RSS Feed MenuMost people not unlucky enough to be film or TV critics believe that the main “product” of studios and networks are their movies and shows. In reality, they’re just the means to an end. The “products” isn’t the films or the series — it’s the amount of eyeballs that they bring in. That’s what the theatre chains that buy the movies, the ad agencies that buy commercials, and the cable companies that charge their subscribers are paying for.
Amidst all the posing pomp and self-conscious symbolatry of the Healthcare Summit, in today’s Washington, the dominant view seems to no longer be that the Congress is a group of individual members meant to stand in for and represent their constituents and their interests. Instead, the US Congress is now in danger of being reduced merely to twin armies of foot-soldiers in a politically theatrical, made-for-TV war between the forces of Barack “Yes We Can” Obama on one side, and the Rush-Ann-Sarah-Glenn mafia on the other.
Even Chris Matthews, who believes that passing the bill — no matter what bill, no matter how bad, no matter what it does — is the only “way out of this trap”, was shocked by Obama’s payback for “You lie!” and Samuel Alito’s mouth that roared. Calling senior Congressmen by their first names, pointedly reading his notes during testimony by Senators like John McCain, and openly making fun of Eric Cantor and John Barrasso…. This seems all the more disconcerting to both conservatives and liberals alike when contrasted with Obama’s passive leadership on health care six months or a year ago. He hoped in vain that if he remained on the sidelines, the Tea Party and “birther” radicals would go so far with their overheated rhetoric that they would hang themselves, and leave him with a free hand.
In my next piece, I’ll be talking further about how Obama seems to be following all too well the playbook that Newsweek laid out for him the week of his inaugural — to undo the right-wing reaction of the Cheney era by…. following Dick Cheney’s recipe for the high-handed, elite, imperial executive to the letter.
Meanwhile, the American people have spoken — some might say that, after Scott Brown’s election, they’ve almost screamed, “We want JOBS.” But instead, the Obama White House has made it clear that they aren’t going to budge their massively unpopular health care program from the No. 1 priority slot, until they’ve budged it past the finish line.
Instead of accountability, the Obama White House’s strategy is to encourage members of Congress to exult in their brute power to force unpopular, divisive legislation down the helpless public’s throat.
The most egregious abuse of language is the plan to “extend coverage” to 30 million uninsured. The means of doing this is, of course, an “individual mandate” that makes a criminal of anyone too middle-class to afford health insurance to begin with. President Obama is quite right when he says that people who work for a small business or are self-employed “can’t get health care”. Yet the Senate’s beau ideal requires that families and the self-employed making in the $60-80,000 range before taxes to spend 10 to 15% of their income to “greedy” health insurers before they receive a subsidy — with NO tax credit for the difference.
One thing is clear — for better or worse, the current debate on health care reform has passed the point of no return. This no longer has anything to do with such proletarian concerns as “what’s good for the American people” — and everything to do with a battle over whether Obama will be able to unfurl the flags and marching-band cues, the quill inkwell pen, and a beaming Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Joe Biden over his shoulder, ready to charge into the next New Frontier — or whether Glenn and Rush will have “We WON!” flashing on the chyron on their next TV show. The American people — and their wallets — are in danger of becoming merely the collateral damage.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Feb 28, 2010 at 2:03 am
JeninCT first wrote: “Actually, the CBO couldn’t score Obama’s latest proposal or even the senate bill because too many details were left out. ”
Well, as shown above, this is wrong. The CBO scored the Senate proposal and determined it would reduce the deficit by $132 billion. The CBO had received only a description of Obama’s proposal and, therefore, did not have enough info to score it. But, in light of the fact that Obama’s proposal is a merger of the Senate and House plans, it also is likely to reduce the budget since the House plan also reduced the budget.
You ignored these facts and continue with the meme that the Democratic healthcare proposals will increase the budget deficit. This is patently false.
You then wrote: “I don’t want a government that takes care of me, I want a government to protect me and my liberty and stay out of my business.”
Isn’t this really the reason for your opposition? You simply don’t want the government to play a role in helping people. You want that left up to charities and others. That’s your choice – an awfully selfish and unpopular choice, but yours to make nonetheless. Your opposition has nothing to do with fiscal accountability, otherwise it would make sense to support a healthcare plan that REDUCES the federal deficit. Instead, your opposition is ideological. You value a society where government does not help more than a society where everyone has healthcare.
balconesfault // Feb 28, 2010 at 3:15 am
BlankHead, you’re as fake as your Messiah in the White House. And your penchant for personal smears places you in contempt.
A statement that reveals far more about the speakers inability for self-criticism than about anyone he’s speaking about.
Sorry to say, I’m not and the many gay conservative men I count as friends and steadfast patriots aren’t, self-loathers in any part.
Sorry – when you use gay slang as a purported insult, it really makes one wonder. Clean up your language and you can be taken seriously.
JeninCT // Feb 28, 2010 at 10:53 am
Kanzeon wrote:
“”JeninCT: “I don’t agree that government programs attack the root of the problem.”
I wouldn’t know if we disgreed unles I was sure of what problem we were discussing. ”
Um, you were discussing poverty, “A government that seeks to avoid the social costs associated with poverty, etc has a duty to attack the root of the problem for the good of the society.”
“And why do you think that the cause of fraud or inefficiency is the fact that it’s government?”
Because government workers and programs spend tax money, and private companies rely on profit, so they are more motivated to be efficient.
JeninCT // Feb 28, 2010 at 11:09 am
SpartacusIsNotDead wrote:
“JeninCT first wrote: “Actually, the CBO couldn’t score Obama’s latest proposal or even the senate bill because too many details were left out. ”
Well, as shown above, this is wrong. The CBO scored the Senate proposal and determined it would reduce the deficit by $132 billion. The CBO had received only a description of Obama’s proposal and, therefore, did not have enough info to score it. But, in light of the fact that Obama’s proposal is a merger of the Senate and House plans, it also is likely to reduce the budget since the House plan also reduced the budget.”
The truth is that the CBO scored what it was given, which is a bill with double counting of savings, and using 10 years of taxes for 6 years of services. Their numbers aren’t right.
“You then wrote: “I don’t want a government that takes care of me, I want a government to protect me and my liberty and stay out of my business.”
Isn’t this really the reason for your opposition? You simply don’t want the government to play a role in helping people. You want that left up to charities and others. That’s your choice – an awfully selfish and unpopular choice, but yours to make nonetheless. Your opposition has nothing to do with fiscal accountability, otherwise it would make sense to support a healthcare plan that REDUCES the federal deficit. Instead, your opposition is ideological. You value a society where government does not help more than a society where everyone has healthcare.”
Look, you can call me selfish to make your point, I have no problem with that. However, the bottom line is this: I don’t trust this bill. It’s full of accounting tricks and creates ‘commissions’ that will have too much POWER. That is my real problem with it. It doesn’t reduce the deficit. That’s a lie and if you believe it you’re apparently in denial. The CBO has to score what is put in front of it, whether it’s true numbers or accounting tricks.
I don’t think everything should be left up to charities but I don’t believe the government should take over health insurance, which is all this bill is.
There are other great ideas out there that aren’t being considered because they come from Republicans. That’s a travesty. There are great ideas like giving subsidies to people with pre-existing conditions or serious illness – ideas that don’t involve creating commission and giant bureaucracies but still help those who truly need it. I would like to see them considered before Congress rams this bill through, but that won’t happen because Obama need to save face and get this passed.
balconesfault // Feb 28, 2010 at 11:24 am
Because government workers and programs spend tax money, and private companies rely on profit, so they are more motivated to be efficient.
There are places where this is correct … and places where I would argue that this statement hides the truth.
And unfortunately, healthcare is one place where I think it hides the truth.
Health insurance is a special market. First, there is an enormous barrier to entry, since it takes seriously deep pockets for anyone to be a real player. Second, the insurance industry has an anti-trust exemption at the federal level. Third, despite the growing tendency of uninsured or underinsured Americans to travel abroad for schedulable medical and dental procedures, the market is largely captive – Americans can’t import healthcare the way they can import Kias or Ikea furniture or Pakistan manufactured jackets if American businesses aren’t more competitive at providing them.
As a result, health insurance companies have minimal incentive to push our healthcare system towards greater efficiency. In fact – because profits are largely based on a percentage of revenues – health insurance companies have incentive for the system to be less efficient.
JeninCT // Feb 28, 2010 at 11:59 am
balconesfault wrote:
“Health insurance is a special market. First, there is an enormous barrier to entry, since it takes seriously deep pockets for anyone to be a real player. Second, the insurance industry has an anti-trust exemption at the federal level. Third, despite the growing tendency of uninsured or underinsured Americans to travel abroad for schedulable medical and dental procedures, the market is largely captive – Americans can’t import healthcare the way they can import Kias or Ikea furniture or Pakistan manufactured jackets if American businesses aren’t more competitive at providing them.”
This is an excellent point!
“As a result, health insurance companies have minimal incentive to push our healthcare system towards greater efficiency. In fact – because profits are largely based on a percentage of revenues – health insurance companies have incentive for the system to be less efficient.”
Another part of the equation is that since government payment for services (Medicare, Medicaid) undercut market costs, private patients are chaged more to make up the difference.
sinz54 // Feb 28, 2010 at 12:52 pm
JeninCT: The CBO scored the Senate proposal and determined it would reduce the deficit by $132 billion.
It does that by fraudulent bookkeeping.
It considers the money paid in taxes the first ten years, plus cuts to Medicare Advantage, to help balance its budget for only six years of outlays. And then what happens after that? It will run permanent deficits.
To quote Rep. Paul Ryan from the health care summit:
• “The bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending. The true 10-year cost (is) $2.3 trillion.”
• “The bill takes $52 billion in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that’s really reserved for Social Security. So either we’re double-counting them or we don’t intend on paying those Social Security benefits.”
balconesfault // Feb 28, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Another part of the equation is that since government payment for services (Medicare, Medicaid) undercut market costs, private patients are chaged more to make up the difference.
I understand this argument. But I would also contend that it has largely been made by people who have a vested interest in seeing the costs of healthcare services increase.
As far as I know, and I admit I could be wrong, but nobody is forcing any practices to accept Medicare or Medicaid patients (except in the case of not-for-profit hospitals which must provide emergency care to whoever comes through their door).
So a practice is making a decision to accept Medicare and Medicaid patients, and I would assume that they are doing this in order to make money, and not purely out of altrusim.
Yes, they may accept a lower payment from Government for those services. But they do so as part of a business model – they know that there will be less administrative overhead involved in collecting from Medicare and Medicaid, they know that accepting these patients brings in a “bulk” of business that sustains their operating expenses.
Admittedly, I’ve never been involved in the running of a medical practice. But I have been very involved in the business of managing consultancies which sell services both to the private sector and to the federal government.
For example, a large environmental firm might do an assessment and cleanup of a badly contaminated waste site owned by Texaco, or Dow Chemical … and they might do similar assessments and cleanup under an AFCEE contract for contaminated airforce base sites (amazing the stuff that was just taken out and buried 40 years ago). Trust me – the rate multiplier companies get from their government work might be 70-80% of the multiplier they get from private sector clients, and a number of overhead expenses you’d pass through to private clients will get rejected by the government.
Yet never did we talk about our private sector work “subsidizing” the public sector work, even if our profit margin was lower. Because in both cases, we made a profit. We didn’t charge our private sector clients “more to make up the difference” because some other firm that didn’t do government work would just have stolen them away … the same as I’d assume would happen in the marketplace if doctors who accepted Medicare patients started charging their non-Medicaid patients significantly more to make up the difference – their non-Medicaid patients would go elsewhere.
The key is that the amount of revenue coming into the system is what drives the amount that employees can be paid. If 2 doctors start a practice and hire 8 nurses and technicians and administrative personnel, they require a certain amount of money coming through the door to pay those people. Yes, if they had a mix of 100% private insurance clients and 0% Medicare/Medicaid patients, they might be able to pay technicians/nurses/admin an average of $70K/year each while taking home $500K/year themselves. And if they have a mix of 50% private insurance clients and 50% Medicare/Medicaid patients they might have to limit that to $55K/year for the staff and $350K/year for themselves. And at 100% Medicare/Medicaid that might be $40K/year for staff and $200K/year for themselves.
So some out there are going to look at that and make the claim that the private insurance is subsidizing the Medicare/Medicaid. The business reality is that if they’re in a practice now where they have 50% Medicare/Medicaid and 50% private insurance … choosing the option of moving to 100% private clients would probably mean losing half their staff and cutting their own hours substantially. They aren’t taking 50% of their patients as Medicare/Medicaid as a way of displacing private clients – if those private clients were available they’d likely just add a 3rd associate and more staff.
Looking at it this way, it’s very possible that Medicare/Medicaid actually enhances the availability of care for everyone, by providing a baseload of revenue that allows more medical resources to be sustainable.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Feb 28, 2010 at 2:17 pm
JeninCT wrote: “[T]he bottom line is this: I don’t trust this bill. It’s full of accounting tricks and creates ‘commissions’ that will have too much POWER. That is my real problem with it.”
This is exactly the point I made in my initial response to DavidWelker. For conservatives and GOPers the facts are irrelevant. Despite the scoring by the neutral and respected CBO, you simply don’t trust the bill because you don’t think this issue is appropriate for government intervention. Your commitment to libertarian ideology prevents you from accepting facts that conflict with that ideology. Why do you even mention CBO scoring in the first place if you will never accept anything the CBO says that doesn’t conform to your ideological beliefs?
JeninCT also wrote: “There are great ideas like giving subsidies to people with pre-existing conditions or serious illness . . . ”
I’m sorry, but giving subsidies to people with pre-existing conditions does absolutely nothing to solve their problem. Their problem is not that insurance costs too much because of their pre-existing conditions. Their problem is that, because of their pre-existing conditions, they can’t get insurance at any price in most states. New York eliminated pre-existing conditions without mandating everyone buy insurance and premiums sky-rocketed, some insurers left the state and the number of uninsured increased. It was a complete disaster. Massachusetts eliminated pre-existing conditions, mandates that everyone buy insurance and the state offers subsidies to those that need it. This has also been a complete disaster because premiums keep rising and the state can’t afford all of the subsidies that are required. California does not prohibit pre-existing conditions nor does it mandate people buy insurance. This, too, is a complete disaster because premiums keep going up and fewer and fewer people qualify for insurance because insurance companies want only the healthiest people.
I’m sorry, but there simply is no empirical evidence that there are conservative ideas (not already included in the Democratic proposals) that will have a substantial impact on the number of uninsured, the budget deficit or the cost of insurance. The facts simply do not support your view.
Lastly, your view that government-run insurance is less efficient than private sector insurance is also not supported by empirical data. Twenty-five states have either a government-run or quasi-government insurance plan for workers compensation insurance. These public options operate without taxpayer money alongside private insurance companies. They are more efficient and they have helped reduce insurance premiums while, at the same time, offering insurance to every business within those states.
If you google “California’s workers’ comp a medical system worth imitating” and if you’re able to examine facts objectively and free of ideology, you will discover information that should change your view. Here’s another interesting link as well:
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2009/10/21/104665.htm
SpartacusIsNotDead // Feb 28, 2010 at 2:19 pm
JeninCT wrote: “[T]he bottom line is this: I don’t trust this bill. It’s full of accounting tricks and creates ‘commissions’ that will have too much POWER. That is my real problem with it.”
This is exactly the point I made in my initial response to DavidWelker. For conservatives and GOPers the facts are irrelevant. Despite the scoring by the neutral and respected CBO, you simply don’t trust the bill because you don’t think this issue is appropriate for government intervention. Your commitment to libertarian ideology prevents you from accepting facts that conflict with that ideology. Why do you even mention CBO scoring in the first place if you will never accept anything the CBO says that doesn’t conform to your ideological beliefs?
JeninCT also wrote: “There are great ideas like giving subsidies to people with pre-existing conditions or serious illness . . . ”
I’m sorry, but giving subsidies to people with pre-existing conditions does absolutely nothing to solve their problem. Their problem is not that insurance costs too much because of their pre-existing conditions. Their problem is that, because of their pre-existing conditions, they can’t get insurance at any price in most states. New York eliminated pre-existing conditions without mandating everyone buy insurance and premiums sky-rocketed, some insurers left the state and the number of uninsured increased. It was a complete disaster. Massachusetts eliminated pre-existing conditions, mandates that everyone buy insurance and the state offers subsidies to those that need it. This has also been a complete disaster because premiums keep rising and the state can’t afford all of the subsidies that are required. California does not prohibit pre-existing conditions nor does it mandate people buy insurance. This, too, is a complete disaster because premiums keep going up and fewer and fewer people qualify for insurance because insurance companies want only the healthiest people.
I’m sorry, but there simply is no empirical evidence that there are conservative ideas (not already included in the Democratic proposals) that will have a substantial impact on the number of uninsured, the budget deficit or the cost of insurance. The facts simply do not support your view.
Lastly, your view that government-run insurance is less efficient than private sector insurance is also not supported by empirical data. Twenty-five states have either a government-run or quasi-government insurance plan for workers compensation insurance. These public options operate without taxpayer money alongside private insurance companies. They are more efficient and they have helped reduce insurance premiums while, at the same time, offering insurance to every business within those states.
If you google “California’s workers’ comp a medical system worth imitating” and if you’re able to examine facts objectively and free of ideology, you will discover information that should change your view. You should also google “workers compensation public option”.
JeninCT // Feb 28, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Balconesfault wrote: “So some out there are going to look at that and make the claim that the private insurance is subsidizing the Medicare/Medicaid. The business reality is that if they’re in a practice now where they have 50% Medicare/Medicaid and 50% private insurance … choosing the option of moving to 100% private clients would probably mean losing half their staff and cutting their own hours substantially. They aren’t taking 50% of their patients as Medicare/Medicaid as a way of displacing private clients – if those private clients were available they’d likely just add a 3rd associate and more staff.”
So what happens when the government is setting the prices for the entire health sector instead of just 50%? You know that’s what’s coming if we keep heading in this direction.
Haven’t some areas already started cutting medicare participation? (in Arizona, if I remember correctly, I may be wrong)
JeninCT // Feb 28, 2010 at 4:56 pm
SpartacusIsNotDead wrote: ” you simply don’t trust the bill because you don’t think this issue is appropriate for government intervention. Your commitment to libertarian ideology prevents you from accepting facts that conflict with that ideology. Why do you even mention CBO scoring in the first place if you will never accept anything the CBO says that doesn’t conform to your ideological beliefs? ”
This is true, but I mention the CBO scoring simply because the CBO scores are being used dishonestly and it frustrates me.
“If you google “California’s workers’ comp a medical system worth imitating” and if you’re able to examine facts objectively and free of ideology, you will discover information that should change your view. You should also google “workers compensation public option”.”
I did ‘bing’ the two terms you suggested. I read the articles AND the comments. I’m not convinced but I did find it interesting. Thanks.
balconesfault // Feb 28, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Jen: So what happens when the government is setting the prices for the entire health sector instead of just 50%? You know that’s what’s coming if we keep heading in this direction.
And that is an excellent question – will government essentially dictate how much can be received for providing medical services throughout society, by being if not the sole buyer of services the primary buyer? (personally, I would favor a multi-tier system where government guarantees a baseline suite of coverage, while higher end coverage would be available to anyone who wants to buy it on the private market) Remember numbers I have cited before when citing cautionary tales of Canada or Great Britain – not only do we spend as a society twice per capita what Canada does … and 2.5 x what Great Britain does … but we already spend more taxpayer dollars per capita than either country on healthcare.
It seems to me that it would be in everyone’s best interest for there to be a system where we spend the public dollars we currently spend on healthcare to provide coverage for everyone that’s equal to or better than what Canada and Great Britain provide … and that we allow a private market to facilitate spending of private dollars to provide higher quality healthcare (shorter wait times, access to practices or specialists who want to make more money, private hospital rooms instead of shared rooms) than those other systems provide.
The feature of this is that unless we’re just doing it really wrong, a huge amount of private dollars are freed up to do whatever they want to do – perhaps as suggested above to buy higher end healthcare, perhaps to invest in other things which make our economy more competitive globally. But it requires believing that America can actually get better outcomes than the Canadians and British with equivalent coverage by spending more taxpayer dollars than they do. We don’t seem to have that faith in our abilities.
anniemargret // Feb 28, 2010 at 6:53 pm
spartacus: “Their problem is that, because of their pre-existing conditions, they can’t get insurance at any price in most states.”
Bingo.
Just today in our local paper, there was a very sobering report about Chester, SC, a town most notable for Springs Industries.a behemoth at one time for home textiles. Chester which once was a thriving small city, and now is another victim in the death of manufacturing.
The unemployment rate there is now at a staggering 23%. As a direct consequence of that, another staggering number, close to 8,000 residents. no longer have health insurance. The local hospital is now turning away people because they are unable to take on the huge numbers in the ER.
The only bright spot for these beleaguered people is the “Good Samaritan (free) Medical Clinic” which is now overwhelmed to the breaking point with people begging for help. The exec of the clinic says as the recession continues, the numbers are expected to rise. Some of the folks flocking to the free clinic are long-time workers (some as far as 30-40+ years) of the local industry who now are facing serious health problems.
The clinic is run on a ’shoestring budget’ of $250,000, and uses a very small professional medical staff. For many people in that area the clinic is now their only recourse to get any healthcare attention, since many cannot afford to purchase private insurance, or are turned away because of ‘pre-existing’ conditions.
This scenario is being played out across America. It is no longer an aberration but it is becoming mainstream.
Locals say the free clinic is a Godsend, literally saving their lives at times.
I say Balconesfault and Spartacus are correct. I see nothing being offered by the Republicans that address these events like the one described above. We had better be paying more attention to these ’sob stories’… It’s real and tragic, and it’s going to get in everyone’s face, sooner or later.
JeninCT // Feb 28, 2010 at 7:25 pm
balconesfault wrote: ” The feature of this is that unless we’re just doing it really wrong, a huge amount of private dollars are freed up to do whatever they want to do – perhaps as suggested above to buy higher end healthcare, perhaps to invest in other things which make our economy more competitive globally. But it requires believing that America can actually get better outcomes than the Canadians and British with equivalent coverage by spending more taxpayer dollars than they do. We don’t seem to have that faith in our abilities.”
I have faith in our abilities, but once there is a great equalizer in place that pays one low price for health goods and services, there will be no motivation for innovation. As it stands now, Canada and other countries with single payer systems rely on innovations created here, in the US, under the free market system. If that goes away, so does the quality of care worldwide. Their systems work because of our system, not independent of it.
sinz54 // Feb 28, 2010 at 7:54 pm
SpartacusIsNotDead: Despite the scoring by the neutral and respected CBO, you simply don’t trust the bill because you don’t think this issue is appropriate for government intervention.
Not me.
I accept that there is just no way to handle the pre-existing condition problem, for example, without at least some government intervention. (Some of these pre-existing conditions are so expensive to care for that even spreading the cost among a new “mandated” bunch of young policyholders won’t be enough.)
The reasons that I don’t trust the ObamaCare bill, are as follows:
1. It’s 2,000 pages of complex cross-references to zillions of other laws, virtually incomprehensible by any of us here–and Lord only knows what “gotchas” and special handouts and hidden costs are buried in there.
2. The bill has never been able to be passed on its merits. Instead, there have been secret deals made on all sides: Obama dealing with the pharmaceutical industry, bribes to Blanche Lincoln, bribes to Ben Nelson, bribes to the labor unions, on and on and on. It’s those deals I don’t trust. (Even progressives sharply criticized Obama’s deal with Big Pharma and Reid’s deal with Nelson.) I don’t even trust those who made the deals.
3. Our Congresscritters don’t have to live with the consequences of their acts. They already get Government-paid health care at VA hospitals, so they’re all set regardless of what happens to the rest of us.
I have a simple fix:
Right now, our Congresscritters get Government-paid health care at VA hospitals. Let’s take that away from them, and force them all to purchase individual insurance in the private market. Let’s FORCE our Congresscritters to live under the same health care reform bill that they’re foisting on us voters. Then they’ll be much less likely to come up with something unworkable.
If Blue Cross is good enough for me, it’s good enough for Nancy Pelosi–and for Barack Obama’s family.
anniemargret // Feb 28, 2010 at 9:55 pm
sinz: Can we also include with those “Congressscritters” Ms. “Obama’s Death Panels” Sarah Palin ? Sounds like her grandson Trigg, and maybe even Bristol as well, is getting free health services from the Federal Health Program for Alaskan natives, if all latest reports are true. Seems like her husband Todd is 1/16th Native American. Hmmmmm….
And what? no Republicans names among those Congressscritters? Just Pelosi and Obama?
c’mon…play fair.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Feb 28, 2010 at 11:33 pm
Sinz wrote: “It’s 2,000 pages of complex cross-references to zillions of other laws, virtually incomprehensible by any of us here . . . The bill has never been able to be passed on its merits. Instead, there have been secret deals made on all sides . . . Our Congresscritters don’t have to live with the consequences of their acts.”
The length and complexity absolutely make it difficult for just about anyone to understand it. Your reluctance to trust something you do not understand makes total sense. Of course, that should prevent you from trusting just about all Congressional legislation since just about all of it is long and convoluted. However, the reaction I would expect from someone who admittedly does not know enough about the bill to understand it would be to neither support nor oppose it. This is not the path you’ve chosen.
What I’m sure you do know, however, is that practically all legislation is the product of backdoor and often unsavory deals. For the life of me, I don’t understand why a bill that could extend coverage to 30 million people and reduce the deficit by $132 billion is the one to hold the line on with this practice. This seems like nothing more than a pretext for ideological opposition.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Feb 28, 2010 at 11:38 pm
anniemargret, these stories of people who have lost their coverage are unbelievably sad. I don’t understand how we can continue to call ourselves the greatest country on earth when so many of our people are suffering in this way or face the potential of going through that. At some point, we should be humiliated that people who have played by the rules all their lives are put in this position.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Feb 28, 2010 at 11:55 pm
JeninCT wrote: “I mention the CBO scoring simply because the CBO scores are being used dishonestly and it frustrates me.”
You’re right, the CBO scores are being used by different people in different ways – some honest and some dishonest. But I’m not talking about the ways that “others” are using the CBO scores; I’m talking about the scores themselves as they were issued by the non-partisan, highly respected and reliable CBO. On that point, there is no confusion or misrepresentation. The CBO itself said that the Senate plan would reduce the deficit by $132 billion.
JeninCT also wrote: “I did ‘bing’ the two terms you suggested. I read the articles AND the comments. I’m not convinced but I did find it interesting.”
I wouldn’t expect those articles by themselves to convince you that a robust public option is necessary or that healthcare reform will be a huge improvement. I would, however, expect the articles to undermine your opinion that a public option and the Democratic healthcare reform proposals will ruin the country or our healthcare system. The articles should cause you to rethink your convictions, provided you are not an ideologue who is impervious to facts.
JeninCT // Mar 1, 2010 at 7:03 am
SpartacusIsNotDead wrote:
“You’re right, the CBO scores are being used by different people in different ways – some honest and some dishonest. But I’m not talking about the ways that “others” are using the CBO scores; I’m talking about the scores themselves as they were issued by the non-partisan, highly respected and reliable CBO. On that point, there is no confusion or misrepresentation. The CBO itself said that the Senate plan would reduce the deficit by $132 billion”
That is not what I meant. The CBO scores are dishonest NOT because of the office of the CBO, but becuase they bill they scored used double counting tricks to supposedly bring down the deficit. That’s what’s dishonest about the practice. How can you cut from Medicare to pay for healthcare and then say the cuts also bring down the deficit? You can’t! These are the kinds of tricks used in the bill that frustrate me.
“I would, however, expect the articles to undermine your opinion that a public option and the Democratic healthcare reform proposals will ruin the country or our healthcare system.”
I also read the comments of the articles, and I’m still a skeptic. Comparing workman’s comp to regular health insurance is comparing apples to oranges. I am not an ideologue who is impervious to the facts, I just haven’t seen any facts that have convinced me to change my mind. I appreciate your efforts, though.
sinz54 // Mar 1, 2010 at 8:59 am
anniemargaret: And what? no Republicans names among those Congressscritters? Just Pelosi and Obama?
You’re absolutely right. I apologize.
Let’s see how easy it will be for Senator McCain to obtain private individual health insurance, given his health history of pre-existing conditions. (I can assure you that insurers will even consider his stay at the Hanoi Hilton to be a “pre-existing condition.”)
sinz54 // Mar 1, 2010 at 9:37 am
SpartacusIsNotDead: I would, however, expect the articles to undermine your opinion that a public option and the Democratic healthcare reform proposals will ruin the country or our healthcare system.
I live in MA, where Mitt Romney had created a health care reform system you might think is actually better than ObamaCare. RomneyCare is cleaner and easier to understand. There’s even a public option for the truly needy. And it did not require major tax increases.
And yet, here we go again: In MA, the total cost of health care is rising sharply; insurers are actually paying out more in claims than they’re getting in premiums; and so they have raised their insurance premiums. I just got socked with a 44% increase in my Blue Cross premium. MA now has the highest insurance premiums in the nation–AFTER four years of RomneyCare.
Why? Because the Grand Bargain that mandating universal coverage will enable young healthy policyholders to pay premiums for those with pre-existing conditions has proved FALSE.
One reason, I believe, is demographics. The baby-boom cohort of soon to be retirees is bigger than the cohort of young healthy people. For example, as I pointed out several times, my health care bill for my condition cost about $90,000 last year. That’s equal to the premiums of about 15 healthy policyholders.
The problem facing ALL entitlement programs–SS, Medicare, Medicaid, RomneyCare, ObamaCare–is demographics. The birth rate in America has slowed dramatically since the 1950s, and so there are now more aging baby-boomers than young people to pay for the needs of those retired baby-boomers. That’s going to either bankrupt those young people or force significant cuts on retirees. There ain’t no easy way out of that, brother–unless we can convince people to put away their birth control devices and get busy making more babies.
The lesson from MA is clear: Mandating everyone to have insurance will produce near-universal coverage. But it will lead to much higher costs, not lower costs.
The other reason is that studies have shown that the adoption of increasingly expensive state-of-the-art technology, especially to try to extend the lives of terminally ill patients, is a major cost driver. And here in MA, the alliance of world-class MA hospitals with the biotech companies in Cambridge and the Route 128 beltway has produced some of the most advanced–and the most expensive–medicine anywhere. Major research centers and teaching hospitals, like Massachusetts General Hospital, are going to try out the most advanced state-of-the-art treatments. And that’s expensive.
So what to do? Governor Deval Patrick has announced a plan that not only socks the insurers (nobody likes them anyway), but imposes a kind of capitation on the providers.
Capitation of providers is going to end up producing the same end result as Sarah Palin’s “death panels.” Less medical innovation, less advanced care.
The Left has this idea that if everyone can’t get a particular treatment due to its high cost, then nobody should get it. Unfortunately, if that principle had been adopted a century ago, our rate of medical progress would have been far slower.
I would also point out that when HMO’s experimented with capitation in the 1990s, there was such an outcry from doctors AND patients, all of whom hated it, that it was soon dropped. Governor Patrick’s attempts at providing government capitation on providers may end up electing a Republican governor to succeed him who will repeal it.
balconesfault // Mar 1, 2010 at 9:45 am
The lesson from MA is clear: Mandating everyone to have insurance will produce near-universal coverage. But it will lead to much higher costs, not lower costs.
Could the lesson be that mandating coverage without having competition from a public option simply gives the insurance companies a guaranteed pool that they don’t even have to work to compete for? If someone is mandated by law to purchase my services … I certainly don’t have incentive to control costs.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Mar 1, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Sinz,
Either we keep talking past one another or you have an extemely bad memory and, possibly, a reading problem.
I am not in favor of the MA plan nor have I ever been. In the post of mine that you quoted I called the MA plan a disaster. It does nothing to control costs, although that never seemed to bother you because, for some inexplicable reason, you believed costs containment would come in the future. If it couldn’t be done when everyone had the greatest incentives to do it, it surely won’t be done after that.
I’m also not a big fan of the mandate, although as you’ve pointed out repeatedly, it’s necessary in order to get rid of denials for pre-existing conditions. As much of a disaster as the MA plan has been, it looks like a dream compared to NY’s system, which does not have a mandate. However, you should be aware that capitation works very well in many other states and it has not caused the problems you’re predicting for MA. Also, from the very start of this blog, I have said that end-of-life care and medical advances are the biggest drivers of costs. Unfortunately, that never stopped the GOP from screaming “death panels,” thereby proving their still not fit to govern.
The Democratic/Obama plans are clearly better than the MA plan or any other plan out there because they do contain some real cost containment measures, while expanding coverage. These plans don’t go far enough on cost containment, which is why I, like most other people on the Left, am not a big fan of them. These plans lack a robust PO, which is the only way you can achieve the three major goals of reform: (1) universal coverage, (2) major cost containment, and (3) better outcomes for the money we do spend. The PO is necessary because no other entity is large enough to put downward pressure on medical costs.
Of course, conservatives and GOPers are ideologically opposed to the PO despite all the empirical data that completely undermine their arguments. This is why I’ve also said that conservatives and GOPers have become flat earthers. The facts simply do not matter to them. They treat economics and public policy like religion. They accept their ideology on faith and no amount of empirical data will alter their conviction in ideas that have been proved clearly erroneous. As a believer myself, I’m not condemning faith, but I don’t think there’s a place for it outside of religion.