March 3, 2010

"My understanding of the Senate is is that you need 60 votes to get something significant to happen..."

"... which means that Democrats and have to ask the question: Do we have the will to move an American agenda forward, not a Democratic or Republican agenda forward?"

That's Barack Obama in 2004. And, here he is in 2006:
Those big-ticket items, fixing our health care system. You know, one of the arguments that sometimes I get with, uhh, my fellow progressives and -- and some of these have -- have flashed up in the blog communities on occasion -- is this notion that we should function sort of like Karl Rove, where we -- we identify our core base, we throw 'em red meat, we get a 50-plus-one, uhhh, victory. See, Karl Rove doesn't need a broad consensus because he doesn't believe in government. If we want to transform the country, though, that requires a -- a sizeable majority.
And 2007:
[Health care reform] is an area where we're going to have to have a 60% majority in the Senate and the House in order to actually get a bill to my desk. We're going to have to have a majority to get a bill to my desk that is not just a 50-plus-one majority....

You gotta break out of what I call the sort of 50-plus-one pattern of presidential politics. Maybe you eke out a victory with 50-plus-one but you can't govern. You know, you get Air Force One and a lot of nice perks as president but you can't -- you can't deliver on health -- we're not going to pass universal health care with a -- with a 50-plus-one strategy.
We're not? Or were you lying?

AND: In 2005:
Under the rules, the reconciliation process does not permit that debate. Reconciliation is therefore the wrong place for policy changes. In short, the reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper meaning: A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked.
Yes, it has.

88 comments:

Fred4Pres said...

What Obama really meant: "My understanding of the Senate is is that you need 60 votes to get something significant to happen...but if it is something I really want, a simple majority will do."

Hypocrisy, it not that tasty but you can sometimes mask it with irony and about four stiff drinks.

traditionalguy said...

Is Obama actually not so concerned over a one term Presidency because he expects that he will see a crash of the US Dollar, that he has arranged, leading to social unrest that will require a Martial Law Decree and emergency rule? A Reichstag Fire type of event could be the signal for the Next phase. Am I seriously worried about that...yes because he is not stupidly doing it by accident.

Pogo said...

A meaningless "living" Constitution has consequences.

Conor said...

The only good thing to come from the Obama administration is that we are returning to our roots. It is inspiring that the discussion is about big ideas, Constitutional, formative ideas, the very ideas that shaped our country.

We are in the early stages of our Second Revolution. And as our founding fathers feared, we are revolting from our own government.

Truly, these are the times that try men's souls.

Jason said...

Oh dear. But this insurance industry expert who doesn't know the difference between liability and collision, this health care expert who can't pronounce 'corpsman,' just KNOWS it's the right thing to do.

SoonerFan said...

Conor,

It was Thomas Jefferson who said that we should have a revolution in this country every 20-50 years. It's been a very long time since that has happened in this country, so it might be time.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

elliot said...

I'm a libertarian, but do you guys really think we're going to start shooting each other over outlawing pre-exising conditions?

Jeremy said...

Although reconciliation was originally understood to be for the purpose of improving the government's fiscal position (reducing deficits or increasing surpluses), the language of the 1974 act referred only to "changes" in revenue and spending amounts; not specifically to increases or decreases.(W)

Alex said...

I agree with Conor - we need a 2nd American Revolution against our homegrown tyrants. I'll join you on the front lines!

Jeremy said...

i suggest every one of the wing nuts here...cancel their insurance..than try to get a new policy.

GFL.

F said...

I find it harder and harder to believe anything the President says. In fact, it's almost to the point where I know when he says something, the opposite is true. I go back to that nagging question: is this administration extremely crafty or f*cking stupid? F

edutcher said...

As Rush so perspicaciously put it, "Everything Barack Obama says has an expiration date." I don't know if the Republican Party will do it, but the blogosphere ought to crucify The Zero with the sort of quotes Ann has posted. Show people what a duplicitous hypocrite he is.

elliot said...

I'm a libertarian, but do you guys really think we're going to start shooting each other over outlawing pre-exising conditions?

You don't seem to be paying attention, if, in fact, you are a libertarian, but there's a bit more to it than that. Stuff like consent of the governed, Constitutionality. You know, all that clingy, racist right wing stuff.

traditionalguy said...

Is Obama actually not so concerned over a one term Presidency because he expects that he will see a crash of the US Dollar, that he has arranged, leading to social unrest that will require a Martial Law Decree and emergency rule? A Reichstag Fire type of event could be the signal for the Next phase. Am I seriously worried about that...yes because he is not stupidly doing it by accident.

As I've said earlier, a Weimar Republic scenario where Dr Evil, former Nazi collaborator that he is, breaks the major currencies (Euro, US dollar) and owns the US government.

Insta has passed on a Riehl World View post (http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2010/03/when-in-the-course-of-human-events.html) that draws a nice line in the sand.

pm317 said...

Oh, he has broken so many promises and flip-flopped so many times, what is one more time?

bagoh20 said...

To those sufferers of Bush Derangement Syndrome who wailed about his governance imagining all sorts of debased dealings and unfair power grabs, are you not at all bothered by this administration's character with it's absolute abandonment of any sense of ethics, honesty, or loyalty to even their own principles?

It is now a daily occurrence that a promise is broken, a standard or national tradition is walked on and all this in addition to upholding most of what you railed Bush for, from the Patriot Act to Afghanistan. Again today Obama appoints a federal judge who just happens to be the brother of a congressman on the fence in the health care vote and who will be meeting him tonight to discuss his vote. How convenient.

Is it really only about winning and nothing else? You probably hate this health care bill in its detail as much as its opponents, yet your poms poms flutter with delight as your team pulls faceguards and clips the apposing team even purposely throwing dirt in the faces of the of the spectators and dishonoring the game in front of us all.

Yea it's just politics, but whose fault is that?

Peter V. Bella said...

He never really had an understanding of the Senate. He never spent any time there. He was too busy running for President, meeting with Soros, and raising money.

David said...

Jeremy said...
"i suggest every one of the wing nuts here...cancel their insurance..than try to get a new policy."

Can't, Jeremy, since I'm on Medicare.

I'm all in favor of eliminating pre-existing condition exceptions, or at least drastically scaling them back. But they have not created a way to do this that works. Under both the House and Senate bills, people who are healthy can decline insurance and then sign up once they get sick or injured. This is a prescription for disaster, and example of the slipshod thinking that underlies these bills.

Something is not always better than nothing, Jeremy. This is one of those times.

Peter V. Bella said...

Hey Jeremy, what about all the libtards who are against the program?

bagoh20 said...

Jeremy,

Conservatives get sick too, we need health care, we want it to be fair, effective, and economical. Who wouldn't? We also think this bill or any that leaves that up to the government will do it poorly, relative to the one we have. I bet you even think this bill sucks, but would never admit it and would destroy the health care gem of the world anyway just to win...something for your guy, your hero, your silliness.

There is simply no excuse for passing this mess and doing it this way in a democratic and free society founded on the rights of the people and their superiority to their government.

Joe said...

i suggest every one of the wing nuts here...cancel their insurance..than try to get a new policy

I'm in the process of doing just that. Just filled out the paperwork. Oh yeah, my state has a pooling program for small businesses. See the advantage of federalism--Massachusetts can socialize medicine, Utah can promote a variety of solutions (then again, we're pretty damn healthy out here.) Why again is the federal government needed in this?

former law student said...

Now that he's the lead sled dog, his view has changed.

former law student said...

Utah can promote a variety of solutions (then again, we're pretty damn healthy out here.)

My LDS friend who grew up near St. George, Utah (our national sacrifice area during the Cold War) did not survive her third bout with Hodgkins disease. Luckily, her employer kept her on the payroll even when she was too sick to work.

bagoh20 said...

"Now that he's the lead sled dog, his view has changed."

That's understandable, but it's no excuse for ignoring who owns the sled and holds the whip.

Joe said...

My LDS friend who grew up near St. George, Utah

Even before the down winders started getting really sick and dying, Utahans were very healthy. We still are. Not smoking alone has a huge effect.

Seriously, though, I have no problem with the federal government taking care of freeing up the states (through legitimate use of the commerce clause) but see no cause to interrupt the various states from acting on their own. I see no reason why the rest of the country should bail out California for their idealistic stupidity.

(I also reiterate something I've said before; when the federal government can run the Indian Health Service in an efficient manner--its being run in a downright criminal way today--then they can start talking about how they would be qualified to take over health care in this country.)

Milwaukee said...

Here is a news flash: we are all going to die. Medicine might help ease the pain, and might delay the worse effects, and there are cancer survivors, but people die. Our mortality rate did not increase with Medicare. Demographic groups which practice healthier life styles live longer. Whoa.

Eliminating pre-existing conditions as grounds for denying insurance will ruin the industry, and create a moral hazard. Minimizing patient costs also causes a moral hazard. Patients need to know what procedures cost.

Does the health bill double or triple the numbers of doctors, dentists, nurses and other health care workers by increasing the number of schools for them? In my previous county, the waiting list for the nursing program at the technical college was 4 years. No wonder there is a shortage of nurses.

To be sure there are problems in our health care system. Let's clean up Medicare and Medicaid. Let's eliminate pharmaceuticals from advertising to patients (that has driven up costs!). We subsidized pharmaceuticals through research, and they gouge us in the pharmacy.

There is much to be done: but I have opposed this legislation for months because more was being promised: "You won't have to give up your insurance or doctor if you like them." and "more people will be covered" than could possibly happen. If something sounds too good to be true it probably is. The costs are being hidden. Collect taxes for 4 years before any benefits are paid out? Right. That money will be spent long before any benefits are delivered.

Tim said...

He supported it before he opposed it.

TMink said...

Liar.

He is just a liar from Chicago.

Trey

Night2night said...

For all of the endless pontificating on the left about Bush, I have never seen the utter disregard for both the constitution and the American people this man and his administration express. A 2700 page bill is going to fundamentally restructure the american health care industry (about 1/6 of the american economy) and how health care is administered to and purchased by the american people. All cobbed together by our elected representatives, written by big government liberals, and passed on a party line vote utilizing "budget" reconciliation. The hubris boggles the mind (and the "reality based" community denigrates religious conservatives).

I will never again vote for a Democratic candidate again. This simply confirms what I figured out after Clinton in 1992; there is no such thing as a conservative Democrat (fiscally conservative while socially liberal). Doesn't exist, and now, although somewhat melodramatic, the partisan divide is widening into something else.

Martin said...

We are headed for a constitutional crisis.

1. Dems ram through health care bill using reconciliation iona sham proceeding with literally hundreds of parliamentary and procedural rulings that clearly are illegal.

2. GOP takes back House, maybe Senate on platform of repeal, and if Obama vetoes repeal, forbidding any funds be spent to further the new health care law.

3. Repeal fails.

4. Budget deadlock, administration shifts money around despite lack of appropriations, and maybe despite clear language forbidding certain uses.

5. Impeachment (the reverse, impounding appropriated funds due only to policy differences, was one of the counts against Nixon, btb)

6. Obama's response?????????????

Bill White said...

Does anyone really think most politicians' words have any meaning at all aside from whatever immediate political leverage they can provide?

Of course Obama criticized reconciliation back then - his side was on the receiving end of it. And of course he's for it now because it's the only respectable way left for him to make his power-grab.

Night2night said...

This is more than the usual political antics (I expect the constantly advancing corrupt self-interest of both parties). This is more and demands a furious response. Dan Riehl states it as well as anyone I've read this evening.

Riehl World View: When In The Course Of Human Events

Paul said...

elliot said... I'm a libertarian, but do you guys really think we're going to start shooting each other over outlawing pre-exising conditions?

Don’t be silly, we don’t think we're going to start shooting each other over outlawing pre-existing conditions, we think we’re going to start shooting each other when the financial system collapses in this country, which seems to be inevitable at this point.

pm317 said...Oh, he has broken so many promises and flip-flopped so many times, what is one more time?

Right, who’s counting? In case anyone might be, I notice that Obama now says the plan incorporates some Republican ideas. Wasn’t he constantly saying “The Republicans have no ideas” until about a week ago? The ideas he’s referring to now were mentioned a year ago.

Lamenting in Madison said...

I would like to point out that both the house and the senate have passed healthcare reform bills. The democrats GOT 60 votes for healthcare reform. The house had a majority of votes to pass healthcare reform. Now both bills need to be RECONCILED. Why not use such a useful procedure, with such a convenient name?

Night2night said...

Because most of the american people are against it. Because Scott Brown was in large part elected because a deep blue state didn't like this process. Because reconciliation was intended for budgetary process and not this type of huge entitlement bill (which was the whole point of our hostess's original posting and originally ascribed to by BO himself for years).

So why not use it? Because you're labeling yourself a hypocrite and liar. Because I can promise anybody who votes for this you're picking a fight with a sizeable, pissed-off, contingent of american citizens. Bring it on you tool.

Alex said...

So is Althouse going to vote for Obama in 2012?

Ralph L said...

The tree of liberty must be refreshed
I believe the correct verb is "manured."

Zachary Paul Sire said...

Althouse wants Obama to be honest and pragmatic, but she doesn't want any of the insurance company-beholden Republicans in the Senate to not be obstructionists. How nice.

Alex said...

Althouse wants Obama to be honest and pragmatic, but she doesn't want any of the insurance company-beholden Republicans in the Senate to not be obstructionists. How nice.

*sigh*

How can private industry obstruct Congress, unless Congress wants to be obstructed? Why don't you put the blame where it belongs on Pelosi's incompetence and your treasonous blue dogs?

Night2night said...

@Zachary

Nobody wants insurance company abuses (which obviously exist). Several incremental changes have been suggested by Republicans, but this bill is a method to eventually get to single-payer (which is why BO is so desperate to pass it even if it costs him a second term; he knows it will be very difficult to reverse). Have an honest debate and achieve a large majority consensus before enacting something like this. The "reality based community" is supposed to be supporters of empirical verification and not just idealogues; or was that the BDS meme?

Alex said...

Night - the "reality based community" says a lot of shit they don't mean.

Night2night said...

@Alex

Yeah, I know.
/sarcasm off (from earlier comment)

Ralph L said...

The tree of liberty must be refreshed
I believe the actual verb he used was "manured."

Fen said...

fls: Now that he's the lead sled dog, his view has changed

Thats not how Obama promised to govern.

Fen said...

the "reality based community" says a lot of shit they don't mean.

Fen's Law: The Left doesn't really believe in the things they lecture us about.

mvl said...

But he doesn't know what the political fallout will be after he pisses all over the poltical system of this country by pulling some tinpot shit.

Sure Barry, we believe ya. What kind of a person voted for this guy and is surprised at any of this?

Rich white people of the US of KKK?

mvl said...

"i suggest every one of the wing nuts here...cancel their insurance..than try to get a new policy."

In economics, there is a concept called "rationing"...

Are you saying Barry's frothy drinking games will give us much abundance!

Yes Dear Leader! Yes we can! We don't need White Man Economics to rule us!

Get a life.

Peg C. said...

The really tough thing is fighting through the stammering and stuttering utter incoherence to get to the actual point of what he's saying and understand it. 12-year-olds speak better than this. Embarrassing and depressing. And supposedly intelligent people voted for this.

The fact that he's a liar and a hypocrite no longer surprises. As Rush said, everything Obama says has an expiration of a few seconds.

eve said...

The govt.runs medicare and medicaid. Both systems are broke. The govt. wants to run the rest of the medical system. The govt. will pay for it by fixing the medicare and medicaid systems.

DaveW said...

So is Althouse going to vote for Obama in 2012?

Who's he running against?

That's something people opposed to this nonsense better start thinking seriously about. If voters get another choice like McCain v Obama he might get re-elected.

DaveW said...

Obama doesn't respect American traditions of government and he doesn't think there's anything necessarily good or right about this country. There have been a lot of signs of this. Perhaps the biggest warning flag should have been him calling out the SCOTUS the way he did at the SOTU. Obama and this crew will get what they want by whatever means they think they can get away with.

People that think this can be repealed later are making a serious mistake I think. And those that think a later Pub congress can simply not fund it or that they can provoke a government shutdown and win forget what happened last time Pubs did that.

If people want to stop this they'd better call, write and email their reps and tell them they will not just vote against them but also work for and donate to the opponent of anyone that votes for this.

Another TEA party march on DC wouldn't hurt either. If the TEA partiers went to DC and blocked the capital so they couldn't get in and out of the building - make it so they CAN'T do business - that might get their attention.

kentuckyliz said...

When the House and the Senate approve bills that differ, they get CONFERENCED, not RECONCILED. Don't mix up balancing your checkbook with how to pass a law.

Ok, pop quiz. Why is libtard not a bad word that will get you called out, while retard is?


























































Libtards can choose not to be that dumb.

TRO said...

"I'm a libertarian, but do you guys really think we're going to start shooting each other over outlawing pre-exising conditions?"

If you think that is all this is about you aren't much of a libertarian.

Pogo said...

My despair that arose on 11/4/08 turns out to have been accurate and necessary.

Yesterday two of my elderly patients asked what was going to happen to them in Medicare.

I pointed out it's going to be cut 20% and that would mean we would go out of business so they're asking the wrong guy.

Scott M said...

Nothing infuriated me as much as Ted Kennedy's push when Romney was governor to return the seating of senator in special circumstances to a popular vote...only to completely reverse himself when it was HIS seat and a Dem governor that needed to fill it. Unbelievable, but as we all know, that worked out well in the arena of cosmic political karma.

This is right up there on the head-splode scale. Reconciliation has been used 22 times over the course of the Senate's history? Fine. The Repubs have used it? Fine. Completely flip-flopping on your moral high-ground stance AGAINST using it only a couple of years ago and thinking we won't notice? Abso-fucking-lutely NOT fine.

vet66 said...

In the 80's we had a shill for the insurance company tell us why his company was the one to choose. With union involvement the cost and benefits were presented. All prices were set and part of the contract. I inquired why we all paid the same price considering that I knew the pack-a-day smokers, heavy drinkers, serial philanderers, donut mavens, overweight denizens of the all-you-can-eat for lunch crowd, and exercise adverse couch potatoes?

Of course I knew that it was a fait accompli but pressed ahead as he stammered something about negotiations, best for all, the flag waves, ...as long as the sky is blue, grass is green and the buffalo roam..God bless America BS right out of the script for Best Little Whorehouse in Texas, the strong have to take care of the weak.

I have a serious problem supporting the unhealthy lifestyles of my fellow Americans and illegal immigrants. I also have a problem feeling bad for someone who tragically develops health problems, has no health insurance, owns a BMW and subscribes to all the DTV sport channels watching them on a flat screen in excess of 50" on the diagonal and vacations to Costa Rica and a rope ride through the jungle canopy finished by a bungee jump off a bridge.

Tell me again why I should support bad decisions, lack of planning/foresight with the sure and certain knowlege that you don't get healthier with age? Apparently as a senior I should just suck it up and die quietly into the night. That may happen but you can forget the 'quiet' part.

wv: heatraph
what happens to the elderly French in August when their kids go to the Riviera leaving the geezers to sweat and die in unairconditioned apartments.

mvl said...

"The govt.runs medicare and medicaid. Both systems are broke. The govt. wants to run the rest of the medical system. The govt. will pay for it by fixing the medicare and medicaid systems."

Nicely put.

But Sarah Palin is just such a dummy, we all hate her so much, because she said she saw Russia from her house. We voted for a black guy!

Sloanasaurus said...

Obama also repeated the lie that "if you like your doctor you can keep them." Even though recently Obama admitted that this may not be true.

To only explanation for the way Obama behaves is that he believes Americans for the most part are stupid. Thus, he rationalizes that lying is okay since Americans would not understand the truth.

Obama is not a wise man. The reason why the founders made it tough to pass big things was because if you pass a big thing without a large majority, it will fail miserably when implemented. There are so many lessons from past civilizations regarding this fact. Even Dictators need public support to do big things.

Yet, Obama fails to heed this wisdom. If his "reform" passes on a partisan vote with a 50+1 victory, it will be illegitimate from the starting block. It will be blamed for all ills in health-care. It will ruin the Democratic party... at least until it is repealed.

Sloanasaurus said...

WHo by the way in the Deomcratic party will support Obamacare once its passed.

Democrats will run away from it instantly. The liberals will say that its flawed because its not single-payer. The fiscal conservatives will say its too liberal, and no republicans will support it at all. No one will claim Obamacare for their own after it passes except for Obama and his partisan supporters - who grow thinner everyday.

Obamacare is a massive political failure. Passing it now will only exaggerate the failure.

Class factotum said...

did not survive her third bout with Hodgkins disease. Luckily, her employer kept her on the payroll even when she was too sick to work.

When I was in the health insurance industry many years ago, we encouraged employers to buy long-term disability insurance for their employees to cover this exact situation. LTD is dirt cheap. Employees who are on LTD can continue their health coverage through the company for a while and then the insurer helps them get medicare (if I remember correctly - it has been 20 years).

Point is - this sort of situation is not new. You know. Of people getting sick and not being able to work but still needing their employer-provided health insurance. The market figured out a solution. LTD is not a government product.

It probably would have been cheaper for that employer to have LTD on all his employees than to pay the salary of that one employee who wasn't working because she was sick.

Dust Bunny Queen undoubtedly knows more about this as she is still in the industry.

AJ Lynch said...

Obama is fast becoming a parody of a parody.


wv = rumpock = sounds like it could be a great insult

c3 said...

I would like to point out that both the house and the senate have passed healthcare reform bills. The democrats GOT 60 votes for healthcare reform.

I am amazed at how quickly the Internet spreads a talking point. This is about the third or fourth time I've seen this statement in the past 24 hours.

Yes, they did get those votes. And so now lets see if the Dems have the party unity to get a reconciliation bill through.

As I said yesterday,the only thing bipartisan about Healthcare reform.....errr I mean Health Insurance Reform is the opposition to it.

Now that is an exceptional accomplishment of Change and so now I have Hope

Jason said...

I had that conversation with a small business owner just yesterday. His wife has cancer, but has Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance that they're happy with.

I was signing him up for life insurance, and said "Hey, look, what happens if you throw out your back, or get sick, and can't work? What happens to your income?"

"Well, I'd have to hire someone to do all that, and then that would take up all the operating income. I'd lose my income."

"Ok. And when you lose your income, how will you pay your medical insurance premiums?"

"I don't know!"

"And if you lapsed, what would happen?"

"We'd get cancelled!"

"And then what?"

"We'd wind up losing everything!"

c3 said...

This does re-affirm that old saw:
"How can you tell when a politician is lying? When...

bagoh20 said...

""Ok. And when you lose your income, how will you pay your medical insurance premiums?""

And how will you pay your mortgage, buy food, clothes, cable, cell phone. You health insurance premium is the best money you can spend once you are sick. You life is at stake, it's time for priorities.

One of the big problem is health insurance being tied to employment. This has resulted in us thinking it is something we never have to pay for. We never learned to take it as our responsibility for ourselves. Now we think it should just be paid by someone since it always was.

Michael said...

Jason:
As to the sad sack business owner I have a question. After hearing his answers to your loaded questions did you in your selfishness pursue the sale of life insurance? To a man whose presumable beneficiary is dying of cancer? It is greedy insurance people like you who are scaring the public into buying their useless products. And if he throws his back out and can't pay the premium on his policy your insurance company probably would insist that they have no obligation to pay up if he croaks. Don't run your bullshit insurance salesman lies to this group. Story was entirely made up.

Class factotum said...

Michael, so you are against life insurance? Car insurance? Disability insurance? Homeowner's insurance? You are against any person paying someone else to take the risk for something bad that may or may not happen that has the possibility to wipe him out financially?

I hope you do not have a wife and children who would be left penniless if you died. I hope you have plenty of assets to pay if you hit someone else in a car accident. Or if a tornado hits your house.

Going bare is just fine if you are Bill Gates rich or really poor. For the rest of us, it is a good idea to protect what we have and to take care of our families.

F15C said...

The Left as led by Obama/Reid/Pelosi knows that the only real price to be paid for instituting radical change in our country against the desires and best interests of the citizens is to lose an election or two.

The left has been pushing the nations institutions to the left in incrementally for a few decades - but now they are dramatically accelerating their plan.

As long as there is no serious personal consequences (they are at heart cowards) for the leftist leadership they will continue this process until our nation is indelibly changed.

Michael said...

No, I think insurance is great for many situations. I think health insurance is a bad bet for young people. I think collision insurance is stupid for old cars. I think, in the case of the sad sack, that a disability policy might be a good idea. If one is flush with cash or young a catastrophic health plan might be in order. What I am not in favor of is tearing down our current system because of boo hoo stories that can be made up on the instant. I am not in favor of giving a new health program to a government that has run two health programs into insolvency. I love my family as much as the next guy. But remember the old lady who had to wear her dead mother's false teeth? You know what? I do not give one shit about that. She could sell her car or her t.v. or quit using meth or one of a million other things other than bother me with her freaking sob story.

And my previous post was meant to point out that you do not get the benefit of insurance without paying for insurance. A self employed person who continues to pay his premiums will continue to be insured. The proposition was what would happen if he quit paying his premiums because he got hurt and couldn't work and had to have someone else do the work

Class factotum said...

Michael, I misunderstood your first post and agree with everything you just wrote. Yes. If you have your own business, you better make sure you have disability insurance.

former law student said...

Because Scott Brown was in large part elected because a deep blue state didn't like this process.

As best as I understand that argument, residents of a state where everyone has health care want to deny that opportunity to the rest of the country.

I'm going to say that Martha Coakley was an unappealing, arrogant candidate who thought that she deserved to win without taking the trouble to, you know, campaign. Mocking Scott Brown's effort to greet hockey fans in the dead of winter at Fenway didn't help, when she had holed up for a week with her turkey and her mistletoe.

Independents in particular, vote for the candidate and not the party. Brown was just a whole lot more deserving of their vote.

former law student said...

Obama also repeated the lie that "if you like your doctor you can keep them." Even though recently Obama admitted that this may not be true.

"Although you like your doctor, he may dump you." True under our current system as well.

Last year in SF, the Brown and Toland practice group kicked out the UCSF physicians. So if your HMO used the Brown and Toland practice group, although you liked your specialists at USCF, you were not allowed to keep them.

F15C said...

bagoh20: "One of the big problem is health insurance being tied to employment."

Exactly.

As a start-up business founder I want my employees and their families to be in the best of health.

But, while it is my responsibility to provide a safe and healthy workplace and cover workplace caused health problems, it is (or should be) my employees moral and economic responsibility to provide for their own health and health care needs.

Disconnecting health care from employment and allowing people to shop for both the right health care and health insurance (two different but related things)for them, we'd fairly radically reign in costs and increase coverage pretty quickly.

c3 said...

Here's an interesting little article about a country heading in a different direction (i.e. from state-run central planning to public/private funding via an insurance mechanism)..

An interesting quote:
“Bulgarians are worried by the idea of extra charges. The media reports a lot of resistance.”

And for more background, here (warning pdf).

The are two interesting stats among many
-private expenditure on health
as % of total expenditure on health increased 73% in 6 years
- total health expenditure,
% of GDP increase 66% in 6 years

former law student said...

it is (or should be) my employees moral and economic responsibility to provide for their own health and health care needs.

Diffentials in the cost of health care are one way that giant corporations squelch competition. Single-payer government health care would level the playing field by eliminating a disincentive for striking out on one's own.

Compare Canada, where 8 percent of the total population own their own business, creating two-thirds of private sector jobs.

Scott M said...

Compare Canada, where 8 percent of the total population own their own business, creating two-thirds of private sector jobs.

Yes, but they are mostly moose and tuke related businesses. We don't have a sizable market for either here.

Jason said...

Michael,

You are a fucking idiot.

Were you at the table? Did you do the fact finder? Do you know what the market value of his business is as an ongoing concern? Do you know who the planned beneficiaries are and what the insurable interest is and why? Have you made any assessment of a surviving heir's ability and inclination to run the business? Do you know who's taking care of his parents in their old age? Do you know what they'll be living on? Do you know what his asset protection concerns are? Do you know how he's saving for his own retirement? Do you know what waiver of premium is? Do you know what a spouse's policy purchase option is and how it works? Have you compared household expenses to income? Do you know what the spouse's prognosis is? How do you know she's dying, you moron? Were you at the table when they discussed their desire to adopt a child? Do you know who else lives with them? Do you know a damn thing about them?

No, you don't, shit-for-brains. You weren't there, and you don't know what I know, and I know all these things.

So don't run your stupid, ignorant mouth mouth about shit you don't know a damn thing about, you drooling imbicile. Go play with your food. I'm a professional, and you're a half-witted shithead. Go play in your food some more.

Shit. You're like Obama, thinking he knows how to run the insurance industry when he doesn't know collision from liability.

What's dangerous is you don't even know what you don't know.

Christ, libturds are stupid.

Michael said...

FLS: I once waited two weeks to acquire a Canadian company because the CFO of the target company had a son with a very serious medical problem that required surgery. Every day for two weeks the man packed his son and wife in the car and drove to the hospital in Vancouver. Every night for 13 nights they drove home. Finally, the son got his operation. Free. Isn't that a great story? And while we marvel at the free surgery we might consider the many advancements in medicine that come from Canada, the legions of new techniques and wonder drugs that come from their flourishing drug companies.

Michael said...

Jason: The key is that you got your commission. Your lame fiction was too boring to even consider real. Seems to me that it wasn't that complicated a sale. The guy's business produced such thin margins that replacing himself would put him out of business if he threw his back out. All the other silly underwriting criteria you trot out makes you, together with your semi-literate rave, seem a bit off in the head. And perhaps a poor salesman.

Jason said...

Your lame fiction was too boring to even consider real.

Still speculating on shit you have no idea about?

You missed the point entirely.

The guy's business produced such thin margins that replacing himself would put him out of business if he threw his back out.

Wrong, shithead.

Like I said, you don't know what you don't know.

But, like the thick-headed thumbsucker you are, you draw conclusions anyway.

You're right at home with the Dems.

Michael said...

Jason: Some idiot, apparently posing as you, wrote the following:"I was signing him up for life insurance, and said "Hey, look, what happens if you throw out your back, or get sick, and can't work? What happens to your income?"

"Well, I'd have to hire someone to do all that, and then that would take up all the operating income. I'd lose my income."

"Ok. And when you lose your income, how will you pay your medical insurance premiums?"

"I don't know!"

"And if you lapsed, what would happen?"

"We'd get cancelled!"

"And then what?"

"We'd wind up losing everything!"

Jason said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jason said...

Losing operating income != "out of business," chucklehead.

There was no idiot posing as me, but you've been posing as an idiot for some time. It's difficult for me to believe anyone can really be that stupid.

Here's a cluebat for you: I thought DI would be a good idea for him, too. Hence the line of questioning. I knew where the line of inquiry would lead before I started, and as a result he agreed to let me put him into underwriting for disability insurance.

How did you think this was sold? Check a box?

Michael said...

Jason: "losing operating income" does not equate to going out of business. Re-read your insane post and tell me what in the world your point was. As I read it you appear to be in favor of nationalized health care. You pose as a business person to cover your quite inane post. Then you call me a liberal. I think you are in a bit over your head here.

Michael said...

Jason: I forgot. When you use words like "cluebat" you give yourself away. A bat to a person on the right wing is a sporting devise used to hit a base or cricket ball.

Jason said...

As I read it you appear to be in favor of nationalized health care.

!?!?!?

No.

Jason said...

"losing operating income" does not equate to going out of business.

That's exactly what I said.

Alright, it looks like we're each arguing past one another. I took you to be another screaming liberal who also posted as Michael, engaging in ad hominem attack against me.

For the record, I am a staunch opponent of Obamacare. I post here often enough to assume that Michael... at least the Michael I thought you were, knew that.

The original post was not designed to be a vignette in favor of Obamacare. The original post was designed to illustrate how disability income insurance is sold every day... in this case, chiefly in order to protect the family from almost certainly being bankrupted by her medical bills, if disability forced him to lapse their medical insurance.

For the record, her prognosis is excellent at this point, and they plan to adopt in a year or two. At this point she cannot work, and relies totally on his income. If he dies, the business can be sold, but at a substantial markdown. If he is disabled, he can hire a manager and the business continues as a going concern, but he cannot draw significant income from it.

He wanted life insurance, but didn't know how disability worked. I got the app for life insurance, and he's covered as of that moment, provisionally, pending underwriting. Disability required additional underwriting due to occupation, he needs to assemble financial records, etc. We started that process, but it will take more than one meeting.

At the end of the day, if I do my job, he will have protection agaist premature death and unexpected disability, each with a premium he can easily afford, and designed to account for a buyout provision if he so chooses and he can find someone to agree to the buyout agreement. He may reciprocate with an industry peer.

.

Jason said...

Make any more sense now?

go back and read your insane post

I have hundreds of insane posts on this blog. Be more specific.

jeff said...

I just switched over to a HSA. I wished that had been available for the previous 28 of my working years, I would be sitting pretty good about now. I have a $2000 deductible after which I go 80/20 with a total out of pocket around 5.8K. Deductible waived for preventive care and preventive drugs. And I get the negotiated price just like the people who have the small deductible insurance. I would think that if everyone had that kind of policy from when they started work, the vast majority would be better off, with a nice little nest egg.

Peter Friedman said...

Reconciliation was used to pass the Bush tax cuts that would not have passed with a 60 person majority.

And there's nothing unconstitutional (ore remotely un-American) about passing legislation on a majority vote. There's certainly nothing in the Constitution supporting the 60 vote requirement, which might itself be unconstitutional.