Presumably, some people will watch, but why exactly? What do they think they're going to get out of it?
In convening Thursday’s bipartisan health session, President Obama is angling to recreate the kind of spontaneous, unscripted debate that gave him a decided advantage when he took questions on live television at a House Republican retreat in Baltimore last month.So some Obama supporters will watch in an effort to perceive Obama's awesome dominance and then to sit back and feel optimistic about health care reform — or maybe to blog about why their perceptions are so true.
But this time, Mr. Obama will face adversaries who are well prepared to joust with him on the finer points of health policy before a large audience that will be judging both sides and looking for signs of bipartisanship.And some Obama opponents will watch in an effort to perceive the demolition of Obama's hopes 'n' dreams and then to sit back to enjoy the continuation of the downward spiral of health care reform — or maybe to blog about why their perceptions are so true.
Most normal people, I think, are sick of hearing politicians talking about health care.
IN THE COMMENTS: People are live-blogging the big show. For example, rhhardin says:
Ha. I listened for 20 seconds, and in that time Obama did his rhetorical tic
1. Tell a lie
2. "and that's why," followed by a bad idea.
Not that anybody should make it a drinking game.
Posts
392 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 392 of 392""The most effective means of cost containment "...
As Thomas Sowell has pointed out, you cannot contain costs, although you can contain spending. They aren't the same thing, however.
Hoosier:
Plus we should normalize the US expenditures of 16% for the amounts we spend on medical costs like dental, plastic surgery, weight loss, drug addiction, med services related to ambulance-chasing lawyers, etc. [I assume we spend more on those things than France/ Germany]
Then we'd be closer to other advanced nations.
Not to mention Medicare is 25% cheaper at covering people than private insurance.
I don't remember who said that but this type of statement is why most people don't trust the people that are pushing this nonsense. Believe it or not most of us know that's a stinking pile of poo.
Here's my Medicare factoid. Last May I had a triple bypass and left ventricular aneurysm repair. The hospital bill was $168k and the surgeon bill was $34k, so roughly $200k total billed. Medicare paid $13k total. The surgeons got about $7k of that for 5 hours work (3 surgeons).
The bloodwork *alone* was billed at $13k. The only way that works is if someone else is making up the loss on that procedure for the hospital and surgeons.
@Dave
The figure I saw recently on percentage of health care controlled by the government was 40%, sorry I don't have a cite but it didn't seem to be very controversial. That would have been all programs, Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc. I'd guess they're measuring that in dollars spent, though from my example you can see that would skew the results significantly compared to the number of actual patients being serviced.
Germany doesn't have that many old people, old like WWII old people. Us and the Russians killed most of them off.
"We're not campaigning any more, John. The election is over," he said.
To which McCain responded, "I'm reminded of that every day."
Mitch was smart to bring McCain to land some of those blows. He's the best pne to get indignant about special interest deals. Too many of the other GOP have dirty hands.
When I was in grad school, there were times that I didn't read all the assigned readings for the upcoming discussion section -- lower on list of study priorities. Most of the time I was able to wing my way through it, which worked well if were discussing broader themes. Sometimes, when the discussion got more complex and in-depth to the material at hand, I got my rhetorical butt handed to me.
Obama didn't do his reading, the GOP did, and now he is getting schooled.
Another analogy: The "professor" knows less than his "students".
Not to mention Medicare is 25% cheaper at covering people than private insurance.
I don't remember who said that but this type of statement is why most people don't trust the people that are pushing this nonsense. Believe it or not most of us know that's a stinking pile of poo.
Of course. The hospitals get those evil profit driven insurance companies to effectively subsidize Medicare/Medicaid. Now if Obamacare put an end to private insurance then Medicare costs would jump up that 15% or so they aviod paying now. The alternative? no hospitals.
One good thing if Obama's plan gets enacted is that after a couple of years, we won't have to worry about Canadians crossing the border to use our health care.
So we've got that going for us. Which is nice.
Big hitter, the Lama.
If every conversation went the way today's healthcare conversation went:
Me: I'd like to go see Blind Side today at 5:15. Would you like to see it with me?
You: I got a letter yesterday from a guy who went to see a movie once and the popcorn just wasn't any good.
Harkin wants America to stop segregating people based on health. (The camera takes a furtive glance at Obama.)
"Medicare is 25% cheaper "
No, Medicare pays 25% less.
Not the same thing. And you can't do a thing about it (no negotiation; like the Mafia).
So far, though, a provider can opt out. The only way to make it work for an entire nation is to force doctors to work for the fee set by the government, and to restrict what kind of practice they can enter.
Is the US ready to force people into certain jobs 'for the common good'?
Since the thread went over 200-
Most other countries have relatively negligible defense costs.
Being the last super power-with all that responsibility-[there's a term Democrats are averse to]-our defense budget is a much greater percent of the GDP.
Democrats driving the US over the brink to the point where our national defense is compromised...?
Bonus!
[would be a large part of the "base's response.]
The dems new tack after lunch its to attack the Health Insurance Companies.
Bam! There it is. Obama just outlined how he’s going to get us all into the same “pool,” using the “turn the heat up slowly” method. In other words, we’re not getting a single payer system — but our kids will.
-Vodka Pundit
Don't you remember how happy East Germans were?
Ecstatic in fact. Didn't you see Goodbye Lenin?
Most other countries have relatively negligible defense costs.
This bears repeating. You could slash the current defense budget by half and you still would be about $170 billion short to fund Medicare for one year.
It might enlighten the commetariat to know that the advanced and superior Europeans are also facing large medical cost increases which are causing large (relatively speaking)increases in their own budget deficits. This issue is not unique to the US folks.
This debate is already reaping health benefits.. a boon for insomniacs.
Joe plugs is flailing about like a chicken w/o a head.
Why, oh why, did Obama put himself in this position? I couldn't imagine Reagan or Kennedy getting boxed in like this.
I just had the livestream on and he's being grilled by lowly congressmen. Make that congresswoman; Marsha Blackburn from TN. His facial expressions are priceless. Moreover, she's looking at him over her reading glasses while interrupting. (Kinda like Chuck Schumer or Carl Levin.) She's now on his level.
The post-game MSM inside baseball analyses won't mention this, but it is so fundamental. Our shrinking president!
I only caught part of Harkin talking about a farmer having a hard time affording health care. Can anyone get me the farmer's name? I'm interested on how much Mr. Farmer has received from the Dept. of Ag. in subsidies.
Biden! I liked his hand motion when he said, "...bend (tilt) the (tilt) cost (tilt) curve (tilt)." The question is, does he have any idea what a cost curve is?
Paul Ryan rocks.
This kid Paul Ryan is eating the Dems lunch.
I think I'm in love with Paul Ryan
This kid Paul Ryan is eating the Dems lunch.
Why shouldn't he? I thought Democrats were all supportive of federally funded hot lunches for the childrens.
Did Obama flip the bird at Ryan (with the sneeky finger up the side of his head)?
I only caught part of Harkin talking about a farmer having a hard time affording health care.
Oh posh. That's not nearly as good as the old lady who had to use her dead sisters dentures.
I'm sorry but that is laugh out loud bovine excretement of the highest order.
Dear John,
The election is over
Signed
Barack
Dear John,
The election is over
Signed
Barack
LOL...so that's your takeaway from this so far? Is your full name garage simplistic mahal?
Dear Barack,
Then when do you plan to stop repeating your campaign slogans and get to work?
John
Scott - garage wants to whine & pout like a little princess, that is his affair.
Obama says
..it didn't happened under my watch. The game is official..
This telecast is presented by blame Bush first.. any reproduction retransmission or accounts of this game w/o the express written consent of blame Bush first is prohibited.
Dear Barrack
Where's that Hope and Change? I mean its been a year and the seas are still rising.
Signed
The American Electorate
I'm live blogging. Actually not, I only seen one clip so far. Sorry. McCain clearly not over the election. He looked like he could just spit nails at Obama.
LOL...so that's your takeaway from this so far?
Cut him some slack. After the performance of his President what else does he have?
You can tell the Dems are losing the day when Alpha, Jeremy, Monte, DTL, Hdhouse don't show up.
Garage has balls - he shows up no matter what.
Really I think the very best tack for the Democrats is to cite specific people who were denied procedures because of greedy insurance companies. Just do it over and over again. Do it for 21 straight days. One thing I've realized is that humans can be herded with enough effort.
Hoosier:
Since you are a bean counter, you will like this website:
www.usgovernmentspending.com
wv = prose
Who will watch? I did, for nearly three hours. A few observations.
1. Obama shows a pretty impressive grasp of the issues (though not always of inconvenient facts.)
2. O is not that articulate in important ways: discursive, windy, oblique, ignoring issues when he wants to. But if you wade through his wind, he has the issues well in his grasp.
3. O is the Lone Ranger. Not one other Democrat has made a statement or contribution that is worth a damn.
4. The Republicans, on the other hand, have numerous people who are very bright, obviously well prepared and very clear in their presentations. If the Democrats wanted to portray the GOP as foolish rejectionists, they have failed miserably.
5. The weakest Republican by far is McCain, their Presidential candidate. Conversely, Obama is clearly the strongest Democrat.
6. Rep. Ryan of Wisconsin (who I've never heard speak before) took the Democratic proposal apart for its budget gimmicks and excess cost in about 8 minutes of brilliant clarity. Obama was so befuddled by Ryan that he changed the subject to Medicare Advantage.
7. Cantor and Ryan are the Republican stars.
8. Sables can not mask her contempt for the views of others who disagree with her. She is lucky to have Obama there because the Republicans would eat her up without him.
9. Obama lost a lot when he lost Daschle, who could talk and think rings around his other people.
10. There's still a lot of lying and avoidance about the Reconciliation process and all the deals made to put the bills together.
11. Hard to tell how this event will shake out politically, but the country would have been better off if Obama and the Dems had been willing to do this kind of thing from the get go.
12. The Republicans are winning the substantive argument that the current bills should be scrapped. They are based on too many gimmicks, avoidances, foolish hopes and undeliverable promises.
13. Nobody talks about what impact the bills will have on quality and innovation. They should.
Verdict: Scrap it and start over wins on substance, a draw on the politics.
As usual the blog software messes up when the posts get this long.
Couldn't help but notice the time period showin is 1970-2001.
Not sure how html works in these postings but it's worth a shot.
I did check for later periods, and I got upto 2005 with similar results. Be nice to have the latest.
David,
"Obama shows a pretty impressive grasp of the issues"
"Obama was so befuddled by Ryan that he changed the subject to Medicare Advantage."
Mutually exclusive. He wouldn't be befuddled if he really understood the issues.
What those two points illustrate is the basic problem with Obama - he is good at faking an impressive grasp of the issues, but when actually called upon to actually do/debate something, he has serious problems.
That is clearly demonstrated by the fact that he provided minimal input on the health care plan, leaving it up to Pelosi and Reed.
Also by the significant delay in implementing the Afghan strategy, even though supposedly he has such a great grasp of the issues before taking office.
If the Republicans had balls, they would tell Obama and the Dems tey would repeal this bill if they gain the majority. It will be their first order of business.
This would be a wining campaign strategy.
Repeal a lot of laws and roll back entitlements to levels that are sustainable.
People would rush to the polls to vote for this.
No--Obama's avoidance of Ryan's point shows that he has a good grasp, since there is really no answer to the points Ryan made. Obama does not care that the financial underpinings of the bills are a charade. He just wants to change the subject.
Hoosier:
Since you are a bean counter, you will like this website:
Yeah I've seen that before. It provides a pretty easy to see layout of not just where Fed taxes but also State taxes go to.
Its important to draw a distinction between total dollars spent by the govt. and its relationship to GDP. The higher the percentage to GDP the less wealth that is going to be created by the private industry. This isn't an accounting theory but basic common sense. Again, look at Greece right now and you will see what happens when total government spending to GDP is hitting the 50%
mark. Total. Societal. Collapse.
Because there aren't enough makers of money for the government to draw off to pay for all its spending.
DBQ: "Repeal a lot of laws and roll back entitlements to levels that are sustainable.
People would rush to the polls to vote for this."
Well perhaps if other peoples entitlements are being repealed. Voters get testy about their own entitlements.
David,
Avoidance and befuddlement are two different things. You were right the first time.
DBQ:
Repeal a lot of laws and roll back entitlements to levels that are sustainable.
Oh really... Tell me about the last politicians who successfully ran on rolling back entitlements. Honestly, the American people sicken me. Right now they allegedly are against this vast new entitlement, but if it passes, WA-LA everyone will love it. Once passed, entitlements are permanent. I think we are nearing the end of this country as more then 50% are on the dole.
Senator Grassley (R-Iowa)
House Bill increases the taxes of small business by 33%
Senate Bill increases the tax on small business by 20%.
70 percent of new jobs in the economy are created by small business.
Almost makes you wonder if Democrats care about unemployment.
What happens when you are unemployed?
Suddenly you are needing those government hand outs and you are more apt to be in favor of huge stimulus bills for the Democrats to pay out for union jobs. You'll be more motivated to vote for both.
Lat time we had near this many unemployed we ended up with FDR babies voting Democrat-for life.
David:
Well perhaps if other peoples entitlements are being repealed. Voters get testy about their own entitlements.
Exactly. Voters love rolling back other people's welfare programs, but not their own. Basic human nature to want to hoard everything to yourself. But it's not sustainable anymore.
Democrats WANT increasing unemployment from the private sector as that is a rich new source of permanent Democrat voters.
Obama says..
Americans are not that interested in procedures inside the senate.
Oh really... Tell me about the last politicians who successfully ran on rolling back entitlements.
I don't know. Have ANY politicians ran on this promise? I would think that it would certainly draw a lot of conservative and pissed off moderate voters as well as libertarians.
It seems to me that Clinton's Welfare Reform act in 1996 was a fairly popular program (at least with the WORKING class who pay taxes). It also seemed to be pretty sucessful.
The system we have now is unsustainable and everyone knows it.
exhelodrvr1 said...
"David,
Avoidance and befuddlement are two different things. You were right the first time."
Perhaps you are correct. Either way, the Democrats are simply unwilling to deal with the fiscal impacts of this proposal in an honest manner. I think their attitude is to pass it, take the credit and then let some future President and Congress fix it. We've had enough of that in the past 20 years, under both parties.
David, I did notice how Sebelius tends to look at the opposition with her face turned away and out of one eye.
Easy to see why Boehner is a leader. Short version Boehner: We agree, Mr. President, on the goals but this bill doesn't do it.
Obama has an impressive grip of the issues. Unfortunately that makes it all the more obvious when he is ducking issues. Is it good that he is the one responding to each of the Republican points?
Obama, responding to McCain's plea against reconciliation: Americans aren't interested in Washington procedures. They think a majority vote should be enough.
Yeah, right, especially considering a majority vote of those Americans would scrap Obamacare.
DBQ - that's right the 1996 Welfare Reform ACt is the ONLY time in American history we ever rolled back an entitlement program. Very sad.
So suddenly Obama thinks he can campaign on the meme that people don't care about the Senate filibuster rule? I think people care very much about the fact that America is one country where 50%+1 doesn't automatically rule in all cases.
Here is a good article on the CBO argument they are having-
from Fact Check at ABC-
President Obama and Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander made competing claims about how the Democratic plan would affect premiums. Sen. Alexander says premiums for those in the individual insurance (non-employer) market will go up an average of 10 to 13 percent. The president says it would only go up for those choosing better coverage and that “The costs for families for the same type of coverage that they're currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent.”
Both cite a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of the Senate bill done at the request of Senator Evan Bayh.
Who is right?
Well, the CBO analysis does say, flatly, that “the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law.”
Why are premiums going up? CBO cites the combination of three factors:
Premiums would be 27-30% higher because coverage would be better. The law, for example, requires that all policies cover maternity care, prescription drugs, mental health & substance abuse and no denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Premiums would be 7 to 10 percent lower b/c of changes to the way the individual market is structured.
Premiums would be 7 to 10 percent lower b/c of an influx of more people, many of them healthy, into the insurance market.
The net effect of those three factors: Premiums would be 10 to 13 percent higher for the average policyholders.
President Obama’s claim of premium reductions of “14 to 20 percent” comes from adding factors two and three. The problem: You can’t ignore factor one. That’s why CBO’s conclusion is that, on average, people in the individual market would see their premiums go up 10 to 13 percent. You can keep your old, less generous plan, but only until 2018.
But it doesn’t end there.
The bill also includes generous subsidies for families with incomes under $88,000. Those who get taxpayer subsidies would see their out-of-pocket premium cost reduced by “roughly 56 to 59 percent.” And 57 percent of those in the individual market would be eligible for subsidies.
Three final, important points:
When it comes to employer-provided large-group health insurance, CBO says premiums would be “zero to three percent” lower than under current law.
None of this takes into account the new tax on so-called “Cadillac” plans. CBO says the tax would be passed on to policyholders in the form of higher premiums.
CBO says its estimates include “a substantial degree of uncertainly.” Not even the wizards at CBO can say for certain what will happen to your premiums.
ABC News
Of course the Democrats ignore that last caveat from CBO and try to call Republicans liars. When that doesn't work they try to claim that Republicans are calling the CBO liars when they try to assert the very same things that the CBO has stated.
Obama, responding to McCain's plea against reconciliation: Americans aren't interested in Washington procedures. They think a majority vote should be enough.
This is Obama answering the first question he was asked. He is perfectly willing to have the Senate use Reconciliation if he can get his way.
He sure had a different view in 2005, as did all the other Democrats in that room.
Can anyone tell me what purpose this "summit" serves? Other then politicians posturing for the cameras? It doesn't change the basic fact that people are scared about employment #1 and health care a distant #2.
Didn't Bush II get chewed up and spit out when he tried to raise the issue of Social Security reform?
As Rep. Ryan pointed out, CBO can only score based on the assumptions it's given. Ryan detailed the broad outline of the phony assumptions underlying the bill (and thus its score.)
It was fascinating that Ryan clearly had no fear of the President. I wish that McCain had not jumped in after Obama's non-response to Ryan.
It's said by his admirers that Obama is always the smartest guy in the room.
Not this room. He has several peers and perhaps two or three who outshine him.
Yay!!! Doctor Senator John Barrasso makes a case for catastrophic insurance and holders of same being better consumers.
Bush was trashed from the start because he's a Republican and that is the default mode of the MSM since about 1967.
McCain obviously wanted to rescue Obama from the beatdown Ryan was giving him.
A new term I just read on the "Daily Beast" comment section:
"Repulitalibans".
He got himself boxed in like this because he and his staff are clueless about his strengths.
BTW this spoof of the supposed letters he reads every night is pretty funny.
Spoof
He sure had a different view in 2005, as did all the other Democrats in that room.
Different process altogether. What Republicans wanted to do was unprecedented, to change the Senate rules to abolish the filibuster for judicial nominees.
We have the best medical care in the world, but Barrasso, Coburn... if all our doctors keep dropping out of medicine to become congressmen and senators, we really will have a health care crisis.
Different process altogether. What Republicans wanted to do was unprecedented, to change the Senate rules to abolish the filibuster for judicial nominees.
A perfect example of using something that might be factually correct while being blatantly dishonest in the context of the current discussion. You should run for office, garage.
First of all, what Democrats want to do is unprecedented. They want to use reconciliation to usurp a huge chunk of our economy and do in flying in the face of the will of the electorate.
Second, go back and listen to those Democratic talking points, Obama and Biden in particular. They weren't talking about specifics like you are. They were speaking in platitudes about the philosophy of simple majority votes in the senate.
Isn't Chris Dodd retiring?
What's he doing there grandstanding.. holistically?
Isn't Chris Dodd retiring?
What's he doing there grandstanding.. holistically?
He's got a sweet deal on some property where he gets $1000 off per word he utters today at the summit.
First of all, what Democrats want to do is unprecedented. They want to use reconciliation to usurp a huge chunk of our economy and do in flying in the face of the will of the electorate.
Keep talking about the "will of the electorate". I think after saying it so many times you probably do believe it. I can sit here all day and cite polls that say differently. At any rate, some Democrats voted with Republicans twice for the Bush tax cuts, so it can't be unprecedented for Democrats to do so.
My study says this meeting was a big waste of time.
There is an innovative idea.. in a 20% unemployment economy fire the insurance companies.. and grow the govmt.
RobbyWales Tweets
I would like to see something very bad happen to every republican that used the "start over" talking point over and over today.
Oh Yeah I want these people handling health care like I want a swim with a killer whale.
OK I watched a bit over a half hour toward the end and I'm surprised. I really thought Obama would have some sort of ambush ready for the Pubs and they'd end up roadkill. Instead what I saw was the same rot that's been blathered repeatedly for over a year.
I wasn't convinced Dems would try to do it in reconciliation. I was wrong. Reid and Obama both urgently insisted doing so would be appropriate. I fully expect them to try to do that now. What that means is the bill will become even more narrowly partisan. They have no intention of making any concession on any point to pick up a few opposition votes. Rather they're perfectly willing to dump members of their own party if necessary to get any bill. They intend to pass it with 50 + 1 votes by any means necessary.
I think this is a serious misjudgment, and maybe they won't even be able to do it. Whatever the case the chutzpah they're demonstrating is pretty amazing with an election 9 months away.
1/20/2013 ... end of an error .... counting the days.
Senator Dingle has a message for the American people.
Pelosi says its going to take courage..
to commit political suicide?
Why yes.
Listening to a raspy Charlie Rangel after an hour or so of following live coverage, I am forced to question whether or not ANYONE in that room understands the larger point:
What is the ROLE of our Federal Government?
AIG, General Motors, Health Care and the list goes on. This bid to extend government control in the name of humanity is absurd. Not ONCE have I heard anyone mention how ridiculous it is for government to be in ANY way involved in running the health care system. How much larger can our government get?
Nathan R. Jessup
http://www.the-raw-deal.com
Garage, how about I link to one poll that directly addresses the opinions of Americans on Health Care Reform in general and this dog-and-pony show in particular:
Americans Tilt Against Democrats' Plans if Summit Fails
Yes, I'm sure you can cherry pick some polls sponsored by and written for your typical ACORN supporter, but I'd be interested in seeing what polls you can quote from reputable/established organizations that show any positive, let alone strongly positive, numbers for the monstrosity in question.
Garage Mahal sez:
“Medicare is 25% cheaper at covering people than private insurance.”
How incredibly stupid and how willfully ignorance must one be to hold up Medicare as an example of a successful government program?
Hey! Moron!
Click here and just barely scratch the surface of the substantiated facts regarding what is -- by FAR -- very most evil and very most destructive of ALL American government failures EVER!
If the Dims think they can now wring billions of dollars of waste, fraud and abuse from Medicare why the HELL have they not done so previously? It’s a smoke screen, a fraud and a LIE! It’s just more voodoo economics used to manufacture a total fraud whereby they can attempt to sell their trillion dollar budget buster as being budget neutral.
The ONLY realistic solution to Medicare is to abolish it (along with all other entitlement programs). The entitlement mentality is what is killing this country.
stephenfhayes
After 13 months of claiming GOP had no HCR ideas, WH/Dems spend much of the day discussing/debating GOP HCR ideas. That's a msging problem.
Nearing the end???
Obama dearly, dearly loves the sound of his own voice. His "summary" is way too long, and is going back to talking points, avoiding the hard fiscal problems.
He is talking down to the entire room, and therefore to the entire country.
Damn he is an arrogant BORING man.
DebbiTLawrence
I totally dislike being talked down to by POTUS, I am not a 5th grader and neither is anyone you're talking to #tcot #hcr #hcrsummit.
Worldnetdaily SBVOR?
My computer won't go there, sorry.
Prediction:
The bill will pass. Through Reconciliation of the Senate Bill. They will pull out every stop, make every bribe, retell every fiscal lie, make every promise, make every threat and use any trick to get it through.
They know that this is the last chance, because opinion and the elections are moving against them.
O just said that they will use Reconciliation. Not in so many words, but this is where they are going.
There has to be one final rising up of the people to stop this.
March on Washington, anyone?
I last did it in 1969 under very different circumstances.
I'd do it again.
Obama just left open the poss of going nuclear.
Republicans are opposed to everything..
It was just for show... it was an alibi for going the reconciliation route.
I agree with David, the Democrats will pass their bill by hook and crook. This is Obama's re-election.
What's the value of a Gallup poll anyways? Historically fait accompli is much more powerful then polling. Basically getting the bill passed will create support for it. THAT is what lefties are 100000% counting on.
Heavens to Betsy, I duck out for a day to get some work done and miss out on a lively 300 post thread.
Golly, even SBVOR showed up.
I'm a trillion % convinced now that reconciliation is going to happen. fait accompli is the Democrat mantra. It's all over Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Olbermann, etc...
Here is my take on health care reform:
It will be a long, difficult, expensive slog with some inevitable missteps that may cause significant hardship for some Americans, but in the long run it will be beneficial.
494 respondents of 1009 surveyed in a poll, in a country of 308 million, think the legislation shouldn't pass if the summit fails to reach a deal. Therefore, it must all be scrapped.
Garage Mahal sez:
“Worldnetdaily SBVOR?
My computer won't go there, sorry.”
Yeah, I bet your TV also will not tune in Fox News. Why? Because the so-called “Progressive” ideology can ONLY survive in an absolute intellectual vacuum. Break that vacuum and your fantasy world rapidly crumbles.
That’s fine. The
WND essay cited in my previous comment would be wasted on you anyway. It was offered only for those who are not fully indoctrinated automatons.
Oh, about that typo in my previous comment -- my bad!
494 respondents of 1009 surveyed in a poll, in a country of 308 million, think the legislation shouldn't pass if the summit fails to reach a deal. Therefore, it must all be scrapped.
Why are you concerned? It's going to pass. Are you gonna be here to mock us when it does. Spit in our eye? Humiliate us? Teabag us? Corpse-camp us?
Not only lefties dismiss Fox News, but wish the government to shut it down.
Therawdeal, the role of government was brought up by a Republican sometime midday. Forgive me, I don't remember who.
Given the polling data, ramming ObamaCare through via reconciliation would be the equivalent of the Dims drinking the Kool-Aid at Jonestown. But, for many, their political careers are pretty much dead already. So, what do they really have to lose (other than their country)?
Not too long ago, the normally more reserved Charles Krauthammer suggested (on TV) that this level of tyranny in the face of this level of public disapproval would bring about a full blown insurrection.
Charles just might have been right about that -- he usually is.
I, for one, hope the Dims aren’t so stupid, so arrogant and so completely tone deaf as to risk that particular catastrophe. But, they just might be. You might want to build that bunker.
SBVOR - the American people are too fatass to stage an insurrection. Too much physical activity involved. In retrospect, doing the agriculture subsidy for corn and soybeans, thus fattening up Americans was a major win for socialism. The fat-addled masses are helpless to resist our Socialist Overlords.
A hospital admin I know said they hated taking a certain HMO's heart patients in the ER because they had all been "maintained" on meds when they really needed surgery
Medicare favors surgery over pills.
How is political rationing superior to price rationing, exactly?
Working people won't die from lack of care.
I can answer your question, too. How is price rationing superior to political rationing? Doctors can maintain their income at the cost of some citizens' health and lives.
fls, that was the worst answer ever. You didn't answer at all in fact, just asked me the same question.
Weak as hell, and you know it.
494 respondents of 1009 surveyed in a poll, in a country of 308 million, think the legislation shouldn't pass if the summit fails to reach a deal. Therefore, it must all be scrapped.
It should be scrapped because a growing majority of Americans, when they realize all that is in the bills, oppose them, and the more they know, the greater their alarm.
It would be one thing if this were a bill for a new post office, or the like. But it isn't. It is about restructuring some 1/6 or so of our economy, and doing it in a way that many feel with endanger their lives, their incomes, and their savings.
And finally, this would be the biggest thing to pass Congress in many of our lifetimes. If it passes through reconciliation without any Republican votes, the Democrats will likely have consigned themselves to a minority status for at least a generation, in both elected branches of government (though that may not be complete until 2012 in the Senate and Presidency).
@garage, you need to go read up on the Central Limit Theorem
Somehow I seriously doubt Republicans are worried about Democrats being sent to the wilderness for a generation. They're worried it will pass and people will like it, and thank Democrats for it. Contrary to the lies and bullshit the GOP comes up with seemingly by the hour. Can't blame them though, there isn't a media that will call them out on it, and they never seem to be punished for it.
Somehow I seriously doubt Republicans are worried about Democrats being sent to the wilderness for a generation. They're worried it will pass and people will like it, and thank Democrats for it. Contrary to the lies and bullshit the GOP comes up with seemingly by the hour. Can't blame them though, there isn't a media that will call them out on it, and they never seem to be punished for it.
True the public will like it once they learn what a bag of goodies it is. They've simply been brainwashed by the MSM into thinking it's something horrible.
How much larger can our government get?
How much larger can health care get?
When Reagan took office, health caare was 9% of GDP, same as in Germany. But now it's 16%. Left unchecked, by 2030 it may be 40%.
You see the public only opposes Obamacare because the right-wing noise machine has hoodwinked them into thinking:
* it cuts Medicare
* it rations care
the public does not care about cost, but about rationing! All Obama has to do is call the GOP on their ration-lie.
Garage:
Bruce did not suggest Reps were concerned or worried that Dems screw up and got lost for 40 years in the Garden of Dumbassistan.
fls:
Left unchecked, by 2030 it may be 40%.
You pulled that out of your ass? I hope no one hires you for services that require precision.
"They're worried it will pass and people will like it, and thank Democrats for it."
They'll like it until the economy collapses, which is inevitable -inevitable- when a nation spends more than it makes.
Then it won't matter what people like. Shit people like spending other people's money just fine. Who would argue otherwise?
It's a goddamned stupid plan to it, because as with all socialist bullshit utopian perpetual motion Ponzi schemes, they fall apart and the pain is even worse down the road.
That's irresponsible and evil.
Alex,
Colorado ranchers are more than capable of picking up any slack for desk bound urbanites.
For my part, rather than watch the dog and pony show, I spent a few hours bashing the baddest of moguls here in Ski Town USA. Fat is in short supply in this town.
Again, I REALLY hope it does not come to an insurrection. But, it could. I don't think the politicos have the foggiest idea how angry people are.
SBVOR - remember it's the government that has the really big guns and surveillance equipment. You and your wingnut buddies don't stand a chance. In fact they're probably monitoring you right now and preparing arrest warrants.
"All Obama has to do is call the GOP on their ration-lie."
Alex-Titus, all services are rationed. No one argues otherwise.
The argument is whether it's rationed by the market or by Washington. That's the only question.
Pogo:
They'll like it until the economy collapses, which is inevitable -inevitable- when a nation spends more than it makes.
Yes, that's exactly what will happen. Damn American sheep.
You see all the Democrats have to do is identify which GOP talking points are doing damage and refute them, right FLS?
The bottom line is the President and United States Legislature under the Democrats no longer represents the will of the people.
You can argue cost, social altruism, social responsibility and all the other bullshit.
When, now 75% of the American people say no and the President and Legislature say yes, we no longer have a representative government.
I do hope, that if this bill passes, and if the Republicans get a majority, they repeal it. His Story made, His Story erased.
Peter - garage & FLS have already state in this and other threads that the American sheeple are gonna get it GOOD & HARD what's coming to them.
It's hard to say whether or not Democrats will get praise or pain from this, garage. Healthcare reform doesn't kick in until 2013, correct? So as premiums go up over the next few years, Dems will be in the position of telling the electorate:
(1) Rethuglikkans are lying about your premiums going up because of healthcare reform. Healthcare reform hasn't been implemented yet.
(2) Aren't you glad you have healthcare reform to keep your health insurance affordable?
Working people won't die from lack of care.
I can answer your question, too. How is price rationing superior to political rationing? Doctors can maintain their income at the cost of some citizens' health and lives.
I don't think that you understand that political rationing will drive many doctors out of the market. But also, political rationing invariably and inevitably leads to political decisions as to what (and who) is covered. And we are already seeing this with all the proposed mandatory coverages. Should anyone be surprised if ObamaCare ultimately pays for sex change operations before it pays for knee replacements for those in their 70s?
When rationing is done politically, all that really matters is political clout and that is invariably a result of how a someone, or a group of someones, supports and lobbies politicians. I think it silly to think that health care will improve when the decision of what to pay for and what not to for, and for whom, will be given to politicians.
Tell me about the last politicians who successfully ran on rolling back entitlements.
Republicans since Reagan have cut taxes while increasing spending. That's been working for them, more often than not.
The last government agency to be killed by Congress was the Board of Tea Tasters, during the Clinton administration. Only the dogged tenacity of Senator Reid made sure the last nail was driven into the board.
Alex,
Has our government become so tyrannical that they would prepare arrest warrants for those who very clearly state their hope that an insurrection does NOT come about?
WOW!
They'll like it until the economy collapses, which is inevitable -inevitable- when a nation spends more than it makes.
The CBO says is saves billions of dollars, and would save money for most buyers in the private market. The money to pay for it comes from premiums.
I don't think that you understand that political rationing will drive many doctors out of the market.
Right, they'll become I-bankers, instead. Masters of the Universe. Goldman Sachs employees.
What will happen then is the braindrain of doctors will become a flood. A fifth of today's doctors were born overseas. If being a software engineer in the US is desirable, how much more a physician and surgeon.
Fls-
Left unchecked, by 2030 it may be 40%.
Cite please? The numbers I've seen aren't anywhere near that dramatic and they play out over a longer term than 20 years.
(2) Aren't you glad you have healthcare reform to keep your health insurance affordable?
I have shitty, high cost insurance. Add a diabetic child to that, and you can see why I believe anything would be better than I have right now.
They're worried it will pass and people will like it, and thank Democrats for it.
Everyone's worried it will pass, but we're worried because we think that it will be bad for the economy and therefore bad for the country, and especially bad for older Americans who will find their access to healthcare effectively restricted so that the illegal immigrants that mow the lawns of you and other limousine liberals can get their healthcare picked up everybody else
There's a degree of cynicism in your formulation -- as older Americans find their access to healthcare cut off by the effects of this legislation they will be angry, but with Congressional elections occurring only every other year, many of the angry will in fact be dead thanks to Democrats. And the dead vote only in Chicago and Philadelphia, where they wind up voting Democrat no matter what their original registration.
...there isn't a media that will call them out on it
You're surely not suggesting that the media likes Republicans? Which planet do you live on? Your perception of a media bias towards Republicans is not shared by many people (and is not shared by any sane people).
"How much larger can health care get?"
Who cares how large "it" gets? If it's the result of a free market and competition for insurance coverage, that means our aging population would rather spend their money on health care than, say, bungee jumping. The government plan would automatically increase by 30 million people added on to the present system. You think Medicare is still going to favor surgery instead of a pill for cardiac patients who need it?
You're really grasping, fls.
They'll like it until the economy collapses, which is inevitable -inevitable- when a nation spends more than it makes.
But as long as the US spends more than it makes on health care, it's all good, Dr. Pogo?
You're surely not suggesting that the media likes Republicans? Which planet do you live on? Your perception of a media bias towards Republicans is not shared by many people (and is not shared by any sane people).
Oh c'mon. Death Panels? From the same exact people who tried to abolish Medicare altogether for decades? Please. The media didn't even attempt to explain how this bill would effect people and their lives. Not once did I hear any of the actual benefits it would provide.
Obama lied
Lamar was right.
Somehow I seriously doubt Republicans are worried about Democrats being sent to the wilderness for a generation. They're worried it will pass and people will like it, and thank Democrats for it. Contrary to the lies and bullshit the GOP comes up with seemingly by the hour. Can't blame them though, there isn't a media that will call them out on it, and they never seem to be punished for it.
I think that to some extent that this was why today was important. Both sides tried to make their best case. But after doing so, and the Democrats then going on, ignoring everything said today by the Republicans, Rahming their bills through Congress in the next couple of weeks, using parliamentary tricks like reconciliation, is going to set up a stark contrast for the next couple of elections.
I think that the Democrats, for their posterity and future electability, needed to come away with this as being a big win, and Republicans looking like ignorant obstructionists. And, I think they, and in particular, President Obama, failed. Lecturing the Republicans doesn't show openness, but rather that this was all for show on their part.
Sure, the people may love ObamaCare. I doubt it. Most here doubt it. The American people pretty much doubt it. But you may be right there.
The problem though is that there won't be anything to like until after the next Presidential election, and much to dislike (in the form of higher taxes, etc.) So, the Republicans are going to get two elections in which they can run on ObamaCare repeal before any benefits can accrue from it, assuming that it would benefit the American public, which most of us here deny.
WV: shines - what this summit has done with light to Obama and the Democrats protestations of bi-partisanship.
Here’s the myth -- from, not surprisingly, a “former law student”:
“Republicans since Reagan have cut taxes while increasing spending.”
To bust the myth:
Click here for the substantiated quantitative facts.
When -- in 1965 -- LBJ signed Medicare and Medicaid into law, he sealed our fate. Now, the ONLY way we will EVER again balance the Federal budget is to dramatically reduce these very same entitlement “benefits”. Paul Ryan’s plan -- quantified in this link -- is a good start. The better plan was documented in my first comment in this thread.
for older Americans who will find their access to healthcare effectively restricted so that the illegal immigrants that mow the lawns of you and other limousine liberals can get their healthcare picked up everybody else
Scene: Dr. Pogo's office
A swarthy man carrying a weed whacker pushes past a 90 year old chick in a walker and comes up to the window.
Nurse: Te puedo ayudar?
Swarth: Si
Nurse: Can I see your official US Government Universal Health Card, please?
"Blamm!" as the door shuts behind the departing Senor.
Who cares how large "it" gets? If it's the result of a free market and competition for insurance coverage, that means our aging population would rather spend their money on health care than, say, bungee jumping.
This is the thing that's been driving me nuts for a full year. The very premise of this "emergency" has been accepted as if it were true with no debate. I am not at all sure there really is any emergency worthy of the name.
To me this stinks of an invented emergency for the purposes of socializing 20% of our economy.
"But as long as the US spends more than it makes on health care, it's all good"
The market has always been more efficient at rationing than government.
And only the government can spend more than it makes for decades; no one else can. So what you fear will only happen when the feds take over health spending.
But you know that of course. It's the usual liberal lie: they want power and to take away your liberty, all the while pretending to care about "the little guy".
Bullshit.
Several points:
* it's an emergency because the lefties say it's so
* CBO can fuck itself
* only insane people out of touch with reality think the MSM is on the side of Rush Limbaugh
What will happen then is the braindrain of doctors will become a flood. A fifth of today's doctors were born overseas. If being a software engineer in the US is desirable, how much more a physician and surgeon.
I agree, but there is a downside to that that we are already seeing in some inner city and rural hospitals. Fluency in English is not a severe handicap for engineers (I know - I have dealt with many of them). But when you are trying to explain your health problem to your doctor, I think that it would be extremely advantageous if he were to understand exactly what you are saying, and you understand what he says in reply.
That's just me. This may not be true for you.
Scene: Obamacare Office
**CLOSED MONDAYS**
IF YOU HAVE AN EMERGENCY GO TO THE NEXT TOWN. IT MIGHT BE OPEN.
Let's just put this nonsense about "people supporting all the individual pieces of health care reform" to bed:
Yes. If you ask if me if I would like a unicorn, then my answer would be yes. If you ask me if I would like liquid gold to run from kitchen sink, then my answer would be yes.
Saying that people are for ObamaCare because they would like to get something for nothing is not an argument which is based in anything resembling reality.
Once you explain to people how much it's going to cost, the effect on their current policy, the effect on the quality of healthcare and all of the other trade-offs that must inevitably be made, support drops off a cliff.
In the absence of asking questions about what people would be willing to give up to get their unicorns and hot and cold running liquid gold, then their answers are absolutely useless.
The reality is that people have looked at what Democrats are asking them to give up to get all those goodies they can supposedly deliver with ObamaCare and decided that they don't want it.
Do they perceive that problems exist? Yes. But they also have decided that ObamaCare as it is currently formulated is not the answer.
There's no way to get around that basic fact no matter how many times you try to distract or change the subject by talking about what people want in the abstract.
OK: Aided by a compliant Congress, Republicans since Reagan have cut taxes while increasing spending.”
Income - Outgo = Deficit, which has been increasing as a percent of GDP since Reagan took office:
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/thefederalbudget/ig/Political-Economic-Measures/Debt-as-a-Percent-of-GDP--1940.htm
The National Debt, which had decreased under every President since Eisenhower, started back up again under Reagan. Under Clinton, the increase stopped, and the debt even declined, only to roar back up again under the Bush tax cuts.
Whatever happened to Pay As You Go?
Reagan had not read Dickens:
"Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.”
That's just me. This may not be true for you.
Bruce, where've you been? I've been going to non-native MDs since hot pants were in style.
"If being a software engineer in the US is desirable, how much more a physician and surgeon."
Maybe foriegn-born docs can figure out how to make a go of it when Medicare doesn't even cover your fixed costs, even if you worked for free. They're probably way smarter than these Chicago docs:
Northwestern apologizes for mammogram wait
"It now takes 10 months to get an appointment for a regular screening mammogram at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, which runs the largest single-site breast center in Illinois.
But the people who read the images--breast imaging radiologists--are scarce in part because screening mammography is not historically a high-paying specialty, has been poorly reimbursed and is prone to litigation relative to other imaging procedures ...Consequently, radiologists have turned to other sub-specialties."
Good luck everyone, in the brave new Obamacare.
Bring a chair, though, and a book to read. Or two.
But they also have decided that ObamaCare as it is currently formulated is not the answer.
Right, no public option. Simply a mandate to buy insurance.
DaveW,
Yep, the so-called health care “crisis” is most assuredly an invented “emergency” -- right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook.
1) Click here to bust the single biggest myth.
2) Dims also cite stats on longevity. But, this metric is primarily driven by genetics and lifestyle. Quality of care has virtually nothing to do with it.
Cancer cure rates are the best metric for assessing quality of care. And, by that metric, we have -- despite the best efforts of the stinking Statists to screw things up -- the best health care system in the world -- for now.
But the people who read the images--breast imaging radiologists--are scarce
Have it done in Bangalore, and get the results when you come in the next morning.
fls - why not government run food? Surely food is the #1 human right and necessity above health care? Or housing for that matter. How can we possibly trust these ABSOLUTE necessities to the evil free market?
Have it done in Bangalore, and get the results when you come in the next morning.
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
"Have it done in Bangalore, and get the results when you come in the next morning."
Good luck with that plan, fls.
It'll go over big, I'm sure.
Ah but you see FLS is so superior ot us. He always has solutions to problems like reading radiology images in Bangalore. You see, if you OPPOSE that you are an eeeeeeeeeeevil Rethuglican obstructionist.
FLS - let me get one thing straight. The evil ones right now are:
* Rethugs
* MSM covering up for Rethugs
is that about right?
Garage Mahal sez:
“I believe anything would be better than I have right now.”
Garage is incredibly naïve. He/she should never underestimate the capacity for government to make a bad situation -- which they created -- far, far, FAR WORSE!
You think you’ve got it bad now? You ain’t seen NOTHIN’ yet!
I watched it because the entire issue interests me but mostly because I thinks it's fanatastic political theatre--the best show in town. I took the work day off to see it.
AprilApple said...
Madawasken - thanks. Scott Brown handled that loaded Gergen question masterfully.
& - Cuts in Military Care are unacceptable.
No, I think with a present 38 trillion deficit/unfunded mandate and jobs fleeing the US from high healthcare costs - EVERYTHING is on the table. Inc. cuts in lavish aspects of military care and reimposing the estate tax. Means testing Bush's "free full priced drug subsidy for seniors".
Military as "heroes" that deserve free breast implants?
I think not.
Free prothesis for non-duty related injuries well in excess of other private sector/Fed Gov't benefits? Because military deserves it?
I think not.
Quadruple bypass surgery and liver transplants for prisoners sentenced to life w/o parole for mass murders?
I think not.
Entitlement of a successful trust fund baby & ex-Senator to have 2 million - all on the taxpayer's dime - spent on highly advanced hospital care for 3 months related to senility and congestive heart failure AND to leave his 78 million dollar estate passed on tax-free to friends and relatives?
I think not.
THe sanctity of cadillac heathcare plans for the low skilled, surly employee at State motor vehicles Dept?
I think not.
Arnold Kling is good
premortem
mortem
postmortem.
Have it done in Bangalore, and get the results when you come in the next morning.
Actually, the one guy I know who had an operation done there was very happy with the results.
The problem is that he is Canadian, not American. He is one of our guides for our annual male bonding ski group, and the best powder around is in our view the Canadian Rockies in eastern BC. And his problem was that he needed a knee replacement. The Canadian health system put him in a queue, and told him it would be maybe 2 years. He is a licensed guide. That would have meant two years off work. So, he went to India, and didn't miss even one season on skis.
WV: trots - what Obama is doing with his talking points.
The media didn't even attempt to explain how this bill would effect people and their lives. Not once did I hear any of the actual benefits it would provide.
Did you consider the possibility that, other than covering that illegal immigrant you pay to mow your lawn for you, that's because it doesn't really actually provide any benefits?
You've mentioned your daughter before today, and I really feel for you and for her. But I'm afraid that SBVOR, just a couple posts above, has it right. Do you know where in the bill it indicates that she will be better off under Obamacare than under the "crappy" insurance you have now?
If the decisions about who gets what wind up in the hands of bureaucrats, you could very well end up with a lot less.
One of the more humorous points today was by Speaker Pelosi: Pelosi: Health Reform Will Create 400,000 Jobs "Almost Immediately".
You wonder sometimes what drugs these people are on. After all, last we knew, the benefits from ObamaCare weren't going to start accruing until after the next Presidential election. Before that? Just the taxes to support it. So, somehow she thinks that collecting all those taxes will somehow create 400,000 jobs.
Wow. Just saw the replay of Paul Ryan and his Obamcare take down. Very impressive indeed. This dude has a bright future.
Meade said...
We have the best medical care in the world, but Barrasso, Coburn... if all our doctors keep dropping out of medicine to become congressmen and senators, we really will have a health care crisis.
According to my husband, an endocrinologist, many many physicians will drop out of medicine to do something--anything--rather than practice medicine under Obamacare. Currently, Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement (from the government) does NOT cover the physician's cost to see those patients. No one can stay in business while bleeding money. For awhile doctors were told to see more patients--increase quantity---REDUCE QUALITY! Medicare reimbursement per doctor visit is so low doctors cannot schedule time for more than one complaint per visit. Human pathophysiology is complex and cannot be treated in 15 minute visits. Many many physicians will not practice substandard medicine no matter what Obama mandates.
No one can stay in business while bleeding money.
Outsource and downsize, like tech companies have done for 40 years.
The physician-as-small-businessman model may be over, though.
Human pathophysiology is complex and cannot be treated in 15 minute visits.
Fifteen whole minutes? When I was paying the doctor out of my own pocket, he spent less than five minutes with me.
fls:
The physician-as-small-businessman model may be over, though.
Except that is not market-driven, but by government diktat.
fls:
When I was paying the doctor out of my own pocket, he spent less than five minutes with me.
Wow you're so healthy that you only need 5 minutes per visit. Hooray for you.
Bruce, Pelosi's 400,000 jobs must be government positions required now to implement the program 4 years from now. Her idea of increasing productivity in America.
Austrians have held their health care costs below 8% during the same time span we went from 10% to 16%. They even dipped down for a while:
http://www.euro.who.int/Document/E89021.pdf
Who cares how large "it" gets? If it's the result of a free market and competition for insurance coverage
On the radio was a woman whose Anthem health premium had just gone up from $800 to $1100 a month -- more than her mortgage. Imagine if this trend continues.
What will happen to house prices when people are spending the bulk of their income on health care?
you cannot contain costs, although you can contain spending.
Apparently Thomas Sowell has never eaten off the dollar menu at McDonald's.
Bushman of the Kohlrabi,
Thanks for the tip on Paul Ryan schooling Obama. That became the subject of my latest post.
Ryan’s roadmap for America is the best hope we have for taming deficit spending.
the problem is that liberals believe everyone is entitled to unlimited health care for free.
I doubt fls even knows what an endocrinologist is.
I, however, do -- and never do I spend less than 15 minutes with mine, even when I'm in for routine checkups. There are just too many things to talk about, and too many things she needs to observe for herself.
Glib responses about outsourcing sound good to you now, fls, but when you are geriatric and need care and there's no one treat you, you may live to regret your words.
On the radio was a woman whose Anthem health premium had just gone up from $800 to $1100 a month -- more than her mortgage. Imagine if this trend continues.
I guess the answer then is that the only fair thing is if I help her out, and pay some of her premium for her (at gun point, of course).
And, so, your answer is apparently to deprive seniors of Medicare benefits so that she can have lower health care premiums.
Note this argument by anecdotes. The more heart wrenching the anecdote, the better. It works on the liberal side of the fence, because liberalism is all about feelings. But it works much less well over on the conservative side, where facts and figures are more important then feelings are in making decisions.
What will happen to house prices when people are spending the bulk of their income on health care?
Ah, we get to one of the problems here with health care. Note how he said "health care" when the previous paragraph was on "heath care insurance"? This betrays that this really isn't about health care insurance, but rather, the quantity and quality of health care provided. And, I would suggest, gives the lie to the proposition that it is the fault of the insurance companies.
In any case, why shouldn't she pay more for her health care than for her house? Do we know her health? For all we know, she may have some incurable disease.
And that is the problem with arguing from the specific to the general as was done here. We are being asked to generalize to 300,000,000 based on the experiences of one person.
when you are geriatric and need care
People who are geriatric and need care can reap the benefit of socialized Medicine, rev. 1963.
Bruce Hayden,
Maybe Pelosi thinks 400,000 government bureaucrats will be required to figure out how to implement and comply with the 2,000+ page bill which NONE of Pelosi’s posse has even READ!
Glib responses about outsourcing sound good to you now
Medical care's fragmented delivery system makes it easy to outsource pieces of it.
former law student said...
No one can stay in business while bleeding money.
Outsource and downsize, like tech companies have done for 40 years.
The physician-as-small-businessman model may be over, though.
But my physician husband (Harvard Medical School grad and trained in internal medicine and endocrinology at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston) is NOT a small businessman. He works for a large clinic similar to the Mayo Clinic. Half his time is spent doing research. Right now time spent on his research pays much much more than what he can make seeing patients. He LOSES money when he sees patients--his research actually subsidizes his patient care. If he were a cardiovascular surgeon that might not be the case. But for specialists in Internal Medicine, that is what is happening today.
Doctors of his caliber will leave the practice of medicine. It is not longer worth it financially or ethically.
This betrays that this really isn't about health care insurance, but rather, the quantity and quality of health care provided.
?
The cost of health insurance must equal the cost of health care + administrative costs + a profit.
_300,000,000
\ healthcare
/ n
-
n =1
__________ = Health Ins - Profit
300,000,000
Doctors of his caliber will leave the practice of medicine. It is not longer worth it financially or ethically.
That's why our clergy and military suck as hard as they do -- the pay is insufficient to attract and keep anyone good. General Petraeus makes a paltry $180K a year -- chump change.
"On the radio was a woman whose Anthem health premium had just gone up from $800 to $1100 a month -- more than her mortgage."
Duh - she obviously needs to get into a more expensive house! Where was she when the Democrats were making Fannie and Freddie give out loans?
Someone else may have linked to this, but here is a CNN Poll: Health care provisions popular but overall bills unpopular. That is from one of the most pro-Administration media companies. Even with their palpable bias, I found this interesting:
Twenty-five percent of people questioned in the poll say Congress should pass legislation similar to the bills passed by both chambers, with 48 percent saying lawmakers should work on an entirely new bill and a quarter saying Congress should stop all work on health care reform.
I like this: Why Canadian premier seeks health care in U.S.:
Danny Williams, the premier of the Canadian province of Newfoundland, traveled to the United States earlier this month to undergo heart valve surgery at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami. With his trip, Williams joined a long list of Canadians who have decided that they prefer American medicine to their own country's government-run health system when their lives are on the line.
As retired military, with a son just starting his time in the military, I don't think it inappropriate that military benefits be decreased reasonably. IF other parts of the government are cut "their fair share" (based on what they actually provide) - which would typically be on the order of 30-50%. Unfortunately, the former would happen, but then the latter would be held up in committee, and would mysteriously disappear.
At one point Obama had brain-dead McCain groveling, not to suggest it was any great achievement. Like taking candy from a baby.
@ fls That's why our clergy and military suck as hard as they do -- the pay is insufficient to attract and keep anyone good.
fls, do you have spoecifics on that? Like the crappy job you think we did in Iraq? Or does life suck for you in general?
Back when this debate started -- last year -- an Australian called in to one of the talk shows to say docs were abandonning the Australian Government Plan in DROVES.
I'll linl when I can find it.
fls,
That "trend" of raising premiums continues because, for one thing, government continues to mandate new coverage mandates.
Patrick Kenney authored an amendment to TARP, yes Tarp, that mandates mental health coverage which kicked in January 1. My anthem coverage went up. Can you imagine how expensive Obamacare is going to be after answering every special interest demand for coverage?
SEBVOR,
If you abolish Medicare then do I get back all the money they extracted from my wages and the double Medicare I paid for over 20 years? After all I paid for my Medicare big time for over 40 years. If I can't get it, then I want my money back.
Great quality. You will find a wide variety of office workstations at Corporate Office Interiors.
Post a Comment