Way to go Democrats!

[Yonivore]

For the first time in the 221-year history of the United States of America, the federal government is requiring individual citizens and companies to purchase a commercial good, by force of law and, is using the full force of government law enforcement to make sure you and I comply. If that doesn’t bother you then, the liberals in this forum are hereafter exposed as the hypocrites; I’ve always known them to be, over their “Keep your laws off my body” mantra, chanted since the 60’s.

Certainly, Bart Stupak has been exposed as having never been principled on his position that he could not vote for health care reform so long as the sanctity of life is not preserved. And, for those of you keeping score at home; the Executive Order, ostensibly issued by Obama to gain Stupak’s vote – along with his “six-pack” or “dozen” (whatever it was by that time), isn’t worth the paper on which it is written. Just remember, Obama promised you he’d close Guantanamo Bay and made one of his first acts as President, signing an Executive Order that would accomplish that within the first year of his presidency. How’s that working out for him? Executive Orders do not supersede law and the law passed last night provides federally-funded abortions. Period.

Now, we can argue all day long about whether or not this is appropriate but, that’s not the question…the question is whether or not Bart Stupak is so stupid as to believe Obama’s executive order will prevent such a provision from being used – once enacted by his signature – or that he is so conniving that he would knowingly fabricate a ruse of having a conscience about unborn children in order to soften other elements of his own party and making them easier to pick off by the administration and Congressional leaders.

Frankly, I believe the latter. There is video floating around, from last October, during which Stupak admits he would probably vote in favor of Obamacare even if the abortion language remained. I think his objections of late were just theater intended to gain him some sweet deal (which he received) and to give the House leadership some wiggle room when buying off the rest of the needed votes. It was a case of bait and switch in which Stupak was complicit.

And, for those who continue to claim these individual and corporate mandates are an analog to the requirement vehicle owners purchase automobile insurance, here are two differences that totally discredit that comparison:


1. Most (if not all) state governments require vehicle owners to carry a sufficient amount of LIABILITY insurance so any harm, caused by their negligence while driving, can be made whole through compensation to other vehicle and property owners damaged as a result of such negligence. As far as I know, States do not require vehicle owners to carry comprehensive insurance that would cover damage to their own vehicle in an accident.

Obamacare, on the other hand, requires us to insure ourselves and has absolutely nothing to do with insuring others against our own negligence, as is the case with government mandated automobile liability insurance.

2. Americans can choose to drive or own a vehicle, the requisite condition for the government to require the purchase of liability insurance. So, the requirement to purchase liability insurance is mitigated by our freedom to engage (or not engage) in the practice (driving and owning a vehicle) and run the risk of causing harm to others. If you choose (or, are unable) to own a car, you do not have to purchase insurance. The bottom-line purpose of automobile insurance mandates is to protect others that may be harmed by your negligence – you can remain uninsured, if you choose.

The only option, under Obamacare, for foregoing the purchase of health insurance is to die. If you are breathing you will be required to buy health insurance, your employer will be required to provide you with health insurance, and health insurance companies will be required to provide you with insurance at government-controlled rates and under government-controlled conditions.

Obamacare will criminalize hundreds of thousands, and eventually millions, of Americans and their employers and drive them to the taxpayer-supported government insurance which, in turn, will eventually become the Public Option many of you claimed did not exist in this legislation.

The Senate Bill passed last night, provides for the hiring of almost 17,000 additional Internal Revenue Service Agents at the U. S. Department of Treasury to enforce – by penalty involving the seizure of your money through wage garnishment for employees and fines to employers – the individual and corporate mandate to carry health insurance.

As it turns out, however, these penalties are significantly less that the cost of insurance (both to employers and individuals); $2,000 per employee, per year is the penalty to employers that fail to purchase or contribute to the purchase of individual (or group) health insurance for their employees and, $1,000 per individual, per year is the penalty for individuals who fail to purchase health insurance for themselves. Currently, my employer pays approximately $4,700 per year, per employee for a group health insurance policy for individual employees. Employees pay nothing. However, if you start adding spouses and children, the employer contribution goes up to as much as $8,500 per year, per employee and the employees can pay up to $4,600.00 per employee, per year for health insurance.

For my employer, (and for argument’s sake, let’s say we’re all single adults), with 8,000 employees, they’re spending approximately $37,000,000.00 per year (not even close due to the fact many of us are married and have children but, I digress.). If they dropped group health insurance coverage and opted to pay the fine of $2,000 per employee, per year, that would amount to approximately $16,000,000.00. Going criminal will amount to a savings of $21,000,000.00 per year. In the current economic climate, I would imagine many corporations will face the “stigma” of being an “insurance criminal” for the sake of decreasing their compensation costs by 57% and putting that money back on the bottom line.

Not only have they reduced their overhead by 57%, they’ve shifted the remaining outlay from a commercial insurance company to the federal government and, thus, have created a new tax while depriving a private insurance company the revenue.

Now, employees and individuals don’t have the same option because, if your employer is paying the entire cost of your insurance (as mine does for individuals), the $1,000 per individual, per year fine would represent an increase in a person’s health care costs. But, as you can imagine, employees have very little influence over whether or not their employer will continue to carry group insurance when, as I calculated above, they can convert those costs to income that will, in many cases, allow a company to remain solvent. But, of course, many of us are married and have families and the amount of employee contribution to health insurance for those situations more than exceeds the $1,000.00 per individual, per year.

In either case, many companies will choose to drop their employee coverage for the savings they will realize and we will all be out there looking for the best deals for health insurance. And, guess what will be the “best deal?” Yep. Not many commercial companies will be able to compete with the federal government who will essentially be providing health insurance for $83.00 per individual, per month ($1,000 per year). Current regulation and provisions of the bill controlling premiums will preclude the commercial insurance industry from becoming competitive with each other and certainly will not allow them to compete with $83.00 per month government insurance.
They certainly can’t do that while Obamacare requires them to insure medical expenses for pre-existing conditions and makes it difficult (if not impossible) to deny coverage to anyone wanting to purchase insurance from them.
Why don’t the insurance companies voluntarily lower premiums to be competitive with the government’s new $83.00 per month premium, you ask? Well, because quality medical care cannot be provided at the prices that would be supported by premiums lower than what the market already demands. Government has the luxury of not having to realize a profit on their (actually our) investment and they have the added benefit of being able to hold a gun (better known as the law) to the heads of health care providers and insurers to provide the care they mandate at the rates they set. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas could try that but, there are laws and regulations that prohibit such practices by anyone other than the government.

And, if you want to know how that ends, look to the hospitals, health care providers, and pharmacies that are now declining new Medicare patients because they’re not reimbursed at the rates required to cover the costs of providing care.

And, folks, that’s how President Barack Obama plans to kill the commercial insurance industry and create a single-payer, government-owned, health care system. As he has said, it is his desire we have a single-payer health care system and – although it make take 10 or 20 years – it will happen. Yesterday’s vote (if not undone) cut about 5 to 10 years off that estimate.

I realize there are many, in this forum, fully in favor of a “public option.” You believe government can best provide for the health needs of all Americans and that it would do so in a manner more fair and equitable to all 300+ million of us than we currently enjoy. However, nowhere is that Pollyannaish view realized. All government-funded health care systems have the fatal flaw of not having enough money to provide the services promised at the outset. Look at any country or at any state in this country, currently providing such a health care system. They are all in the red and suffering from quality of care issues that threaten to bankrupt the government and leave the medical profession in those places in shambles.

But, for the best example of how this will work, look at the United States federal health care systems – Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veteran’s Administration. All three are riddled with waste, fraud, and abuse (none of which is addressed in the Obamacare bill - if anything, those problems are exacerbated). On top of that, Medicare is already the largest denier of health care claims and the Veteran’s Administration’s hospitals have the sad reputation of being the poorest quality facilities in the nation.

For State examples, look at Tennessee and Massachusetts. Both are struggling to keep their government health care systems solvent.
And, how do all of these already existing systems remain in business? By rationing care, denying claims, and requiring more and more of a percentage of the costs be born by the insured – and, oh yeah!, by raising taxes. Thus, you get the death panels – I forget what they’re called in the Senate Bill, something like a “standards and practices committee” or some such – that will start making specific decisions on what treatments and care will be covered and what will not; which medicines will be covered and which will not; and, sadly, which patients are deemed good candidates for treatment and which are not.

And, finally, you’re right back where you started – with two major differences. Instead of money being the purchase of quality health care in America, power will be the currency. Those with power, government leaders and their patrons, will have access to an entirely different system, exempt from all these controls. Those with money will seek their health care from the places to where the best and brightest of our practitioners have fled – after the government drove them away through capping their income and bureaucratizing their profession.

The rest of us will be enjoying the same quality of care currently found in Canada, Great Britain, and Cuba. But, worse than that, our own government will have legislated and regulated the innovation and determination right out of our medical professionals and, as a result, the rest of the world -- who looked to us for cutting-edge medicine -- will suffer. Thanks a lot, Democrats

[jack sommerset]

mmhmmm

[jacobdrj]

I agree, in most states, Automotive Insurance should be either more heavily regulated, or no longer required...

[whottt]

Fuck the commercial insurance companies. Fuck the governmental ones too. In fact fuck insurance companies.

[jacobdrj]

Should institutionalized gambling, also known as risk hedging, more commonly referred to as 'insurance' be a legal commodity to be sold, or should it go the way of Heroin?

[DarkReign]

Nice post, but you knew it was inevitable. Too many "have-nots", it was just a matter of time before they start to outnumber the "haves" by a wide enough margin to put their agenda into motion.

Honestly, I dont fucking care what Washington does with this country anymore. They and the like-minded idiots can have it.

I make damn good money. Me and my family will die very well-off with the best medical care in the world. The rest of you fuckers can rot in hell for all I give a shit.

[Winehole23]

That answers tolerably well to the live by what you speak ethos.

[Winehole23]

One may not find very much to like about it, but at least it is honest, and it does express manly confidence.

[Marcus Bryant]

That answers tolerably well to the live by what you speak ethos.

Liberty is still available, it just costs a little bit more.

[Winehole23]

http://www.woodbrass.com/images/woodbrass/SOUNDCASTER+FUSION+HI+HAT.JPG

[Marcus Bryant]

The same as it ever was.

[Marcus Bryant]

And Yonivore has to be beside himself with glee now.

[Winehole23]

If only that were a joke instead of a description.

[Marcus Bryant]

Though I believe Nock advocated this, to live your life freely regardless of convention.

[Marcus Bryant]

If only that were a joke instead of a description.

I think it also holds true for certain "conservative" media outlets and figures, not to mention certain "conservative" politicians...

[Winehole23]

Though I believe Nock advocated this, to live your life freely regardless of convention.I don't see how that could possibly be avoided, but that's me.

[Yonivore]

Nice post, but you knew it was inevitable. Too many "have-nots", it was just a matter of time before they start to outnumber the "haves" by a wide enough margin to put their agenda into motion.

Honestly, I dont fucking care what Washington does with this country anymore. They and the like-minded idiots can have it.

I make damn good money. Me and my family will die very well-off with the best medical care in the world. The rest of you fuckers can rot in hell for all I give a shit.
Will your children have families?

[Duff McCartney]

The only option, under Obamacare, for foregoing the purchase of health insurance is to die.

That's pretty much the only option available to people nowadays. You know if tomorrow I found out I have cancer or a disease where treatment exceeded hundreds of thousands of dollars, I'd rather die. I'd rather die than spend the rest of my life buried in debt because that is no way for any human being to live.

Like what happened with my mom last year and this year, last year for being in the hospital for ONE, count it..ONE fucking day she was billed 7K. 7 thousand dollars for one fucking day. This year last month she went back in for the same illness, a gastrointestinal problem, and she stayed for 4 days. That's probably another 20 thousand dollars. We don't have insurance. She's 54 years old, and she'll be dead before she ever pays off the 27 thousand she owes. She has joked that they should have let her die than have to live with that kind of debt.

[DMX7]

For the first time in the 221-year history of the United States of America, the federal government is requiring individual citizens and companies to purchase a commercial good, by force of law and, is using the full force of government law enforcement to make sure you and I comply. If that doesn’t bother you then, the liberals in this forum are hereafter exposed as the hypocrites; I’ve always known them to be, over their “Keep your laws off my body” mantra, chanted since the 60’s.

Certainly, Bart Stupak has been exposed as having never been principled on his position that he could not vote for health care reform so long as the sanctity of life is not preserved. And, for those of you keeping score at home; the Executive Order, ostensibly issued by Obama to gain Stupak’s vote – along with his “six-pack” or “dozen” (whatever it was by that time), isn’t worth the paper on which it is written. Just remember, Obama promised you he’d close Guantanamo Bay and made one of his first acts as President, signing an Executive Order that would accomplish that within the first year of his presidency. How’s that working out for him? Executive Orders do not supersede law and the law passed last night provides federally-funded abortions. Period.

Now, we can argue all day long about whether or not this is appropriate but, that’s not the question…the question is whether or not Bart Stupak is so stupid as to believe Obama’s executive order will prevent such a provision from being used – once enacted by his signature – or that he is so conniving that he would knowingly fabricate a ruse of having a conscience about unborn children in order to soften other elements of his own party and making them easier to pick off by the administration and Congressional leaders.

Frankly, I believe the latter. There is video floating around, from last October, during which Stupak admits he would probably vote in favor of Obamacare even if the abortion language remained. I think his objections of late were just theater intended to gain him some sweet deal (which he received) and to give the House leadership some wiggle room when buying off the rest of the needed votes. It was a case of bait and switch in which Stupak was complicit.

And, for those who continue to claim these individual and corporate mandates are an analog to the requirement vehicle owners purchase automobile insurance, here are two differences that totally discredit that comparison:


1. Most (if not all) state governments require vehicle owners to carry a sufficient amount of LIABILITY insurance so any harm, caused by their negligence while driving, can be made whole through compensation to other vehicle and property owners damaged as a result of such negligence. As far as I know, States do not require vehicle owners to carry comprehensive insurance that would cover damage to their own vehicle in an accident.

Obamacare, on the other hand, requires us to insure ourselves and has absolutely nothing to do with insuring others against our own negligence, as is the case with government mandated automobile liability insurance.

2. Americans can choose to drive or own a vehicle, the requisite condition for the government to require the purchase of liability insurance. So, the requirement to purchase liability insurance is mitigated by our freedom to engage (or not engage) in the practice (driving and owning a vehicle) and run the risk of causing harm to others. If you choose (or, are unable) to own a car, you do not have to purchase insurance. The bottom-line purpose of automobile insurance mandates is to protect others that may be harmed by your negligence – you can remain uninsured, if you choose.

The only option, under Obamacare, for foregoing the purchase of health insurance is to die. If you are breathing you will be required to buy health insurance, your employer will be required to provide you with health insurance, and health insurance companies will be required to provide you with insurance at government-controlled rates and under government-controlled conditions.

Obamacare will criminalize hundreds of thousands, and eventually millions, of Americans and their employers and drive them to the taxpayer-supported government insurance which, in turn, will eventually become the Public Option many of you claimed did not exist in this legislation.

The Senate Bill passed last night, provides for the hiring of almost 17,000 additional Internal Revenue Service Agents at the U. S. Department of Treasury to enforce – by penalty involving the seizure of your money through wage garnishment for employees and fines to employers – the individual and corporate mandate to carry health insurance.

As it turns out, however, these penalties are significantly less that the cost of insurance (both to employers and individuals); $2,000 per employee, per year is the penalty to employers that fail to purchase or contribute to the purchase of individual (or group) health insurance for their employees and, $1,000 per individual, per year is the penalty for individuals who fail to purchase health insurance for themselves. Currently, my employer pays approximately $4,700 per year, per employee for a group health insurance policy for individual employees. Employees pay nothing. However, if you start adding spouses and children, the employer contribution goes up to as much as $8,500 per year, per employee and the employees can pay up to $4,600.00 per employee, per year for health insurance.

For my employer, (and for argument’s sake, let’s say we’re all single adults), with 8,000 employees, they’re spending approximately $37,000,000.00 per year (not even close due to the fact many of us are married and have children but, I digress.). If they dropped group health insurance coverage and opted to pay the fine of $2,000 per employee, per year, that would amount to approximately $16,000,000.00. Going criminal will amount to a savings of $21,000,000.00 per year. In the current economic climate, I would imagine many corporations will face the “stigma” of being an “insurance criminal” for the sake of decreasing their compensation costs by 57% and putting that money back on the bottom line.

Not only have they reduced their overhead by 57%, they’ve shifted the remaining outlay from a commercial insurance company to the federal government and, thus, have created a new tax while depriving a private insurance company the revenue.

Now, employees and individuals don’t have the same option because, if your employer is paying the entire cost of your insurance (as mine does for individuals), the $1,000 per individual, per year fine would represent an increase in a person’s health care costs. But, as you can imagine, employees have very little influence over whether or not their employer will continue to carry group insurance when, as I calculated above, they can convert those costs to income that will, in many cases, allow a company to remain solvent. But, of course, many of us are married and have families and the amount of employee contribution to health insurance for those situations more than exceeds the $1,000.00 per individual, per year.

In either case, many companies will choose to drop their employee coverage for the savings they will realize and we will all be out there looking for the best deals for health insurance. And, guess what will be the “best deal?” Yep. Not many commercial companies will be able to compete with the federal government who will essentially be providing health insurance for $83.00 per individual, per month ($1,000 per year). Current regulation and provisions of the bill controlling premiums will preclude the commercial insurance industry from becoming competitive with each other and certainly will not allow them to compete with $83.00 per month government insurance.
They certainly can’t do that while Obamacare requires them to insure medical expenses for pre-existing conditions and makes it difficult (if not impossible) to deny coverage to anyone wanting to purchase insurance from them.
Why don’t the insurance companies voluntarily lower premiums to be competitive with the government’s new $83.00 per month premium, you ask? Well, because quality medical care cannot be provided at the prices that would be supported by premiums lower than what the market already demands. Government has the luxury of not having to realize a profit on their (actually our) investment and they have the added benefit of being able to hold a gun (better known as the law) to the heads of health care providers and insurers to provide the care they mandate at the rates they set. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas could try that but, there are laws and regulations that prohibit such practices by anyone other than the government.

And, if you want to know how that ends, look to the hospitals, health care providers, and pharmacies that are now declining new Medicare patients because they’re not reimbursed at the rates required to cover the costs of providing care.

And, folks, that’s how President Barack Obama plans to kill the commercial insurance industry and create a single-payer, government-owned, health care system. As he has said, it is his desire we have a single-payer health care system and – although it make take 10 or 20 years – it will happen. Yesterday’s vote (if not undone) cut about 5 to 10 years off that estimate.

I realize there are many, in this forum, fully in favor of a “public option.” You believe government can best provide for the health needs of all Americans and that it would do so in a manner more fair and equitable to all 300+ million of us than we currently enjoy. However, nowhere is that Pollyannaish view realized. All government-funded health care systems have the fatal flaw of not having enough money to provide the services promised at the outset. Look at any country or at any state in this country, currently providing such a health care system. They are all in the red and suffering from quality of care issues that threaten to bankrupt the government and leave the medical profession in those places in shambles.

But, for the best example of how this will work, look at the United States federal health care systems – Medicare, Medicaid, and the Veteran’s Administration. All three are riddled with waste, fraud, and abuse (none of which is addressed in the Obamacare bill - if anything, those problems are exacerbated). On top of that, Medicare is already the largest denier of health care claims and the Veteran’s Administration’s hospitals have the sad reputation of being the poorest quality facilities in the nation.

For State examples, look at Tennessee and Massachusetts. Both are struggling to keep their government health care systems solvent.
And, how do all of these already existing systems remain in business? By rationing care, denying claims, and requiring more and more of a percentage of the costs be born by the insured – and, oh yeah!, by raising taxes. Thus, you get the death panels – I forget what they’re called in the Senate Bill, something like a “standards and practices committee” or some such – that will start making specific decisions on what treatments and care will be covered and what will not; which medicines will be covered and which will not; and, sadly, which patients are deemed good candidates for treatment and which are not.

And, finally, you’re right back where you started – with two major differences. Instead of money being the purchase of quality health care in America, power will be the currency. Those with power, government leaders and their patrons, will have access to an entirely different system, exempt from all these controls. Those with money will seek their health care from the places to where the best and brightest of our practitioners have fled – after the government drove them away through capping their income and bureaucratizing their profession.

The rest of us will be enjoying the same quality of care currently found in Canada, Great Britain, and Cuba. But, worse than that, our own government will have legislated and regulated the innovation and determination right out of our medical professionals and, as a result, the rest of the world -- who looked to us for cutting-edge medicine -- will suffer. Thanks a lot, Democrats


I may read this.

[PublicOption]

thing is stupivore....democrats did not want that in the bill in the first place, that is

a GOP(insurance company thing) if you take that out of the bill democrats would love it.

[Duff McCartney]

The rest of us will be enjoying the same quality of care currently found in Canada, Great Britain, and Cuba.

Sorry to burst your bubble Yoni, but Britain and Canada rank higher in the health rankings than the United States, and Cuba ranks just two spots below us. At best we'll have a better health care system than we presently have, at worse, we'll be minimally worse off than we are now.

[Crookshanks]

Sorry to burst your bubble Yoni, but Britain and Canada rank higher in the health rankings than the United States, and Cuba ranks just two spots below us. At best we'll have a better health care system than we presently have, at worse, we'll be minimally worse off than we are now.

You're a waste of oxygen. You really expect us to believe healthcare in Cuba is almost as good as what we have here in the United States? :lmao

[PublicOption]

pretty soon the GOP will stop referring to it as OBAMACARE, not wanting to give too much credit to the prez for a good thing.

[Yonivore]

Sorry to burst your bubble Yoni, but Britain and Canada rank higher in the health rankings than the United States, and Cuba ranks just two spots below us. At best we'll have a better health care system than we presently have, at worse, we'll be minimally worse off than we are now.
Which is why Britain's and Canada's wealthy (including the Canadian Prime Minister) and their desperate come to America when they need something important done.

Whomever is doing the ranking is weighting the criteria.

This country provides the best, most innovative, and curative medical care in the world.

[Yonivore]

That's pretty much the only option available to people nowadays.
Not true. That lady to whom Obama referred is receiving "aggressive cancer treatment."


You know if tomorrow I found out I have cancer or a disease where treatment exceeded hundreds of thousands of dollars, I'd rather die. I'd rather die than spend the rest of my life buried in debt because that is no way for any human being to live.
That's your choice. A choice that may not be available under Obamacare. The death panel may make it for you.


Like what happened with my mom last year and this year, last year for being in the hospital for ONE, count it..ONE fucking day she was billed 7K. 7 thousand dollars for one fucking day. This year last month she went back in for the same illness, a gastrointestinal problem, and she stayed for 4 days. That's probably another 20 thousand dollars. We don't have insurance. She's 54 years old, and she'll be dead before she ever pays off the 27 thousand she owes. She has joked that they should have let her die than have to live with that kind of debt.
Sincerely, Sorry about your mother but, what is the debt doing to her?

When she dies, which I hope is far in the future, if the debt still exists, it'll be canceled.

But, reading your remarks, one has to wonder why she went to the hospital if she'd rather be dead than in debt. Did she think it wouldn't cost money?

[DMX7]

Hawaii has employer mandated heathcare. It's hell on earth over there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/health/policy/17hawaii.html?pagewanted=1

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/10/16/health/policy/17hawaii2_600.jpg

HONOLULU — Imee Gallardo, 24, has been scooping ice cream at a Häagen-Dazs shop at Waikiki Beach for five years, and during that time the shop has done something its counterparts on the mainland rarely do: it has paid for her health care.

Ms. Gallardo cannot imagine any other system.

“I wouldn’t get coverage on the mainland?” Ms. Gallardo asked. “Even if I worked? Why?”

Since 1974, Hawaii has required all employers to provide relatively generous health care benefits to any employee who works 20 hours a week or more. If health care legislation passes in Congress, the rest of the country may barely catch up.

Lawmakers working on a national health care fix have much to learn from the past 35 years in Hawaii, President Obama’s native state.

Among the most important lessons is that even small steps to change the system can have lasting effects on health. Another is that, once benefits are entrenched, taking them away becomes almost impossible. There have not been any serious efforts in Hawaii to repeal the law, although cheating by employers may be on the rise.

But perhaps the most intriguing lesson from Hawaii has to do with costs. This is a state where regular milk sells for $8 a gallon, gasoline costs $3.60 a gallon and the median price of a home in 2008 was $624,000 — the second-highest in the nation. Despite this, Hawaii’s health insurance premiums are nearly tied with North Dakota for the lowest in the country, and Medicare costs per beneficiary are the nation’s lowest.

Hawaii residents live longer than people in the rest of the country, recent surveys have shown, and the state’s health care system may be one reason. In one example, Hawaii has the nation’s highest incidence of breast cancer but the lowest death rate from the disease.

[continued]

[Duff McCartney]

But, reading your remarks, one has to wonder why she went to the hospital if she'd rather be dead than in debt. Did she think it wouldn't cost money?

I know she did, she's not stupid and I know you're being obtuse to make a point. But 7 grand for one day? Is that fair? Is that fair to someone who can't afford health insurance? Your entire arguement is that people are going to the hospital due to illnesses they cause, but alot of affliction aren't caused by people.

Many types of cancers, intestinal diseases and the likes aren't brought on by the lifestyle, they are just heriditary. You're right I can make the choice not to go to the hospital, but it shouldn't be because I'm afraid it will bankrupt me in the process. That should never be the reason..ever!

[Duff McCartney]

Which is why Britain's and Canada's wealthy (including the Canadian Prime Minister) and their desperate come to America when they need something important done.

Whomever is doing the ranking is weighting the criteria.

This country provides the best, most innovative, and curative medical care in the world.

Yes, the World Health Organization is weighting the rankings. And like I said with the rankings of the World Health Organization, the most recognized body in medicine, the United States isn't even in the top 30. Period.

I'd rather believe the research and facts of the WHO than the opinions of you.

[Duff McCartney]

You're a waste of oxygen. You really expect us to believe healthcare in Cuba is almost as good as what we have here in the United States? :lmao

I don't expect you to believe anything but the facts. FACT according to the WHO the United States ranks 37th. FACT according to the WHO Cuba ranks 39th.

[Crookshanks]

I don't expect you to believe anything but the facts. FACT according to the WHO the United States ranks 37th. FACT according to the WHO Cuba ranks 39th.

Tell you what then - next time your mother gets sick, fly her to Cuba. And let us know how that works out for you.

[Yonivore]

I don't expect you to believe anything but the facts. FACT according to the WHO the United States ranks 37th. FACT according to the WHO Cuba ranks 39th.
Didn't the WHO recently tell us we were all going to die of SARS and then Swine Flu?

The WHO is the medical equivalent of the IPCC.

[Duff McCartney]

Tell you what then - next time your mother gets sick, fly her to Cuba. And let us know how that works out for you.

Why would I do that? It would take time to go there, you know time we don't have. State department visas and shit like that. There is still limits as to how you can travel to Cuba.

[Duff McCartney]

Didn't the WHO recently tell us we were all going to die of SARS and then Swine Flu?

The WHO is the medical equivalent of the IPCC.

Again instead of looking at the facts you choose to bring ad hominem attacks and belittle the organization who is making the studies.

And I don't think the WHO told anyone that we were going to die from either SARS or Swine Flu. Show me where the WHO released a statement saying we are all going to die and I'll read it. But until then you're just making baseless claims. But I except nothing better from you.

[Yonivore]

The first of many Easter Eggs to be found in Obamacare legislation...


Exempted From Obamacare: Senior Staff Who Wrote the Bill (http://newledger.com/2010/03/exempted-from-obamacare-senior-staff-who-wrote-the-bill/)

and, Duff, I'll have the WHO debate in another thread if you'd like to start one. Suffice it to say, their "studies" are highly dependent on nations self-reporting and how those countries define certain medical conditions and mortality rates.

[Yonivore]

Why would I do that? It would take time to go there, you know time we don't have. State department visas and shit like that. There is still limits as to how you can travel to Cuba.
Seriously, if those barriers didn't exist, you'd take your mother there?

[whottt]

Why would I do that? It would take time to go there, you know time we don't have. State department visas and shit like that. There is still limits as to how you can travel to Cuba.

You can renounce your citizenship and get there easy enough. Getting them to accept you will be another thing entirely. If you aren't rich you can pretty much forget about it, and you can also forget about them treating your mother.

[whottt]

Duff, you think if we adopted Cuba's policies towards HIV our health care system would get a better ranking?

[Duff McCartney]

Duff, you think if we adopted Cuba's policies towards HIV our health care system would get a better ranking?

I'm not advocating adopting Cuba's health care policies. I'm simply stating that their healthcare is only marginally worse than ours. They even have health tourism! If it was so shitty, people wouldn't go there for healthcare as tourists.

[Yonivore]

I'm not advocating adopting Cuba's health care policies. I'm simply stating that their healthcare is only marginally worse than ours. They even have health tourism! If it was so shitty, people wouldn't go there for healthcare as tourists.
Cubans should be so lucky to get the health care provided the tourists.

[Duff McCartney]

The first of many Easter Eggs to be found in Obamacare legislation...


Exempted From Obamacare: Senior Staff Who Wrote the Bill (http://newledger.com/2010/03/exempted-from-obamacare-senior-staff-who-wrote-the-bill/)

and, Duff, I'll have the WHO debate in another thread if you'd like to start one. Suffice it to say, their "studies" are highly dependent on nations self-reporting and how those countries define certain medical conditions and mortality rates.

It's not just the WHO that has stated the low rankings of the U.S. health care system. The Commonwealth Fund has also. Again I ask where are you getting your information from? Are you just making it up? Not that I wouldn't put it past you.

[Duff McCartney]

You can renounce your citizenship and get there easy enough. Getting them to accept you will be another thing entirely. If you aren't rich you can pretty much forget about it, and you can also forget about them treating your mother.

So in order to not be buried in debt, I'd have to renounce my citizenship? Is that what our health care has come to? I don't even have to renounce my citizenship to do that, I can just go to Europe. The EU treats tourists for free. And many European nations rank higher than the U.S. in terms of health care.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So in order to not be buried in debt, I'd have to renounce my citizenship? Is that what our health care has come to? I don't even have to renounce my citizenship to do that, I can just go to Europe. The EU treats tourists for free. And many European nations rank higher than the U.S. in terms of health care.

whott doesn't believe in having insurance... he is just going to stiff the hospital that has to treat him. $7,000! Fuck insurance fuck the hospital, fuck joe public.. Whott ain't gonna pay shit..insurance? he don't need no stinking insurance

[whottt]

I'm not advocating adopting Cuba's health care policies. I'm simply stating that their healthcare is only marginally worse than ours. They even have health tourism! If it was so shitty, people wouldn't go there for healthcare as tourists.

I used to go to Mexico for medical reasons. Doesn't mean I envy their health care system. I do however envy their prices.

Amazing how it works that way though isn't it? How much do you think you Mom's bill would cost in Mexico if she could get treatment?

If I were you I would tell your Mom to tell the medical collectors to take a hike.


I'm with you on hating the high cost of medical care, where I am not with you is on giving the people that drove up the cost and who make the most money, and benefit the most from it being so outrageous, a near unlimited budget. Which is what we have just done. We've made the people that stuck it to your mother much richer. Out of control health care costs worked for them on just about every level possible.


There is only one way to bring the costs of medical care down...stop paying so much for it.

[Mr. Peabody]

The first of many Easter Eggs to be found in Obamacare legislation...


Exempted From Obamacare: Senior Staff Who Wrote the Bill (http://newledger.com/2010/03/exempted-from-obamacare-senior-staff-who-wrote-the-bill/)



So . . . while members of congress and their personal staff have to get their insurance through the exchange during their terms of service, committee staff and leadership staff can purchase their own private insurance plans like the rest of us . . . I'm outraged.

[whottt]

whott doesn't believe in having insurance... he is just going to stiff the hospital that has to treat him. $7,000! Fuck insurance fuck the hospital, fuck joe public.. Whott ain't gonna pay shit..insurance? he don't need no stinking insurance

Exactly right. You're an idiot if you think medical insurance is an essential of life right there with water, food and shelter. Only because people have made it so.

Weak minded fool.

It's the insurance companies stupid. If you'd been alive long enough you'd know that.

[whottt]

whott doesn't believe in having insurance... he is just going to stiff the hospital that has to treat him. $7,000! Fuck insurance fuck the hospital, fuck joe public.. Whott ain't gonna pay shit..insurance? he don't need no stinking insurance

BTW, I'm gonna think of you every time I stick it to this system. And I'm gonna do that a whole lot. Because it is tyranny.

Put your humanity to the test :tu

And if you don't like you can kiss my fucking ass, I'm poor bitch...you fucking owe me.

PS: Thanks for taking away my incentive to not have any kids. In fact, that whole bullshit about poor people having a shitload kids being the main cause of poverty is about to be exposed for the lie that it is. I have absolutely zero doubt this Utopian solution can handle it.

[SnakeBoy]

That's pretty much the only option available to people nowadays. You know if tomorrow I found out I have cancer or a disease where treatment exceeded hundreds of thousands of dollars, I'd rather die. I'd rather die than spend the rest of my life buried in debt because that is no way for any human being to live.

Like what happened with my mom last year and this year, last year for being in the hospital for ONE, count it..ONE fucking day she was billed 7K. 7 thousand dollars for one fucking day. This year last month she went back in for the same illness, a gastrointestinal problem, and she stayed for 4 days. That's probably another 20 thousand dollars. We don't have insurance. She's 54 years old, and she'll be dead before she ever pays off the 27 thousand she owes. She has joked that they should have let her die than have to live with that kind of debt.

How does Obamacare change anything for your mom?

[Duff McCartney]

How does Obamacare change anything for your mom?

For one thing she'd be subsidized for insurance she can't afford. Nevermind that, if she tried to get insurance now, she'd probably be denied for the pre-existing condition that she went to the hospital for.

[Duff McCartney]

I used to go to Mexico for medical reasons. Doesn't mean I envy their health care system. I do however envy their prices.

Amazing how it works that way though isn't it? How much do you think you Mom's bill would cost in Mexico if she could get treatment?

If I were you I would tell your Mom to tell the medical collectors to take a hike.


I'm with you on hating the high cost of medical care, where I am not with you is on giving the people that drove up the cost and who make the most money, and benefit the most from it being so outrageous, a near unlimited budget. Which is what we have just done. We've made the people that stuck it to your mother much richer. Out of control health care costs worked for them on just about every level possible.


There is only one way to bring the costs of medical care down...stop paying so much for it.

She'll never tell them to take a hike because unlike what you're advocating she's a responsible person. While my sister and my mother would both tell me to get medical treatment, I'd tell the entire medical community to get fucked if I was ever ill with a disease that required massive hospital time. I don't care if I'd die, because as I said before I'd rather die than live with massive debts.

I don't like alot of this bill but it's a step in the right direction. If it were up to me, I'd have the congress pass laws to regulate the cost of healthcare. Simple things like drugs and basic care being regulated would drive down the cost of healthcare like nothing this bill could ever do. And not paying for healthcare costs will just drive it up more, they'd need to make up the money they lost by you not paying.

The problem is that the entire medical industry is run like a business, which is fine if you're selling cheeseburgers, not fine if you're saving peoples lives.

[whottt]

She'll never tell them to take a hike because unlike what you're advocating she's a responsible person. While my sister and my mother would both tell me to get medical treatment, I'd tell the entire medical community to get fucked if I was ever ill with a disease that required massive hospital time. I don't care if I'd die, because as I said before I'd rather die than live with massive debts.

I don't like alot of this bill but it's a step in the right direction. If it were up to me, I'd have the congress pass laws to regulate the cost of healthcare. Simple things like drugs and basic care being regulated would drive down the cost of healthcare like nothing this bill could ever do. And not paying for healthcare costs will just drive it up more, they'd need to make up the money they lost by you not paying.

The problem is that the entire medical industry is run like a business, which is fine if you're selling cheeseburgers, not fine if you're saving peoples lives.

It's(paying the outrageous fees) is not being responsible, it's empowering a system that rebirths you into indentured servitude.

[SnakeBoy]

For one thing she'd be subsidized for insurance she can't afford. Nevermind that, if she tried to get insurance now, she'd probably be denied for the pre-existing condition that she went to the hospital for.

So why isn't she covered under medicaid?

[whottt]

So why isn't she covered under medicaid?

Wouldn't matter. Medicaid tells people to go eff themselves all the time. So does Medicare. So did Champus. For emergency calls they tell them to go eff themselves.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yorn , you don't even understand the importance of the auto insurance argument.

You are talking about how the government compels the consumer in each case. Tahts not whats important.

Whats important is that the auto insurance industry has its rates mandated by the various states with a product that is compulsory to buy.

The rates of auto insurance have been stable and low for pretty much the last 50 years. In other words this notion that prices will still rise in favor of the evil corporate overlord flies completely in the face of the closest empirical example out there.

You arguing how someone is compelled mitigates that not in the least.

[LnGrrrR]

The author raises some very valid points, that I can't disagree with. This is why I preferred a public option if they were going to pass this.

I'm going to be optimistic, and hope that the errors in this bill are fixed soon. Sometimes you can find errors much easier when a process is actually implemented. I'm not holding my breath though.

[Duff McCartney]

So why isn't she covered under medicaid?

Makes more money than medicaid will cover. Poverty alone is not an indicator of medicaid eligibility. Most estimates state that 60 percent of poor people are not covered by medicaid.

[DarkReign]

Will your children have families?

You bring up a good point. I am 30, I have no children for my own reasons (i live a selfish lifestyle) but I hate to say this out loud because its old and tired, but...

I really dont like the world at all (big surprise). I cant see burdening my children with this mess I created by not doing....seomthing more than what I am doing now.

So, imo, it isnt fair for me to have children. That isnt to say I will never have kids (i am married, it isnt solely my decision at all), but every time the subject is broached, we both come to same conclusion.

The world is too fucked up and its really only going to get worse.

[Duff McCartney]

The world is too fucked up and its really only going to get worse.

The world has always been fucked up. That's nothing new. I'm sure if you lived at the turn of 19th century when people in cities were living in squalor and working for pennies at a time you'd say the same thing.

I think the world has gotten better in some ways, and worse in other ways. A fine balance will always exist in the world, with each passing century, 300 years ago, no terrorism, no globalization, but disease and crappy medical practices.

Now we have terrorism and globalization but diseases that have been eradicated and people are living longer. I don't think the future will bring anything more fucked up than it was 500 years ago.

[boutons_deux]

Forcing citizens to buy products from price-unregulated for-profit corporations is one of the many aduterations of this corporate-enriching health sausage that must be removed, the sooner the better.

If the legal challenges win, then maintain the mandate (everybody pay as much as they can) but buy into a medicare-for-all public option (see Grayson's proposal as one way to a public option). "for-all" means employees with group plans can take their group plan as cash/salary and buy into public insurance.

The public option will kill the for-profit insurer cartel's dominance of the insurance business.

[Marcus Bryant]

...to be replaced by a state monopoly. Yay. Entirely the wrong direction to be headed in, but there are plenty of suckers in this country.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

...to be replaced by a state monopoly. Yay. Entirely the wrong direction to be headed in, but there are plenty of suckers in this country.

Which provision of the bill creates a state monopoly?

[Marcus Bryant]

Can you even follow a discussion?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Can you even follow a discussion?

Good point. I was sure that you were using the tried and true 'its all going to lead to sommunism' argument. My bad.

[TeyshaBlue]

Yorn , you don't even understand the importance of the auto insurance argument.

You are talking about how the government compels the consumer in each case. Tahts not whats important.

Whats important is that the auto insurance industry has its rates mandated by the various states with a product that is compulsory to buy.

The rates of auto insurance have been stable and low for pretty much the last 50 years. In other words this notion that prices will still rise in favor of the evil corporate overlord flies completely in the face of the closest empirical example out there.

You arguing how someone is compelled mitigates that not in the least.

I'm still not convinced this is a valid comparison. If auto insurance covered oil changes, brake jobs and scheduled maintenance, then perhaps the comparison would be better.

[jacobdrj]

I'm still not convinced this is a valid comparison. If auto insurance covered oil changes, brake jobs and scheduled maintenance, then perhaps the comparison would be better.

Insightful. I had forgotten that a big problem with the current health care system is that everyone wants everything reimbursed. For some reason we do not expect that from our Auto insurance companies. Most likely because we use our cars more than most of us use our doctors.
This also may go back to the fact that a gas station lists their prices, where doctors don't. At least our prescriptions come with predictable receipts... Even my mechanic will give me an estimate. I have only had 1 doctor ever give me one.

[EVAY]

Insightful. I had forgotten that a big problem with the current health care system is that everyone wants everything reimbursed. For some reason we do not expect that from our Auto insurance companies. Most likely because we use our cars more than most of us use our doctors.
This also may go back to the fact that a gas station lists their prices, where doctors don't. At least our prescriptions come with predictable receipts... Even my mechanic will give me an estimate. I have only had 1 doctor ever give me one.

It is useful to remember that insurance companies started paying for people to get regular checkups ( along with co-pays, of course) in an attempt to encourage 'wellness' programs, and trying to get people into more proactive rather than reactive health care. The assumption being that they could pay for a whole lot of physicals that would encourage halthier life styles, diets, etc., and that they could find diseases earlier, with a better chance at less cost overall, than if patients waited until things were disastrous before the did anything about it. I think a lot of the over-testing that is done today is an unintended consequence of this (plus fears of law suits).

I am NOT trying to get in the middle of the auto-vs.health insurance debate. Don't want to. I just thought I would mention this because I remember when my company's insurance started paying for the office visits.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm still not convinced this is a valid comparison. If auto insurance covered oil changes, brake jobs and scheduled maintenance, then perhaps the comparison would be better.

That would equate to preventative care. OTOH, comprehensive coverage equates pretty good. If you're car window gets busted because of a hail storm youre covered.

I realize there are differences but what other than another insurance industry provides a better empirical comparison?

What I find important is the review of balance sheets and actuarial information. The forced transparency and justification of rates. The board has the authority to lower those rates.

One thing that I did find heartening is that the bill isn't dependent on the fed beauacracy. It specifically talks about the board OR appropriate STATE regulation. IOW, its telling the states either you do it or we will do it for you.

[DarkReign]

I seriously do not see how hard it is to understand the underlying difference between auto and health insurance.

In order to drive, I must purchase auto insurance. My recourse against this payment is to not drive.

In order to be alive, I must purchase health insurance? There is no recourse, unless of course I am dead.

One in not like the other.

[DarrinS]

I seriously do not see how hard it is to understand the underlying difference between auto and health insurance.

In order to drive, I must purchase auto insurance. My recourse against this payment is to not drive.

In order to be alive, I must purchase health insurance? There is no recourse, unless of course I am dead.

One in not like the other.


Also, the auto insurance you are required to purchase is LIABILITY insurance. You are insuring yourself for property damages to OTHERS. I wish they would quit trying to compare apples and oranges.

[jacobdrj]

Also, the auto insurance you are required to purchase is LIABILITY insurance. You are insuring yourself for property damages to OTHERS. I wish they would quit trying to compare apples and oranges.

Excellent point, DarrinS, and DarkReign...


Better discussion in this thread than in some of the others.

[TeyshaBlue]

That would equate to preventative care. OTOH, comprehensive coverage equates pretty good. If you're car window gets busted because of a hail storm youre covered.

I realize there are differences but what other than another insurance industry provides a better empirical comparison?

What I find important is the review of balance sheets and actuarial information. The forced transparency and justification of rates. The board has the authority to lower those rates.

One thing that I did find heartening is that the bill isn't dependent on the fed beauacracy. It specifically talks about the board OR appropriate STATE regulation. IOW, its telling the states either you do it or we will do it for you.

I'm not sure there is anything that can provide a truly empirical comparison to the bizarro monopogasm of contemporary healthcare insurance.

I agree as concerns the state's role/burden. I can't determine whether these proposed state boards would be funded or if the states see this as yet another unfunded mandate. That'll likely dictate the state's response. If the rules are going to be uniform from state to state, then it seems much more likely a federal board will be constructed.

[Yonivore]

The world has always been fucked up. That's nothing new. I'm sure if you lived at the turn of 19th century when people in cities were living in squalor and working for pennies at a time you'd say the same thing.
But, this is one of the few times we're actually digressing instead of progressing and it's worrisome.


I think the world has gotten better in some ways, and worse in other ways. A fine balance will always exist in the world, with each passing century, 300 years ago, no terrorism, no globalization, but disease and crappy medical practices.
No terrorism or globalization 300 years ago? Read some history, Duff. Man has been terrorizing man and trying to conquer ever-expanding chunks of the globe since -- well -- there was man.

Things are much more civil now than they've ever been -- except for one particular sect of one particular religion.


Now we have terrorism and globalization but diseases that have been eradicated and people are living longer. I don't think the future will bring anything more fucked up than it was 500 years ago.
Give Obama a chance; he's trying as hard as he can to send us backward.

[whottt]

The world has always been fucked up. That's nothing new. I'm sure if you lived at the turn of 19th century when people in cities were living in squalor and working for pennies at a time you'd say the same thing.

I think the world has gotten better in some ways, and worse in other ways. A fine balance will always exist in the world, with each passing century, 300 years ago, no terrorism, no globalization, but disease and crappy medical practices.

Now we have terrorism and globalization but diseases that have been eradicated and people are living longer. I don't think the future will bring anything more fucked up than it was 500 years ago.

The more crowded people get the more primitive they become. This is a fact beyond fact. Civilization and humanitiy are luxuries we amuse ourselves with when resources are plentiful, the second they starting getting scarce that facade falls away and revert to the animals we truly are at heart and have been for much longer than we have been civilized men.

It's got nothing to do with race, religion or any of those such things(check the history of every ethnic, race, religion etc for further proof of this). Those are simply excuses to divide and reduce our numbers.

And what most people don't realize...space itself is a resource, a precious one.

People can think of all the alternatives they want, but the solution coded into our DNA, every last one of us, is to kill each other off to create more space.

The world for the first time is reaching that habitable space and resource limit globally...it's about to get much worse than it has ever been before. I don't mean in the next couple of months...but most likely in the next century or so.


I have zero faith that our more recently evolved analytical brain will win over our much older emotional one, it never has before.

[Nbadan]

I seriously do not see how hard it is to understand the underlying difference between auto and health insurance.

In order to drive, I must purchase auto insurance. My recourse against this payment is to not drive.

In order to be alive, I must purchase health insurance? There is no recourse, unless of course I am dead.

One in not like the other.

Then again...you don't need to buy life insurance either, but if you don't you run the risk of your kids (if you every have any) living in poverty, your home being repossessed and your wife on welfare ...your only recourse is not to die...

...in other words, don't be a burden to society, buy health insurance...

[Duff McCartney]

Give Obama a chance; he's trying as hard as he can to send us backward.

Not only is your hyperbole tiresome, it's completely stupid. As in you're completely stupid to think that one man can set an entire world back so much.

As much as I hate George W. Bush, he could never set back humanity ever. You give Obama too much credit or not enough credit. He's either destroying America, or he hasn't done jack shit in his year of office.

[Duff McCartney]

No terrorism or globalization 300 years ago? Read some history, Duff. Man has been terrorizing man and trying to conquer ever-expanding chunks of the globe since -- well -- there was man.

You're right, but it wasn't like it is today. It'd be nearly impossible to carry out terrorist attacks then the way they do now. I know there has always existed terrorism and war and globalization. But it's not like it is now.

All I have to say about everything is we'll get through it. We always have.

[George Gervin's Afro]

You're right, but it wasn't like it is today. It'd be nearly impossible to carry out terrorist attacks then the way they do now. I know there has always existed terrorism and war and globalization. But it's not like it is now.

All I have to say about everything is we'll get through it. We always have.

Don't even bother with Yoni..it's like debating a brick wall...

[Duff McCartney]

The more crowded people get the more primitive they become. This is a fact beyond fact. Civilization and humanitiy are luxuries we amuse ourselves with when resources are plentiful, the second they starting getting scarce that facade falls away and revert to the animals we truly are at heart and have been for much longer than we have been civilized men.

It's got nothing to do with race, religion or any of those such things(check the history of every ethnic, race, religion etc for further proof of this). Those are simply excuses to divide and reduce our numbers.

And what most people don't realize...space itself is a resource, a precious one.

People can think of all the alternatives they want, but the solution coded into our DNA, every last one of us, is to kill each other off to create more space.

The world for the first time is reaching that habitable space and resource limit globally...it's about to get much worse than it has ever been before. I don't mean in the next couple of months...but most likely in the next century or so.


I have zero faith that our more recently evolved analytical brain will win over our much older emotional one, it never has before.

I don't think that's the case. Space and resources yes I think we will eventually get to that point, but the problem is that the powers that be not just in government but in everything have no foresight. Like with oil/gas, everyone knows it won't last forever, yet oil companies only invest a micro fraction of their profits into developing sustainable energy. No foresight, just looking at the now.

I think many people have foresight and look toward the future, the question is will they ever have the power to make decisions that look to the future instead of just living in the now? Maybe maybe not.