covered for a pre-existing condition?"

Um - no. And your belief in such is another very large part of the problem. Health care and health insurance are not one and the same. If an insurance company refuses to offer you coverage, that does not prevent you from receiving care. Actually, covering you puts them in more of a position to dictate what care you can and can't receive.

0

llama726 3 years, 9 months ago

You can't receive care unless you pay for it, which is hard to do without insurance. Regarding my "partisanship" : I am willing to discuss items. Please don't adopt the "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality. It's intellectually dishonest. I have my own beliefs, and shouldn't be expected to abandon them readily on an internet comment board. Partisan sound bites? Just because I pointed out that Republicans haven't proposed legitimate health insurance reform? It's no secret that I lean more liberal than conservative. But that's not always the case, and I'll freely admit that I learn new things in politics every week.

1) I seem to recall a GOP controlled Congress in the 90s rejecting Bill Clinton's Health reform ideas.

2) I honestly haven't seen them, so I'm open to some links. And I've looked. I can't find any proposals, even directly on the GOP website, other than HR 5424. That's not a horrible piece of legislation. In fact, it has many of the same talking points as the dreaded ObamaCare. I wish Republicans had proposed this in the 1990s.

Actually, I don't think the current health reform will be perfect. I just don't think it's as awful as people say, either.

3) I'm curious how it makes it worse. I think it will change very little on the systemic level, but will allow people who traditionally would be told to essentially remain ill or forego services to receive those services without becoming indebted for the rest of their lives.

4) Then talk to people who aren't willing to wrap themselves in a label. I think I have a little more of a clue than about 45-50% of the people in our country (who don't vote or care about this topic in the slightest). That we can discuss it is a step in the right direction. You're correct. Coverage is different from care. You can drive your car without insurance (assuming it were legal, anyway) but if something happens to you on the road, guess what? You're in a major financial hole, or you just don't have a car anymore.

Insurance companies aren't a great solution, unfortunately, because of the nature of the profit motive. And saying someone without insurance can get services is dishonest. They're basically asked to pay up front. And they can't. And they don't get the service. I see this every single week when I'm volunteering, I see the studies that are released about it, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the people who can pay get treated over the people who can't: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58G6W520090917

If you can't pony up $240 to go see a doctor when you have the first symptoms of an illness, your survivability goes down. It's simple logic. The hope, I think, is that if everyone is covered, they will engage in more preventative care. The fact is, no leader has challenged Americans directly to make themselves healthier. To walk more. To eat better. To be physically fit. Another topic for another day.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"You can't receive care unless you pay for it, which is hard to do without insurance."

BS. Pure, unadulterated BS. I thought you were a 'rise to the challenge' kind of guy. That attitude is a 'Let's throw in the towel' kind of attitude.

The problem is that health care costs too much. Nobody wants to address that. Way back when, during the 2008 primaries, I said Obama was the one Democrat I could live with, because he at least paid lip service to doing something about the cost of health care. Then he turned into a typical liberal, and punted the ball, instead taking the CS way out and trying to find a way for someone else to pick up the tab instead. And people like you bought into the lie. 'We have no choice, it's too expensive, we can't possibly afford health care if we don't get insurance, boo hoo.'

The problem is that someone is STILL paying for it. When we spend over two trillion dollars per year in health care costs, that's too damned much. Period. It doesn't matter if we pay for it out-of-pocket, through insurance premiums, or in taxes, it costs too damned much. Shifting the costs to someone else not only doesn't fix the problem, it makes it worse, because it removes any incentive for anyone to address the real problem, the cost.

"I seem to recall a GOP controlled Congress in the 90s rejecting Bill Clinton's Health reform ideas."

That's funny, I seem to recall the Democrats had a sizable majority in both houses Clinton's first two years. Oh, and for all of Carter's presidency. And Johnson's. And Kennedy's.

"I'm curious how it makes it worse. I think it will change very little on the systemic level, but will allow people who traditionally would be told to essentially remain ill or forego services to receive those services without becoming indebted for the rest of their lives."

As I already mentioned (a couple of times), insurance is part of the problem, not the solution. Too many people think that their health care costs are the total of their premiums and their co-pays. Somebody is still paying the rest of it. The more people that are insured, the worse that problem gets.

You might also give a little thought to the loss ratio provisions, what those will do in the absence of a cap on premiums. You don't have to give it too much thought, try looking at what's happened in the states that have instituted similar provisions.

"And saying someone without insurance can get services is dishonest."

Saying they can't is dishonest. I don't have insurance. I get health care.

[continued]

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

[continued]

"it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the people who can pay get treated over the people who can't", and "If you can't pony up $240 to go see a doctor when you have the first symptoms of an illness, your survivability goes down."

Sounds like you think that's a bad thing.

It isn't.

Did you know that women used to pay more for health insurance than men? The reason was precisely because they were more likely to go to the doctor at "the first symptoms of an illness." According to your hypothesis, that should have made them cheaper to insure. It doesn't. See, if 1000 people go rushing to the doctor every time they have a little cough, yes, it's cheaper to catch it then for the 10 of them that turn out to have early lung disease. But the cost of those other 990 more than makes up the difference, especially since the days of the doctor saying "Open your mouth and say 'Ahh'" are long gone. Now that trip to the doctor for a little cough involves a battery of blood tests and a CT scan, followed by a referral to a specialist. They throw in a whole bunch of additional tests (many of which are repeats of the ones you just had), and when they can't find anything wrong (because it was just a little cold, and it's already gone), they refer you to another specialist. And one of the biggest reasons for this, incidentally, is that in our overly litigious society, none of the providers are going to hang themselves out to dry by taking a chance and saying "It's just a cold, don't worry about it."

There is massive waste in our health care delivery system. Some studies have shown that as much as 40% or more of the health care services we receive do absolutely nothing to improve our health. Providers have every incentive to provide the maximum amount of services, and consumers have absolutely no incentive to question the need for those services, let alone shop around for a better deal. Insurance is the problem. More insurance is a bigger problem.

0

llama726 3 years, 9 months ago

Greed is the problem. And Insurance is the problem as well, you're right. How do you force a different code of ethics upon doctors than you do for every other business owner, though? Like any other enterprising businessmen, they take advantage of the state their patients are in to earn extra money for their practice.

How do you take away that incentive, though?

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"How do you take away that incentive, though?"

You stop rewarding their greed. If market forces were really in play in the health care industry (which isn't going to happen under any third-party payment system, public or private), their greed would not be rewarded and the behaviors related to that greed would be extinguished. For example: If more people declined unnecessary referrals to specialists for every little cold symptom, it would not be as lucrative for med students to choose those financially rewarding specialties over general medicine. If more people questioned the need for those expensive diagnostic procedures (for the third time this week), it would not be as financially rewarding for the hospital to order them. You change the behavior of the providers the same way you do it in every other industry: By consumer action, which there is at present very little incentive for.

0

llama726 3 years, 9 months ago

Consumers are disadvantaged for a lack of information. Consumers are disadvantaged because they cannot afford complicated procedures which they may need. How do you get around that?

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

You make them responsible for that. They're not going to gather information when they don't have to. And the cost of those procedures will continue to rise as long as people can "afford" it - which they really can't, but think they can.

Most people have no idea that last doctor's visit cost their insurance company a week's pay, that last ER visit cost more than their car, their last major medical expense (e.g. major surgery) cost more than their house. They don't want to know. If they had to pay it out of their pockets, they'd learn pretty quick, and maybe focus their ire and their efforts on changing that part of the equation.

0

llama726 3 years, 9 months ago

Your kind of "voluntary relationships" isolate minority groups, class groups, religious groups, the disabled... It becomes a situation where there's no equality of opportunity.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

So you're saying what - there should be some kind of forced "equality of opportunity"?

0

llama726 3 years, 9 months ago

There already is. I don't think people with disabilities, minorities, class groups, or religious groups should be marginalized or prevented from having access to the tools for success (education, health care being two examples). If we were a hard-line libertarian society, there wouldn't be any legal protections for people based upon this. And libertarians contend that these policies hold those individuals back, but I don't buy that. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't cheat people for things they can't control. Getting cancer is only controllable to a certain extent.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

I really don't understand how all the supporters of the insurance mandate can keep pointing to the commerce clause. Forcing people to buy a product is not regulating commerce, it's creating it. The fact that the commerce clause gives the government the authority to regulate the shipment of freight by truck across state lines does NOT mean they can tell me that a package I want to send to California has to be shipped by truck.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Or that everybody has to send a couple of packages to another state every year in the first place!

0

finance 3 years, 9 months ago

To all you feudalists: take comfort--it will all work out, I'm sure. We'll simply reinvent the catapults and use them to lob countless disease-ridden bodies over the walls of YOUR little fiefdoms--oh, those would be the rotting corpses of the ones who died due to lack of public-supported health care. Shouldn't be a shortage of catapult fodder once you "freedom from financial oppression" people get your way. And think how much cleaner the streets will be--the smell might be bad, though.

0

geekyhost 3 years, 9 months ago

Yes, the death rate is so much worse in all those countries that have public supported health care... Oh wait, no, it isn't.

You may have a philosophical issue with government run care (which this isn't,) but you do not have an evidence based argument against it. The US spends more than any other country on health care, and we do not have the world's best outcomes to show for it.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"Yes, the death rate is so much worse in all those countries that have public supported health care... Oh wait, no, it isn't. "

Yes, the death rate has a whole lot to do with the health care system, especially the way that care is paid for ... Oh, wait, no, it doesn't.

"The US spends more than any other country on health care, and we do not have the world's best outcomes to show for it. "

There is no objective measure for outcomes between different systems. None.

0

geekyhost 3 years, 9 months ago

Yes, there is actually. You can compare outcomes and expense rates for the Swiss both before and after they adopted a similar health plan to what the US has adopted.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

No, there isn't, actually. Especially as the Swiss only mandate very basic coverage and most people carry additional private plans to cover everything else.

Just for the amusement factor, though, geek, what outcome measures would you be comparing? I can use the laugh about now.

0

geekyhost 3 years, 9 months ago

You compare the Swiss to the Swiss. They've had two health systems, and while, of course, there are other variables to account for in the last twenty years, it is, in fact, an objective measure between two different systems. You know, the thing you said didn't exist.

Likewise, you can compare two countries with similar populations and other characteristics. Such things can be done. You just don't want to admit that the results are less than flattering for the "get off my lawn"

Frankly, I'm tired of erasing Hitler mustaches from a plan that is far less than what I'd have implemented and leaves me with some serious cost concerns.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"They've had two health systems, and while, of course, there are other variables to account for in the last twenty years, it is, in fact, an objective measure between two different systems."

Brilliant.

Just

frikkin'

brilliant.

Know what, skippy? If I compare the weather before I washed my car to the weather after I washed my car, it doesn't prove that washing the car made it rain.

"You compare the Swiss to the Swiss."

Which Swis, geek? Because if the overall health improves, you don't know if the improvement came from those who formerly didn't carry insurance and now do. Especially as you can't control for those "other variables to account for".

"Likewise, you can compare two countries with similar populations and other characteristics."

Great. Let me know when you have another country of 300 million people, with the same climate and variance in climate, and air quality, and a similar number of McDonald's per capita, and the same level of private car ownership, and the same factors like lead paint and asbestos use in the recent past, and .....................

Then we'll compare, okay?

0

geekyhost 3 years, 9 months ago

We have your claim "There is no objective measure for outcomes between different systems. None."

Yes. There is. While there is no such thing as a randomized double blind study on insurance systems, there is such a thing as objective measures of outcomes, and retrospective studies comparing the Swiss against themselves is one way to do it. It's a reasonable method that most analysts would accept as valid, and it a method that is not distorted by emotional or personal bias - ie, it is "objective."

Comparing two similar European countries is another way to compare apples to apples and analyze the system rather than comparing which country eats a better diet or goes on more walks.

And yes, I am frikkin' brilliant. Thanks for noticing.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Still waiting to hear what those measures are, skippy.

Hey, let's look at whether the average height of the Swiss has increased in the past 20 years. Oh, wait, I got it - let's count and see if more babies are being born with blue eyes. After all, those measures are "not distorted by emotional or personal bias - ie, [they are] "objective." "

Already knew what "objective" means, skip. The part of my claim - that you were nice enough to quote - that for some reason you seem incapable of grasping is that they are not measures of outcome. Since you're reluctant (or unable) to name which measures you're talking about, let's use one that gets thrown around a lot in these message boards when this issue comes up - infant mortality. Now, you could measure whether the infant mortality rates in Switzerland increased or decreased after they changed their law. That's observable, quantifiable, verifiable, by any definition "objective" - it's an objective measure of: Infant mortality. It is most definitely NOT a measure of health care "output" since three (possibly four) of the top five causes of infant mortality have absolutely nothing to do with the health care system.

"Comparing two similar European countries is another way to compare apples to apples and analyze the system rather than comparing which country eats a better diet or goes on more walks."

Do the Czechs drink as much wine as the French, geek? Do the Spaniards drink as much beer or eat as much sausage as the Germans? Do the English brush their teeth as much as the Greeks? Do the Portuguese get as much vacation time as the French? Is it a fair comparison to use the fairly recently reunited Germany in any comparison? Is the average laborer in Switzerland exposed to the same occupational hazards as one in Poland - and do they make up equivalent portions of the population?

"And yes, I am frikkin' brilliant."

Well, you were wrong about everything else, why would you get that one right?

0

geekyhost 3 years, 9 months ago

Yes, dear, I'm aware that there are many data points one can examine, but I don't think you're making the points you think you're making here.

So you're arguing that we're in need of regulation to address income disparity, mental health, food quality, personal safety, and other factors that also play into death rates? Funny, I thought lack of regulation was supposed to make all those magically go away. Why is it that all those socialist countries seem to do better?

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

The straw man king strikes again. Where, exactly, did Liberty say, or even imply, that "we're in need of regulation to address" those things?

Of course, I'm sure a fine nanny-stater like you probably IS in favor or regulating people's diets, how much exercise they get, etc., etc., etc..

0

geekyhost 3 years, 9 months ago

Not quite. One book attempted to claim the US ranked highest when accidents and homicide were out of the equation, but that doesn't take into account deaths occurring from those causes due to inadequate health care. Ie - someone refuses ambulance transport because of cost concerns and then ends up dying from a preventable injury or doesn't seek followup care, gets discharged early, etc, etc.

Likewise, lifestyle causes could potentially be curbed by adequate preventative medicine.

0

cozy 3 years, 9 months ago

What is wrong with a student being on their parent's health insurance until they are 26?

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Why should a parent's employer and co-workers have to keep picking up the tab for kiddies that are old enough to start taking responsibility for themselves?

0

cozy 3 years, 9 months ago

Hmm, a lot of people that age are still students. I don't know if you know this, but when you're a student, it makes it more difficult to find a high paying, full-time job with benefits.

The parents pay more to have the kids on there. It seems you would like to complain when they do have insurance (even through parents) but you would also complain if they didn't have insurance at all and would have to get on low income heath care. Its impossible to win with some people.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"Hmm, a lot of people that age are still students."

No kiddin'. I think that was supposed to be the general idea. Of course, many schools (including, I believe, KU) offer health insurance to their full-time students.

"I don't know if you know this, but when you're a student, it makes it more difficult to find a high paying, full-time job with benefits. "

I'm familiar with the phenomenon, thanks. But maybe when you're still a full time college student isn't when you should be seeking a "high paying" job to start saving up for that house.

"The parents pay more to have the kids on there."

Oh, seriously, get a clue. If the few dollars per month it costs mommy and daddy to keep junior on their employer's health insurance was anything even close to what it would cost for junior to pay his own way, this conversation wouldn't even be taking place.

The last time I had employer-sponsored health coverage, it cost $34/month to add my kids to the policy, regardless of how many kids I had. Let's face it, 25-year-olds cost a little more than that to cover. Why should my rates go up because one of my co-workers chooses to keep supporting her child through graduate school?

"It seems you would like to complain when they do have insurance (even through parents) but you would also complain if they didn't have insurance at all and would have to get on low income heath care."

Or maybe - [GASP] - they could pay their own way! (Somehow I'm not surprised that option didn't occur to you.)

0

cozy 3 years, 9 months ago

"But maybe when you're still a full time college student isn't when you should be seeking a "high paying" job to start saving up for that house."

I think its cute that you tried to change the subject to buying a house from getting health benefits from work. Lower paying jobs (which is what most college kids are able to get to work around their school schedule)= not as likely to get insurance through work. I know that you would like to think that every single job in the U.S. has insurance plans and people are just not getting on it, but that is not the case.

Or maybe - [GASP] you could develop better reading comprehension. Where I said "when they do have insurance (even through parents) " meant they pay for their insurance and even in instances when they are still covered by their parent's plan. Either way, you just like to argue and twist things to fit you.

I would also like to find out how (according to you) a 25 year old costs a lot of money to cover than say, older people with generally more health conditions. Younger people are generally more healthy and would visit the doctor on rare occasions compared to older people.

0

cozy 3 years, 9 months ago

Also, who says that the student can't repay the parent personally for their share of the cost of the plan?

0

Centerville 3 years, 9 months ago

I'm glad they're on board. I wonder why they waited until the after election? They, more than most, know what an expensive mess Sebileus makes of things.

0

Richard Heckler 3 years, 9 months ago

Brownback and Roberts want to take us back to the other even more expensive system. These guys are not experts they are politicians who accept money from the medical insurance industry.

You know the industry that increases the cost of medical insurance by way of high dollar reckless spending on:

Throwing more our our hard earned tax dollars at the medical insurance industry is nothing more than fraud against consumers.

"The U.S. health care system is typically characterized as a largely private-sector system, so it may come as a surprise that more than 60% of the $2 trillion annual U.S. health care bill is paid through taxes, according to a 2002 analysis published in Health Affairs by Harvard Medical School associate professors Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein. "

0

Richard Heckler 3 years, 9 months ago

Let's reduce health care costs by getting rid of the medical insurance industry. Why? Because the medical insurance industry does not provide health care. But they are a whopping expense. And most consumers do not spend what is paid out annually per policy.

The United States spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on healthcare – $8160 per capita – yet performs poorly in comparison and leaves over 46 million people without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered.

Expanded and Improved Medicare Insurance for All is one of the solutions.

  • Easy to Implement: Medicare has been in existence since 1966, it provides healthcare to those 65 and older, and satisfaction levels are high. The structure is already in place and can be easily expanded to cover everyone.

  • Simple: One entity – established by the government – would handle billing and payment at a cost significantly lower than private insurance companies. Private insurance companies spend about 31% of every healthcare dollar on administration. Medicare now spends about 3%.

  • Real Choice: An expanded and improved Medicare for All would provide personal choice of doctors and other healthcare providers. While financing would be public, providers would remain private. As with Medicare, you choose your doctor, your hospital, and other healthcare providers.

  • State and Local Tax Relief: Medicare for All would assume the costs of healthcare delivery, thus relieving the states and local governments of the cost of healthcare, including Medicaid, and as a result reduce State and local tax burdens.

  • Expanded coverage: Would cover all medically necessary healthcare services – no more rationing by private insurance companies. There would be no limits on coverage, no co-pays or deductibles, and services would include not only primary and specialized care but also prescription drugs, dental, vision, mental health services, and long-term care.

  • Everyone In, Nobody Out: Everyone would be eligible and covered. No longer would doctors ask what insurance you have before they treat you.

  • No More Overpriced Private Health Insurance: Medicare for All would eliminate the need for private health insurance companies who put profit before healthcare, unfairly limit choice, restrict who gets coverage, and force people into bankruptcy.

  • Lower Costs: Most people will pay significantly less for healthcare. Savings will be achieved in reduced administrative costs and in negotiated prices for prescription drugs.

0

Centerville 3 years, 9 months ago

Let's reduce health care costs by getting rid of HHS. Why? Because the HHS does not provide health care. But they are a whopping expense. And most taxpayers do not spend what is paid out annually to support this bureaucracy.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Wonder where merrill is? He's usually all over these threads posting his usual cut-and-paste dishonest propaganda.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Wow! I must have missed the part in the legislation where Obama guaranteed you weren't going to die, witchie. That really IS historic!!!

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Sometimes when the audience doesn't laugh, witchie, it's because the joke wasn't funny.

"Care to speak to the benefits of defense spending over government-provided healthcare?"

Sure. You want me to start with the false choice, or the false premise?

What the heck, false choice first - you set up a dichotomy where we can pay for one or the other - "killing foreigners or healing citizens" - which precludes the choices of doing neither, or both, or both to some lesser degree.

Your false premise is that the legislation passed by the Democrats will heal anyone. That wasn't even the stated purpose of the legislation. It has nothing to do with whether you're going to "die of a preventable disease", it has to do with getting me to pay for your health care. Am I in favor of forcing millions of Americans who neither want or need health insurance to pay for it anyway, to make it cheaper for YOU? Nope. I pay for my own health care, try paying for yours.

(I won't even bother with the typical whiny liberal premise that anyone in favor of a strong national defense must want to firebomb peaceful innocent foreign women and children.)

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

And again, both a false choice and a false premise.

Your false choice is the same one - that in order to increase health care spending, there must be a corresponding cut in defense spending.

But what the heck, if we're going to play the false choice game, I have some time to kill. Wanna' help me draft a letter to our service men and women, explaining that the armor on their APC's is going to be 10% thinner, they're getting a 10% smaller ammunition load out, they'll only have available air support 21.6 hours per day, and only nine out of ten of them will be allowed to have the ceramic chest plates in their flak jackets, all so a bunch of children - many of whom have parents who are quite capable of, and indeed already are, providing for their health care?

The false premise is that increased government spending is the only way to provide health care for children. It isn't.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Oh, most of my time is valued, witchie. It's the time that I have absolutely nothing worthwhile to do that I devote to people like you.

"I never insisted the two are irrecoverably connected"

And yet that's the only question you keep asking:

  • "our representatives have decided that funding billion-dollar-a-day wars with exponential defense spending (i.e., the administration of death and destruction) is more desirable and palatable than basic healthcare services for all citizens."

  • "Care to speak to the benefits of defense spending over government-provided healthcare? No? You mean to tell me that you cannot find a rational explanation as to why our tax dollars are better spent killing foreigners than healing citizens? "

  • "Here's a thought experiment: let's take 10% of the 100's upon 100's of billions of dollars used to manufacture war machines and provide every American child with quality healthcare."

In every post, like a broken record.

"It's a drag beating up a cognizant straw-man, isn't it?"

A straw man would be if I was arguing with something you didn't say. You did say those things - a few times. Nice try, though.

"Sure! But we should probably start the letter by trying to explain why, exactly, they're risking their lives fighting in Iraq."

Didja' maybe happen to notice the part at the start of that paragraph that said "But what the heck, if we're going to play the false choice game, I have some time to kill"? Geez, I even tell you openly when I'm not being serious and you bite.

BTW, I have a relative who has served tours in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't need to explain why they were in Iraq to him, he believed they were actually doing something worthwhile there. It's the war that Obama adopted for his own that he thinks is a complete waste of time and lives.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Aren't you the one that just said we shouldn't be spending money on the military?

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"Aren't you the one who claims to understand irony, satire, and hyperbole? "

Um, no, that was you that made that claim.

witchfindergeneral (anonymous) replies… "You must miss many things without a sense of humor or any notion whatsoever of irony or hyperbole. I guess I should have added a cute little ; ) to tip you off." November 20, 2010 at 6:18 p.m.

Do you even comprehend what you write?

Have to say, though, that your claim seems a bit specious, since you don't appear to be very good at those things.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"who you once dismissed as a "child""

And you've done nothing to dispell that opinion.

"I implied that you DON'T understand those things, and when you promptly (and acutely--I do not seriously think you lack the intellectual capacity to understand certain elements of speech) refuted my claim, I supported you."

Um, no. Speaking of reading comprehension, maybe you should try reading my posts again. I didn't say I "claim[ed] to understand irony, satire, and hyperbole". I implied that your post was devoid of them. But I'm sure there's some lovely parting gifts for you.

"Humility and self-awareness are desirable virtues."

Yeah. I can see how much you desire to have those. Maybe some day .....

0

Richard Heckler 3 years, 9 months ago

Brownback and Roberts want to take us back to the other even more expensive system. These guys are not experts they are politicians who accept money from the medical insurance industry!!!

This is the source for their talking points as well. Yes they go directly to the people who give them money and those who stand to make large profits. Usually this is known as unethical conflicts of interest. Of course the medical insurance industry is billing their clients for this reckless use of medical insurance dollars aka special interest campaign money. This is also known as increasing the cost of medical insurance.

Does the industry ever stop shelling out special interest campaign health insurance dollars or handing our golden parachutes? NO of course not!

Now if IMPROVED Medicare Insurance for ALL had millions upon millions upon millions to influence elected officials my guess is today all would have practical and way less IMPROVED Medicare Insurance for ALL.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Um, merrill, since you haven't read a newspaper since, apparently, 1962, health care is still getting more expensive with Obamacare. Nice try, though.

Stick with the cut-and-paste. When you try original thinking, it's even worse.

0

finance 3 years, 9 months ago

Eureka! Finally, you anti-taxers have breached the leftist fog poisoning my feeble brain. Now I truly "get" it: if Brownback and his lowbrow ilk can successfully repeal health care for everyone and return us to a better life (raw capitalism), then we will miraculously have healthy people all-around (not sure of how that kind of Palinesque thingie actually plays out factually, but leaving aside linearity here). Then (now linearity does enter in), we'll no longer have any disease-ridden corpses to catapult onto the immaculate lawns of the little capitalist fiefdoms, and all will be well in heart, mind, body, and soul. No, wait! It gets better (see how I'm learning to think "right"-minded?). Again in the Church of Linearity, we will have produced perfectly healthy bodies to feed to the War Machine--ingenious! So, we can send healthy poor people to purposely die somewhere else instead of having sick poor people die inconveniently in our own yard. If only I had seen the heavenly light sooner. I'd apologize for my outrageous lack of insight (the old me, not the newly reborn me), but I'd probably only sound as maudlin and inhumane as the anti-taxers. I can hardly wait for my tax cut and my new social blinders (government-supplied, of course).

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

Not to mention that if you insure everyone, there's no need for competition, as consumers have no incentive to seek out lower prices, let alone demand them.

0

Jimo 3 years, 9 months ago

But of course, if government insured everyone, it would offer the low price, one devoid of the well-documented overhead and profit found in "competitive" insurers who strangely never compete.

Indeed, it was precisely this "unfair" low price via government that was the complaint against the "government option" - government offering its own insurance alongside private competitors.

Sorry but you can't have it both ways - government so low priced that private companies can't compete and government so high priced that consumers are deprived of private lower prices!

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"But of course, if government insured everyone, it would offer the low price, one devoid of the well-documented overhead and profit found in "competitive" insurers who strangely never compete. "

Um, yeah. Well, except for the little detail that the difference between the overhead for private insurers and taxpayer-funded insurance is much less than Madkow and Olbermann tell you to believe, not to mention that there is actually additional value for those higher costs.

But as usual, don't let facts get in your way.

But hey, I'm acyually on your side: Let's do away with all third-party payment, and everyone can pay for their own health care out-of-pocket. Think of the money we'd save in administrative costs.

"Indeed, it was precisely this "unfair" low price via government that was the complaint against the "government option" - government offering its own insurance alongside private competitors."

As usual, um, no. It was the use of taxpayer-funded subsidies to make the public option cheaper so they could compete unfairly. It wouldn't cost less, it would just shift the costs to someone else (the typical liberal solution).

0

llama726 3 years, 9 months ago

You're right, L1. Competition works. Unmitigated competition where someone ends up big enough to squash upstarts. Then what? Competition is great for DVD players. Not so much for services that aren't cost effective to provide. It's not cost effective or valuable enough to address things that we, collectively, as a society, have decided are important. Then what?

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"Not so much for services that aren't cost effective to provide. It's not cost effective or valuable enough to address things that we, collectively, as a society, have decided are important. Then what?"

A moot point, since that statement doesn't apply to the health care industry.

0

llama726 3 years, 9 months ago

"In theory this is a problem, but in the real world people voluntarily address things that are important."

I don't have enough time right now to respond to all of this, but I wanted to point out to you that the Government had to ram the Americans with Disabilities Act down the throats of objecting businesses because of this argument. The problem was that they didn't voluntarily address this.

I get it. The government has its warts and it doesn't do everything as efficiently as it can. Private goodwill only goes so far, though. You can't just slap a fix-all ideology on everything, it doesn't address everything. We have to remain flexible and be able to adapt.

0

llama726 3 years, 9 months ago

We can go back and forth all day. There are ethical businesspeople. If all of them were ethical, laws such as the ADA would be unnecessary. It's the same as anything else. And the government passes a law which is good, but it becomes entrapped in a judicial system where it is taken to a ridiculous scope that wasn't considered when a law was written. It's sloppy and imperfect. That's the way life works. That's the way governance works. There's no reason to believe that business would govern us charitably. I can point to sweatshops as an example. I can point to union busting activities as an example. I can point to unsafe working conditions as an example. I can point to the industrialization of the United States as an example. I can point to dozens more, but why should we go back and forth over this? You'll never be willing to work for your goal. Only to stubbornly refuse to accept anything other than your own ideology. That's fine, but you'll eventually have to start winning people over. You'll eventually have to accept that people generally don't like hard-line ideologies of any type.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"The problem was that they didn't voluntarily address this."

Here's a little story for you (that happens to be true). I'm old enough to remember when CAT scans were the latest revolutionary technology. In the state where I grew up, there was a hospital commission that decided what hospitals could and couldn't do, including what equipment they could and couldn't purchase. In theory, this was for proficiency concerns. For procedures, that's valid - you can't have two hospitals in a small market doing multiple organ transfers, because there won't be enough of them to keep two staffs proficient. But as far as equipment purchases go, it's because if both hospitals have that new piece of equipment, neither will be able to use it enough to pay it off.

So anyway, the city where my parents still live has by far the largest regional hospital (it's closest competition being a very small hospital 25 miles away). They were not allowed to buy a CAT scanner, because there was one in one of the two hospitals in a city 30 miles to the northeast, and one in one of the dozens of hospitals in a city 40 miles to the southeast. They'd just have to load their patients into an ambulance and drive them there for scans.

Luckily, the hospital commission had no authority over doctors in private practice. One enterprising neurologist, whose offices were directly across the street from the hospital that got denied, bought one for himself. This is a case of the government, in the name of cost-effectiveness, actually creating a situation perpetuating that problem, and an entrepreneur saying "I think I can make money on this" and blowing them out of the water. Oddly enough, shortly after he got his, the hospital commission relented and allowed the hospital to get one, too (along with the second hospital in the city to the northeast), which greatly increased competition and enhanced economies of scale. Now every hospital in the universe has a CT scanner, they're smaller, simpler, and cheaper, because they not only have to compete with every other hospital (and a significant number of non-hospital settings), but with alternate imaging technologies like MRI's.

0

llama726 3 years, 9 months ago

But as you pointed out, privately owned hospitals (a lot of them in our area are privately owned) have an extra incentive to stuff people in for these types of scans unnecessarily. Unchecked, the entrepreneurial spirit helps to bloat the cost of medical care. Ebb and flow, we need to reign this in as a matter of life or death (literally, for many people) without getting ridiculous about what types of things are regulated.

Groups of people in both business and government can make poor decisions. The difference is that a poor decision for society by business may still be profitable, ensuring the survival of the business, but a poor decision for society by a democratically elected government can cause them to be voted out. Everyone can vote, not everyone can buy.

I think that you might think I don't like the idea of a market based economy. I do. I've seen the excesses and exploitation of businesses, though. It's no better than that of a government. Our best option is to try to keep both from getting out of control to the best of our ability, something that will take a lot of vigilance (and greater activism among the masses).

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"But as you pointed out, privately owned hospitals (a lot of them in our area are privately owned) have an extra incentive to stuff people in for these types of scans unnecessarily."

[sigh]

And once again - the only reason that's possible is that people don't have to pay for it, at least not in such a way that they draw the connection. The OECD, in their studies of various health care systems, notes that Americans receive far more MRI's per capita than citizens of any other country, without any significantly higher prevalence of pathology to account for that. It's because people aren't taking out their wallet at the point of sale. Their insurance rates skyrocket the next year, and they rant and rave, but don't accept the fact that their rates might not have gone up so much if they hadn't been so blindly accepting of everything the provider 'suggested'.

A market based solution both increases competition and also limits it to what the market will bear. It encourages entrepreneurs like the neurologist I mentioned to provide a service which is needed, but when too many consumers start balking at accepting those services, and can get them cheaper somewhere else, they simply can not keep over-prescribing the tests. I forgot to mention that the neurologist in question did have quite a penchant for 'recommending' tests of questionable necessity - I had some personal experience with him. A physician in private practice in the 70's can't afford a million-dollar piece of equipment for his office without a little padding. But after the hospital was allowed to get one of their own (along with every other hospital and several other private providers), he was no longer in a position to take undue advantage of his monopoly to the extent of using it as a revenue generator.

"The difference is that a poor decision for society by business may still be profitable, ensuring the survival of the business, but a poor decision for society by a democratically elected government can cause them to be voted out."

I think you've got that reversed. If someone makes bad decisions in the private sector, consumers stop patronizing their business and it fails. Government can 1) compound the bad decision because the have the statutory authority to force consumers to buy their product through taxation (look at the public education system, for example), and 2) stay in office until the rather short memories of the voters dissipates before the next election.

"Our best option is to try to keep both from getting out of control to the best of our ability, something that will take a lot of vigilance (and greater activism among the masses)."

That vigilance is non-existent - because there's no reason for it - under a third-party payment system of any kind.

0

geekyhost 3 years, 9 months ago

Next time you're in a car wreck, be sure to take along some chickens to barter for your care.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

'Finally, you tax-and-spenders have breached the right-wing fog poisoning my feeble brain. Now I truly "get" it: if Obama and his lowbrow ilk can successfully enforce health insurance for everyone and return us to a better life (raw socialism), then we will miraculously have healthy people all-around (not sure of how that kind of Bidenesque thingie actually plays out factually, but leaving aside linearity here). Then (now linearity does enter in), we'll no longer have any disease-ridden corpses to catapult onto the immaculate lawns of the little socialist fiefdoms, and all will be well in heart, mind, body, and soul.'

There, fixed that for ya'.

Hope you noticed the emphasis-added in the second sentence. There is nothing in Obamacare about "health care for all", just health insurance for all. It's not going to change the health care system, except perhaps to make it worse and remove the incentive for people like you to do anything about it, since now you'll have someone else paying your way.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"Funny- I seem to remember paying my own premiums. "

And if those premiums paid for all your health care expenses, then you wouldn't need insurance, would you?

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

But thanks anyway, for helping reinforce the point I was making to llama up above.

0

finance 3 years, 9 months ago

It's all idle amusement--sparring in this meaningless venue that changes nothing but which adds due silliness to the inane chatter of the nation--such venues' only true service is to tease out the ignorance and bigotry and selfish evil that lurks deep in this society. And perhaps that's enough.

But in summary, let's see if I now get it any better (having been chastised by notajayhawk for my torpidity). So here's how it goes, according to this collection of right-wing haranguers who've weighed in throughout the above thread: life will finally be good again if we abolish Medicare, Medicaid, mandated health insurance, Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, etc.: virtually all (perhaps literally all) government involvement in social collectivity and--yes--even social justice, which, when the definition is "government forcing some social correction", would include all anti-discrimination laws such as equal protection and even anti-slavery laws. All on the basis that it constrains free markets and reduces competition and drives up costs (don't forget the silently mouthed afterwords which inaudibly breathe "drives up costs for me who can afford it"). And the new currency is chickens and gold? Sounds far-fetched? Well, just tote up the arguments offered by haranguers above, subtract out a dose of conscience that heretofore has tempered social conversation, and add a splash of Kobach and Brownback and all those ilk, and voila--not far-fetched any longer at all. All you free market types--you can probably take a cue here that there's new money to be made in mass-marketing brown shirts. I'd guess you can sell many, many boatloads of the new national attire.

Have a nice day.

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 9 months ago

Search on "Improved Medicare Insurance for All" + merrill = 347 results. Give it a rest, bub.

0

jafs 3 years, 9 months ago

It is a handout to insurance companies.

It does a few things to try to address costs, and increase doctors, especially GP's.

What "entitlement" program?

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"People like you are the issue."

No, sadly, it's people like you.

People that say "At least they did something" when the something they did was horrendous and will likely make the problem worse.

People that see things in such black-and-white terms that they think if we're against this law, then we must be against all reforms, that this so-called 'solution' absolutely must be passed, right now, or the sky will fall.

People who think trying to repeal an unjust and illegal law is 'obstructionism'.

Again, people like you.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"The people will actually like it once they get beyond the lies."

Hmm. That would seem to be the Democrats you're referring to, since they're the ones who always fall back on the excuse "We only did it because we were lied to".

BTW, "jstthefacts" [snicker], which lies are you referring to? The one about the legislation being revenue neutral, or the one that it will make health care "affordable"?

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"The first disservice and lie the republicans subjected the american people to was to deny that we needed health care reform. Had they acknowledged the need for reform to begin with they could have moved constructively towards accomplishing this."

So, you're going to tell lies about the Republican "lies". Perfect.

As part of a discussion I was having with another - er - respected fellow member of these message boards on this same topic, I had occasion to look at the Republican party platform way back when Bob Dole was the candidate for president (which you're probably too young to remember). There was an entire section dedicated to the need for improving access to affordable, quality health care. I'd be willing to bet that those proposals appeared prior to 1996, too. You may not agree with the Republican proposals, you may not like them, they may not have been the best proposals, they may not have been better than the Democrats' proposals, they may not have worked at all. But to make a statement such as "The first disservice and lie the republicans subjected the american people to was to deny that we needed health care reform" is a flat out lie, which is nothing more than I've come to expect from "jstthefacts" [snicker].

"The very basic problem was never republicans having to pay for health insurance for their deadbeat neighbor (a republican lie) but rather that people who bought insurance actually got what they paid for."

Was there supposed to be a point in there somewhere, skippy?

"This also includes insurance companies deciding wether people live or die, (or death panels / death individuals) by denying coverage in lieu of benefiting their share holders."

And you've bought into the big lie of the Democrats that taxpayer-funded health coverage doesn't operate exactly the same way? Brilliant.

"The attack on the public option was a typical republican fear mongering hate filled lie filled emotional campaign rather than presenting an alternative option."

Maybe math wasn't your best subject in school, but perhaps you should take a look at the make-up of Congress. The Republicans could no more kill the public option than they could stop the bill in its entirety. The Democrats had the numbers to force that through just like they forced through the final legislation, skip. They couldn't even sell it to their own membership. But hey, if Madkow and Herr Olbermann tell you to believe that it was the Republicans that stopped it, get in line for another big heaping serving of pablum, "jstthefacts" [snicker].

"When we needed to real in the white collar crime being committed by the health insurance corporations, we instead rewarded them."

"We" being the operative word there, skip. Because since you don't seem to up on current events, but the Democrats passed that mess all by themselves. But hey, keep those blinders firmly affixed, and keep blaming the Republicans. Even a one-trick pony has some limited entertainment value.

0

notajayhawk 3 years, 9 months ago

"yep, over your head. Thats why its so easy for you to be duped by your republican propaganda machines. Read the posts"

I did, skippy. Did you read what you wrote? And were even kind enough to repeat? Tell me something, skippy, what does "people who bought insurance actually got what they paid for" have to do with "every one who has bought into sabotaging healthcare posts that they think they have to pay for someone else's insurance"?

Oh, that's right, nothing.

"The real issue is when it came time to do something about it they opposed it for their own political purposes. Ive commented on the republicans proposal that required everyone to buy insurance and now they lie that into Obama's idea."

It was proposed by a couple of Republicans. It was never the official party platform. Bob Dole was one of those that proposed it, for example, if I remember correctly. But if you bothered to check the official party platform, even for the year that Dole was the presidential candidate (as I suggested), you'll find that suggestion notably absent.

Okay, let's go back to your hilarious contention that "The very basic problem was never republicans having to pay for health insurance for their deadbeat neighbor".

Um, skippy? It's called the Affordable Care Act. And it does nothing to reduce the cost of health care. How does that NOT equate to paying for someone else's health care?

See if you can keep up for a second or two. Get some help with the big words.

See, skippy, the entire concept of covering people with pre-existing conditions is not that they don't have access to health care, it's that they can't afford to pay for it either out-of-pocket or through a risk pool. The legislation does nothing whatsoever to reduce the cost of providing those people with care. The whole purpose of making insurance companies extend coverage to them is to get other policyholders to pay for their health care.

See, skippy, the entire concept of covering people up to age 26 on their parents' insurance is not that they don't have access to health insurance, it's that they can't afford to pay for it on their own. The whole purpose of making insurance companies extend coverage to them is to get other policyholders to pay for their health care.

See, skippy, the entire concept of the insurance mandate is not to get people to pay for their own health care expenses, which they're already doing. It's about 'expanding the risk pool' or 'spreading the costs', which, again, by definition, is to get more policyholders to pay for other people's health care.

But have another big glass of kool-aid, skippy, and don't forget to tune into Madkow and Herr Olbermann today so they can tell you what to think.

0

Richard Heckler 3 years, 9 months ago

Health insurance dollars go to golden parachutes (In 2009 CIGNA CEO received a $73 million retirement bonus which is a ton of health care dollars that would cover 6,084 families for one year). Why are health insurance dollars being spent on golden parachutes?

It's the profiteers and/or politicians aka the special interest campaign dollar moochers that do not want single payer. Shareholders are among the moochers.

There are plenty of republicans and democrats who want government run single payer because both parties are tired of paying wayyyyy too much money. People should NOT be filing bankruptcy because they need medical care.

Insured families are filing bankruptcy as a result medical care.

A medical insurance industry pollster of many years advised the industry that the information coming back to them was that the majority of the population wants IMPROVED Medicare Insurance for ALL. A government managed system is the choice of america!

"The U.S. health care system is typically characterized as a largely private-sector system, so it may come as a surprise that more than 60% of the $2 trillion annual U.S. health care bill is paid through taxes............ according to a 2002 analysis published in Health Affairs by Harvard Medical School associate professors Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein"

0

Richard Heckler 3 years, 9 months ago

Republicans apparently don't know that it was their beloved President Theodore Roosevelt who in 1912 proposed national health insurance for all.

0

Flap Doodle 3 years, 9 months ago

I would swear I've seen this very same post on another thread. Also, I would add that America in 1912 was much different that America in 2010.

0

ferrislives 3 years, 9 months ago

Unless you are the CEO of a health insurance company, everyone knows that the health care system does need to be reformed, regardless of your opinion on how it should be done. So I ask those opposing Obamacare, why weren't you this angry at the GOP for doing nothing on health care reform during their 8 years in power? Do you expect people to continue kicking the bucket on this?

Believe me, I'm not a fan of the most-recent legislation, but I'm hearing a lot of whining from people that refused to address this important issue for all Americans for 8 long years!

0

ferrislives 3 years, 9 months ago

Liberty_One,

I didn't this outcry from other conservatives on the LJWorld forums or elsewhere, nor did I see legislation passed by the GOP-controlled house, senate, and presidency. They had their chance, they squandered it!

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.