Quote :

"I think Ive made my point very clear. It does nothing to slow the growth of health care costs. in fact it will likely raise the costs. Hell even Warren Buffet says this."

um, the major reason rising health care costs is really a public policy issue is because of the impact they will have on future budgets (medicare/medicaid expenditures growing at even faster rate). So it sounds like you are just repacking your original complaint.

But, I agree that these reforms won't help reduce health care costs (though I have seen no evidence to suggest that it will radically increase those costs either). But it will make health care more accessible to millions of people by allowing them to receive health insurance when they otherwise would not have. *That* is the important thing about the proposed reforms and why I think they need to be passed.

Really, this entire issue boils down to whether you think it is a problem that millions of people do not have health insurance. If you do, then these reforms sound like modest improvements over the current system that do a lot of good. If you don't, they sound like a raw deal.

3/2/2010 11:17:37 PM

Quote :

"Really, this entire issue boils down to whether you think it is a problem that millions of people do not have health insurance. If you do, then these reforms sound like modest improvements over the current system that do a lot of good. If you don't, they sound like a raw deal."

It doesn't boil down to that at all. The fact that people don't have health insurance is a problem, but there are many potential solutions to that problem, and a good chunk of them would only make things worse, regardless of what the policy gurus claim.

3/2/2010 11:49:09 PM

This is pretty amazing, in terms of listing the GOP who are some of the loudest in protesting reconciliation, and then scrolling across the screen every time they've voted using reconciliation on less than bipartisan bills, in some cases having Cheney have to vote to get it up to 51, and having done it on health care related issues, and on tax cuts for the wealthy which increased the deficit... not that the GOP has any room to whine about procedures like reconciliation with all the many, many, many more filibuster procedure threats forcing cloture votes, and stunts like Bunning's recent procedural one.

3/2/2010 11:51:56 PM

Yes they do. You shouldnt pass the way all americans access health insurance through a back door deal. imo. Everyone should be upset about this.

Oh, and remember me talking about them wanting everyone to pay the same amount. Here is the first step. What a joke.

House Bill - "Sets age rating band at 2:1, meaning that rates can vary by no more than 2-1 between oldest and youngest adults. No tobacco rating."

Senate Bill - "Sets age rating band at 3:1. Sets tobacco rating of 1.5:1, meaning that rates can be increased by 50% for smokers. Subsidies do not cover the tobacco rate-up difference."


http://www.speaker.gov/pdf/HScomparison.pdf

Supplanter how can you watch that crap? Its amazing how much Olberman's nephew blames republicans for, when they really have no power. The clips of the children were a nice touch. And scrolling, what 4 bills, for dramatic effect. LOL. This is just the emotional cord stringing crap that dems really really love it appears. I didnt know the Repubs were filibustering now? But that man just said so, so it must be true. The real reason this hasnt passed is DEMOCRATS wouldnt vote for it.

[Edited on March 3, 2010 at 9:21 AM. Reason : .]

3/3/2010 9:16:11 AM

i don't often agree with Socks`` but i do today

3/3/2010 9:19:09 AM

Quote :

"um, the major reason rising health care costs is really a public policy issue is because of the impact they will have on future budgets (medicare/medicaid expenditures growing at even faster rate). "

My point exactly. BTW, who runs those?

3/3/2010 9:22:39 AM

^ eyedrb,

Then, again, the only reason you don't like the bill is because it won't help America's potential, future budget problems. And I have already responded that this bill isn't about fixing those problems, its about improving access to health insurance to millions of Americans. But let's forget about that for a second...

I really think your "deficit hawk" argument is a bit disingenuous. I mean, balancing the budget is not your only criteria for evaluating other pieces of legislation. So why should that be your only criteria for judging Democratic health care reforms?

For example, if Obama proposed hiking the marginal income tax rate for the highest income bracket to over 90% like it was in the 1950s, then that would probably go a long way to solving our future fiscal woes. Yet, I doubt you would support that move. Why? Because you are probably worried about other things (like the impact such taxes would have on economic growth). And that's fine. But you need to realize there are other things to worry about here besides deficit reduction as well. Namely, the living standards of millions of Americans that can't get health insurance.

The fact that we have looming fiscal problems is a serious issue. But don't pretend that this is about deficit reduction--there are plenty of ways we can address our fiscal problems AND pass these democratic reforms. What this is really about is your philosophical belief that we should "reduce the size of the government".

And, hey, that's fine! But make *that* argument, don't try to couch your libertarian tendencies in deficit hawk language.

[Edited on March 3, 2010 at 9:49 AM. Reason : ``]

3/3/2010 9:46:27 AM

Yes the fact that we cant afford yet another entitlement is one of my main concerns socks.

But I reject, in general, that simply having insurance will somehow make people healthier. In fact, if those who pay nothing of the cost of thier health care, I will argue that they would be encouraged to be more wreckless. Ive shared that view here before.

Also, the fact that we have a history of these govt run programs on entitlements. EXPANDING them just isnt helpful. imo. This is like investing with Madoff over and over.

Whatever extra taxes this generates still goes into the general fund. ANd history has shown politicians cant keep their hands off it.

And do you really think the govt should be telling insurance companies what they can charge and what they must cover?

3/3/2010 10:27:46 AM

could you stop name-checking madoff with regards to health care reform

it's fucking stupid and irrelevant

3/3/2010 10:29:30 AM

Not really. He ran his own SS plan, exactly the same way the govt does. Although people had to send him money, the govt just takes it.

2.9% medicare tax on annuities to help pay for this bill. Just another way to punish people for saving and planning.

3/3/2010 10:40:36 AM

contributing to the common health and wellness is not a punishment

3/3/2010 10:50:33 AM

eyedrb,

Quote :

"But I reject, in general, that simply having insurance will somehow make people healthier."

You are again missing the point of health care reform. These reforms are not about making us healthier, they are about making us more economically secure. We are going to bring down insurance premiums. No one is going to lose sleep worrying about losing or being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. *That* is what health care reform is about. And really, its what its always been about.

Here is an article from Ezra Klein from last summer that nails this point exactly. Some of the arguments he makes don't fit the current incarnation of health care reforms (specifically it is hard for Democrats to argue that their current proposals will significantly lower health care spending as much about them have changed in the past year), but his points about how reform will improve economic security and expand health care coverage are still spot on.


Wealth-Care Reform: Fixing our health-care system will make us more economically secure. It won't make us much healthier.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=wealth_care_reform

[Edited on March 3, 2010 at 10:54 AM. Reason : ``]

3/3/2010 10:51:47 AM

How is this going to bring down insurance premiums? I must have missed that part.

... and I don't buy the part about increased economic security. Having the government provide people with money to buy health insurance or create rules which makes health insurance individually more affordable for certain individuals may make those individuals more economically secure, but the country's overall health care expenditures are unchanged, possibly increased if people pursue care they would otherwise forgo due to affordability issues. The cost is just shifted. Obama goes teleprompter all day about unsustainable spending threatening economic security. He is talking about the country, not Bob with cancer.

[Edited on March 3, 2010 at 11:33 AM. Reason : ]

3/3/2010 11:17:10 AM

Quote :

"contributing to the common health and wellness is not a punishment"

LOL "contribution" my ass.

Since when did you learn to speak Orwellian, Frosh?

3/3/2010 1:05:30 PM

know thy enemy

3/3/2010 1:06:25 PM

nah... you were advocating a position using Orwellian diktat

3/3/2010 1:08:09 PM

Quote :

"We are going to bring down insurance premiums"

I just dont see how anyone can think that will happen. And those those contributing to your "economic security" wont be paying more...a lot more.


Supplanter, this ones for you.

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-american-agenda-flashback-dems-should-not-pass-healthcare-with-a-50-plus-1-strategy

3/3/2010 1:09:06 PM

Quote :

"And do you really think the govt should be telling insurance companies what they can charge and what they must cover?"

Is this what they're doing?

They're just saying that in order to be offered through a certain venue, they must have a plan that meets certain requirements.

3/3/2010 1:11:43 PM

I, however, firmly believe the government should enforce reasonable standards of minimum coverage at nominal expense. Paint me with that red brush.

3/3/2010 1:16:39 PM

Frosh. But what would be included? It sounds good, I admit. However, you should be able to buy whatever amount of coverage you want.

Moron, that is absolutely what they are discussing.


House Bill - "Sets age rating band at 2:1, meaning that rates can vary by no more than 2-1 between oldest and youngest adults. No tobacco rating."

Senate Bill - "Sets age rating band at 3:1. Sets tobacco rating of 1.5:1, meaning that rates can be increased by 50% for smokers. Subsidies do not cover the tobacco rate-up difference."

Not to mention ending prexisting conditions and "premium discrimination."

And then forcing everything into an "insurance exchange". (which sounds great)

3/3/2010 1:21:19 PM

jc,

There are a lot of factors that for why the cost of health insurance will fall. First, The individual mandate will bring in healthy young people that currently do not have health insurance who will pay more in premiums than they file in insurance claims. That will bring premiums down for everyone. Also, subsidies will be given to low income individuals so that they amount of premium they actually pay will drop relative to if the subsidy did not exist.

Now, I am sure you can think up reasons for why the cost of health insurance will increase (bringing in sick people that take out more in insurance claims than they pay in in premiums), but the real question is how these forces will balance out on net. And that answer will likely vary by the particular market you're looking at.

Now, obviously we don't have estimates for current Democratic proposals because they are still in flux. But if you look at CBO estimates of the House and Senate bills, they all found the same thing--cost of health insurance will fall.

Here is Ezra Klein with the details:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/congressional_budget_office_re.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/massachusetts_provides_evidenc.html

But let's say you still just can't believe that premiums would fall. Your argument for why this won't increase economic security for millions of people is basically "it won't help the budget deficit". I truly wish Republicans were as concerned about the deficit 10 years ago as they are now. As I said to eyedrb, I truly can't take your argument as being in good faith. I am quite sure there are other things you care about more than the budget deficit (see my tax hike example)...except when it comes to extending health insurance to poor, sick people.

And that's why I said this argument boils down to whether you think improving access to health insurance is important or not. If you do, I have not seen a single good argument to demonstrate the fact.

I think that may have to be it for me for a while. I feel like I've repeated myself several times. So I may have to take a break.

[Edited on March 3, 2010 at 1:41 PM. Reason : ``]

3/3/2010 1:30:10 PM

^me too socks. Enjoyed the discussion.

3/3/2010 1:52:14 PM

Quote :

"could you stop name-checking madoff with regards to health care reform it's fucking stupid and irrelevant"

It really isn't, though. Social Security is just one big ponzi scheme, except it's legal because the government does it. At least we are saving the old people from poverty though, right? I wonder how much good their one thousand dollars a month will do when it doesn't buy anything.

Do you think we're going to have a functional Social Security/Medicare system in 30 years? Old and disabled people are going to die on the street, and that isn't hyperbole. We should have reformed this entire thing during the 80s and worked on phasing it out and making sure that the funding was there for people already dependent on the system. Unfortunately, the politicians are totally incompetent, and they didn't (and still don't) have the courage to tackle a hard issue. Now the people that we were supposedly helping (those that can't work anymore) are going to suffer the most during this depression, and there's nothing we can do to stop it.

3/3/2010 2:04:47 PM

The end of the President's remarks today:

Quote :

"So, no matter which approach you favor, I believe the United States Congress owes the American people a final vote on health care reform. We have debated this issue thoroughly, not just for a year, but for decades. Reform has already passed the House with a majority. It has already passed the Senate with a supermajority of sixty votes. And now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that was cast on welfare reform, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, COBRA health coverage for the unemployed, and both Bush tax cuts – all of which had to pass Congress with nothing more than a simple majority. I have therefore asked leaders in both of Houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks. From now until then, I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform. And I urge every American who wants this reform to make their voice heard as well – every family, every business owner, every patient, every doctor, every nurse. "

3/3/2010 2:19:42 PM

I totally agree with him that there should be a vote on this bill. That is thier job.

3/3/2010 2:22:52 PM

Their job is to uphold the constitution, and they've failed miserably.

3/3/2010 2:36:37 PM

Socks -

The individual mandate and proposed subsidies did slip my mind there, so I admit it is not as clear cut. I was thinking very big picture during that post. It is almost guaranteed that a bill will somehow pass, so we shall see how that will all balance out.

I absolutely agree that a bill extending otherwise unattainable coverage will provide increased economic security to many individuals, but that money doesn't come out of thin air. There will be a corresponding worsening in the economic situation of those who pay more (through taxes, fines, or the forced purchase of insurance) as a result of this bill. If you then want to look at the country as a whole, I suppose it becomes a judgment call as to whether the net economic security of our country has improved or not based on that remix of individual economic situations. Looking at it from this perspective, I'm not even taking budget deficit implications into account.

I, too, have enjoyed this discussion. Without some disagreement this would all be very boring. But, I hope I have not come across as a Republican ITT, or a Democrat, for that matter. If you want to look at this argument as whether improving access to health insurance is important or not, I agree that you certainly can do that. In a vacuum, I'd say yes, that is important. But, we have to admit to ourselves as a country that doing so won't be free. Someone will pay for it. I still might say yes, that this issue is that important, but as it goes with these things - everyone will have different opinions. Those opinions largely depend on whether one is Peter or you are Paul, and I can't really blame people for thinking that way.

3/3/2010 2:39:54 PM

^^This is every post you've ever made. We get it man.

3/3/2010 2:49:26 PM

ay Solinari we coming up on the beginning of the five-to-seven-year window in which you said the government was gonna drive most health insurance companies out of business

what's the prognosis

1/16/2015 2:18:21 PM

Bump to catch Solinari on a vanity search.

6/19/2017 7:19:26 AM

^^It's kinda of depressing that he was wrong.

Like, none of the insurance companies had trouble. In fact, they've thrived.

And people really think Republicans are going to cut the "moochers" and return the "savings" to us through lower premiums and lower taxes.


Insurance companies are gonna take all our money no matter who's in office.

6/22/2017 8:13:22 AM

Insurance companies do not take money. They receive money in a voluntary exchange.

The government takes money. They take money in an involuntary exchange.

6/22/2017 11:32:53 AM

I hear ya.

Practically speaking, the Republicans can pass whatever they want...it seems evident that people will lose health insurance and insurance quality, and the cost of our healthcare and health insurance is not going down. I also don't anticipate our taxes will go down either.

I dunno...if they fuck a bunch of people out of their insurance and take away my universal maternity coverage ( ), then I'm gonna at least need my extra $600 per year back. They can keep my extra taxes and give them to VA or some shit.

But I already know I'm not going to get my $600 back. That money's already gone to someone savvier and wealthier than me. Maybe they'll bring back those extra, extra shitty plans--I'll just get one of those and pretend I'm lucky to have such a great money-saving opportunity.

[Edited on June 22, 2017 at 3:30 PM. Reason : ]

6/22/2017 3:29:26 PM