The Real “Lies” About Health Care Reform

Knowledge is power. Until the American people take the time to educate themselves on the issues and then vote with their brain, the power brokers in Washington will be able to manipulate them with fear mongering and disinformation.

It is true there are going to be some people who will believe what they want even when facts are slapping them in the face. No one is going to change those people's minds, but they are not a majority. The disservice is letting these people carry on with their misinformation and using it to scare other people who for whatever reason do not research the topic or issue. Knowledge is power and we have to educate the public on this health care reform. We have to tell these people at the town hall meetings to practice democracy by acting with civil conversation and debating.

Oh, so NOW the Left is concerned about the difference between 'misinformation' or 'inaccuracy' and 'lies'.

Funny how that wasn't an allowed topic of discussion around all issues Bush.

Instead of merely acting as stenographers who print what anyone says, the media could do some actual reporting on actual facts.

Like "many people are unhappy with Obamacare"? Is that not an actual fact?

I think there are some people pretending to be unhappy with "Obamacare." I say "pretending" because when they call this health care reform bill as "socialism" when it is not or "euthanasia" when it is not, they are not expressing legitimate concerns about the issue. Now if they really want to debate the issue, then know the facts of the bill.

GS comment made me think about this- while there's nothing wrong with doing an occasional segment interviewing the guy from Politifact, why aren't the media ashamed to have to turn to outside investigators to do their job? Why doesn't CNN and every other network have it's own factchecking staff to report these things?

It would be nice, too, to see other distortions by Obama being corrected- one thing he's been frequently doing is misstating who supports his reform plans. The latest examples of that were in his townhall yesterday when he claimed that AARP supports them (they have specifically refrained from endorsing and say they won't endorse anything that cuts Medicare benefits, which is certainly going to be a tough bar to clear when the plan relies on cost savings from Medicare.) He also distorted Sen. Johnny Isakson's involvement with amendments to the provision about end of life consultations- saying that Isakson sponsored the House legislation's provision on this, when actually Isakson specifically put forward an amendment in the Senate version to counter what the House was doing with that (because he felt that their plan would create coercion, not purely voluntary counseling sessions.)

smithmj- while some people certainly distort things deliberately, much of what you are referring to falls under the category of hyperbole or pointing out potential unintended (and undesirable) consequences of legislation. Those types of debate tactics are par for the course in any political discussion, and it's up to the people who support the legislation to counter them.

Smithmj, I agree with you about euthanasia, but the socialism charge has more substance.

More grassroots support for ObamaCare.

CStanley--

Links to anything at all?

Someone might like to check your facts. ; )

OK, to the "half truth" that Obama brought up about people [not] being able to keep their same care...lol..

And how it's going to put "pressure" on small businesses and large ones too. Yeah, I can see myself running a small business and ripping my hair out trying to figure out how to keep precious people on staff and pay the shark-fee premiums I'm currently charged by private insurance corps. Oh, the agony of when the burden of paying any premium at all is lifted from my back! I'll be able to sleep at night knowing if someone gets sick they'll get care and my premiums won't get jacked up. More of that money no longer spent on premiums...why...I could hire more people. Who knows? Maybe that golden gal or guy with the amazing resume' I had to turn away for hire last week, because I couldn't afford covering him, the others and one more employee, might have been "the one" team member that would've made my company take off?

Oh the shock, the humanity! America might even see a new upsurge in small-business entreprenuers who [like I actually have for many years] held back their excellence, their talents and visions for new and better products all from the nightmares we've heard from our small-business-owning friends about providing health coverage for their employees. I've had people tell me "don't even bother getting into business. One person gets sick or injured and your rates outweigh your profits. Quit while you're ahead."

And we wonder why our nation's GNP is in the toilet...Aren't we geniuses..

And as for the "half-truth" that big business will suffer? Yeah, MedMob businesses specifically. Now CNN has made one of their own half-truths. Why didn't they go deeper to describe which businesses would actually be hurt. Saying small businesses would get hurt is an outright lie. "Pants on fire".

You fail CNN. Did PSYOPS write that bit?

Although from a purely manipulative and strategical standpoint I have to give credit where credit is due. CNN at once took no risks in saying the absurd on behalf of the right is absurd. And they ever so smoothly, while looking impartial [which they are not] injected the worst damage in the innocent-seeming "half-truth" part of their bit. In that segment, they aroused the fears of business owners..some of the most powerful people in the grassroots area. More fear-mongering...more Foxesque techniques...to secure a defeat for public care and a win for MedMob..

And BTW, anyone reading this who wants to use the term "MedMob", go ahead. Consider this my permission.

The socialism charge has more substance in what way? There is no single payer option in this bill. The government is not dictating to anyone to have private or public health care. Personally, I think the private insurance companies are way out of hand. Most have gotten out of hand since the mid 90s when they went from nonprofit to profit status. Case in point is Wellpoint aka BCBS of CA. BCBS of CA changed to profit status in the mid 90s, since then they have bought all the BCBS companies in the USA except for the northeastern states. Most likely they will go to Wellpoint very soon. Anyone who has had insurance under Wellpoint knows they do all they can not to pay on their claims, they find reasons to deny claims, and use pre-existing conditions to not pay. Do I think a public option would provide Wellpoint competition like Obama says? As Sarah Palin would say...YOU BETCHA!

...Threats against congressmen have sky-rocketed trough the roof! This is absolutely crazy. These nitwits think they are really cute with this bunk but I can tell you this....

They will most assuredly regret supporting the Patriot Act before its all over.

The gist of the socialism charge is that a public insurer will poison the market, driving out any company that doesn't have the government's competitive advantage of taxation. Which is, um, all of them. It's not socializing the industry in a stroke, but it's hard to see how it could play out any other way.

I quite agree the private insurance companies have way too much power in the current system and should be dethroned. It's merely a question of how to do it. IMHO we are much better off to shift that power toward consumers, not toward the government.

Michael Moore, as wild as he is, actually nailed the entire healthcare scam on the head with "Sicko". If you watch it you will instantly know who is behind defeating public care options and why..

They had interviews with ex-insurance "claims adjusters" who found a conscience and told their stories, shame-faced and hanging their heads...clearly troubled about the future of their souls.... The lengths they had to go to [orders from "above" dontcha know..] to deny sick and dying or injured who otherwise could've been helped. The outright ruthlessness of their employers where everything is given a money value. The most enormous steaming pile of horseshit I've heard to date is how MedMob is whipping up people's concerns about how Uncle Sam will mete out their care. After seeing Sicko and talking to personal friends I know who have undergone the same treatment or worse at the hands of private insurance companies, I guarantee the government would have to try very very hard and escape dozens of oversight committees to come within a fraction of the evil that private insurance practices every single day in the area of meting out care.

There are few things that really make me physically ill to hear. When I hear about private insurance whipping the astroturfers into this "meting-care" BS I feel like puking. The utter A-U-D-A-C-I-T-Y.

And if pro-public strategists had a clue, they'd take notice of the fact that in the general population you can't throw a stone without hitting someone who either has themselves or had a dear family member receive this golden shaft from private insurance mobsters. Talk about meted care eh? Yes, let's DO talk about meted care oh astroturf dupees...lol...

GS:
About the AARP nonendorsement

Obama said: “We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors,”

About Isakson:
Obama said that Senator Isakson sponsored the HOUSE bill's provision on end-of-life counselling. He seemd to either realize his mistake or try to cover up a distortion by mentioning that Isakson was once in the House before he became a senator, but the fact is that Isakson has been in the Senate since 2005 so he couldn't possibly have taken part in writing current House legislation.

The reason this is important is because (as Obama seemed aware, since he phrased his comment about the House bill), the point of contention is the way this has been structured in the House bill. Isakson opposes the way they wrote it in, and he specifically wrote an amendment to the Senate version to change that because he felt they were doing it in a way that could end up being coercive instead of voluntary. Here's his statement in reaction to what the president said:

http://isakson.senate.gov/press/2009/081109heal...

I agree with you that the power should be shifted to the consumer, but realistically in a country where a majority of the people are caught up in mindless events like a runaway bride or Jon and Kate, do we really think that will happen? I don't have much faith in that. As for the public option poisoning the market...that is a lot of "could" happen scenario that has no business facts to support it. In fact, the business facts support just the opposite. Many private companies compete with the federal programs every day and have sustained themselves for many many years competing with the government programs. So I don't buy that talking point. I am not for a single payer system, but I am for a system that is affordable and works to pretty much cover everyone. I think that is what Obama is trying to do. Now you may disagree with me on that, but I see nothing that supports this is leading to a socialized program.

GS (on CS's behalf) -

Obama's claim of AARP endorsement inaccurate/

President Obama's "senior moment?

Isakson pushes back

Isakson bristles at Obama mention

"I quite agree the private insurance companies have way too much power in the current system and should be dethroned. It's merely a question of how to do it. IMHO we are much better off to shift that power toward consumers, not toward the government"~ Dr. J
*********

Uh...un problemo pequeno... Private industry is in the business of making profits. With me so far? Corporations, unlike people, have no souls. Their honesty, compassion and such come from their CEOs..and CEOs almost never get that way by putting people before money. So the system is programmed to fail before it starts.

Which is what it has done and the whole reason why the public-option is on the table. We aren't screaming socialists by nature here, we are reactionists to a malignant situation that is killing us financially and literally. If our solution seems socialist it is only by coincidence. Our solution is a remedy for a systemic cancer: greed.

If someone is going to take power away from the insurance companies, the only someone big enough to do that is Uncle Sam. So what you've said is [cleverly] "I'm saying I support reducing the power to insurance companies but I'm really not."

Conservative insurance enablers SHOULD find it reassuring that in the rest of the world, were Socialized Medicine is the NORM, that private health insurance still exists. They are pinned to the accountable whipping post by moral and just Law, but they still exist.

So where’s the beef there...Dr J? Got some Insurance stock do ya?…..hmmm?

"The gist of the socialism charge is that a public insurer will poison the market, driving out any company that doesn't have the government's competitive advantage of taxation. Which is, um, all of them. It's not socializing the industry in a stroke, but it's hard to see how it could play out any other way."

Um, how is this a response to this:
"There is no single payer option in this bill. The government is not dictating to anyone to have private or public health care"

You define how a government plan in socialism when it was stated that there is no government single payer option in this bill.

Again, another example of what the WH is fighting against.

You know what I'd like to see...and would defeat the astroturf momentum in its tracks would be another venue starring Mr. Obama in a public hall, only this one where real down-to-earth looking folks came forward one by one to tell of absolute horror stories they experience at the hands of denying claims adjusters for private insurance. One by one. And even name the insurance companies who did this to them or their deceased family members..

Yes, that would just about do it. Aire it primetime. We'll see if CNN covers it...lol..

It would take the pressure off Obama and let the people speak for The People's movement. After all we elected this bloke in large percentage by this issue of needing public-option for healthcare. Let us take over and speak for ourselves. Obama is just our tool to get this done. Don't blame him, blame the overwhelming majority of people who voted him into office to ensure that we'd get our public option.

Yes, every other market-centric entrusts consumers with the power to make decisions, and it works well. Not perfectly, but dramatically better than when government tries to make them on everyone's behalf.

"Many private companies compete with the federal programs every day"

Like what?

The key question is whether there will be a level playing field, where the government must play by the same rules as private organizations and cannot make losses forever but must eventually make the books balance. The precedents all say no, a government insurer would operate just like medicare and quietly pass losses on to tax payers. Give private companies the power to do that, and then we can talk about competition.

“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out — of other people's money." —Margaret Thatcher

No there wont' be a level field, not how private "in$urerer$" want it, because human health and wellbeing isnt' a money game. It should be an Amendment to the Constitution, a guaranteed right and frigging profiteers should take their insane money they've made off of death and suffering and denying those in need who faithfully paid stupid premiums for years and invest it in another line of business.

Those companies with a heart won't mind making just a basic living off the business. So they won't voice opposition. The only ones voicing opposition believe that you should be able to enter human wellbeing into an arena where competition for making insane [literally] money exists. And that is evil. So boo hoo for evil. Waa Waa Waaaaaa...

And as for running out of money, no need. The increase in our GNP from millions of people currently reluctant to enter the small business arena will be guaranteed with the new level playing field [speaking of which] where shocking worries of providing health premiums for employees won't exist..and energie$ can be channeled towards R&D and hiring more people.

This public-option is a guaranteed win.

For that matter, new revamp [thanks for the ideas guys]. In that town hall, follow up the claims-adjuster horror stories with small-business owner horror stories and the premiums private insurance has been shafting them for...and name the names of those companies..

Good ideas guys. Keep them coming.

Dr J--

I really don't think anybody cares about- "Insurance Companies ability to compete". They are pretty well hated all around.

casualobserver--"Margaret Thatcher"

Election Rhetoric, not fact. Every country is more "Socialist" than the U.S., but our standard of living is only sixth....and falling.

Why not copy the Finns? They are Number One!

The real issue continues to be, what about the _real_ lies and other deceptions by Obama and the other Dems, and their auxiliaries in the media?

CNN -- I've gotten a chance to watch it for a while (including the segment that's the subject of the blatantly political and one-sided neurosis to start this thread), and it's just liberal play-pen info-tainment (not only childish, silly behavior on camera, but filled with graphical and sound-effect and techno-toy gimmickry; "BREAKING NEWS" announced continuously for six to eight hours or more afterward, etc.) as well as classic liberal media crusader journalism ("MAKE OR BREAK MONTH -- Health Care in America") with its constant real-time interruptions to show Obama and others while working overtime to distort the impression of the growing opposition to the developing health care fiasco by the Democrats.

It's pretty bad when people from Huffington Post say that they and their families voted for Obama but have been made nervous with the Dems' rushed missteps to date, and that they particularly are concerned about health care. (It was neither surprising that this person was constantly interrupted by others who were in lock-step mindless approval of the stupid Dem effort, or that a loud-mouthed host would interrupt repeatedly and scoff loudly and slimily at the rare far-left guest such as Steffi Woolhandler -- look up the name yourselves if it's unfamiliar to you -- who began picking apart the Dem initiative from the extreme left.)

* * *

"The gist of the socialism charge is that a public insurer will poison the market, driving out any company that doesn't have the government's competitive advantage of taxation. Which is, um, all of them. It's not socializing the industry in a stroke, but it's hard to see how it could play out any other way."

As I've correctly written before, this is a Trojan horse with flashing neon signs and loud warning sounds. This is the one of several _incrementalist_ measures (toward 100% federal health care) that was chosen by the Dems, no doubt influenced by recent similar incrementalist efforts involving growth of the S-CHIP program by greatly jacking upward the income threshold (as well as by the takover of General Motors and Chrysler with the rigged "competition" that achievement offers). It gets _so_ tiresome to explain the obvious!

* * *

"I quite agree the private insurance companies have way too much power in the current system and should be dethroned. It's merely a question of how to do it."

Even if the public preferred federal interventionism here (even if hopefully limited to a _trustworthy_ form of consumer protectionism and other obvious corrections and improvements at hand), it's beyond the Dems currently, most likely because it's not ambitious or complicated enough to satisfy many of those Dems.

The reforms that are obviously evident and logical are right there before everyone and they forego these (state-wide, region-wide, nation-wide "community rating"; interstate and multi-state insurance; uniform paperwork standards as well as benefit packages -- kept sparse rather than fancy to keep costs down; subsidies to low-income earners; tax credits for health insurance, deductions in full for health expenses; vouchers [which Dems would love more than the GOP as an incentive and social-engineering measure]; consumer protection laws and an agency; tort reform coupled with medical disciplinary measures, etc.) as well as the decision to reform and repair Medicare and Medicaid, etc., first before extending it in one way or another to more people), or to choose more open and honest incrementalist measures (extending Medicare to children; absorbing Medicaid into Medicare, relieving the states of this and perhaps even with a claim of this being a "stimulus" rescue measure and quickly misspending stimulus funds for this), but the Dems wish to be evasive and at times dishonest instead.

Note (and this is also beyond many's _leaping_ and grasping ability, intellectually, it sadly is the case) that this health care effort and Obama's weird nearly-quixotic insistence on getting something (mainly what's in the House bill) passed too soon, to satisfy a silly minority, continues to be the latest of a series f increasingly disturbing actions by the Dems since they've assumed power.

It's no surprise that they'll take pains to mischaracterize the opposition and behave in other poor ways.

"Yes, every other market-centric entrusts consumers with the power to make decisions, and it works well. Not perfectly, but dramatically better than when government tries to make them on everyone's behalf."

Then why have the FDA? Why not just let the consumers figure out which drugs and foods are killing them. Once they know, the market will correct the problem.

"Many private companies compete with the federal programs every day"

Freddie and Fannie? Private school systems compete against state and local government programs...Prison systems too. The list goes on and on. Lots of companies complete against government programs.

But since there is no government health plan on the table...this whole debate is pointless.

Providing a public-option will curb insane profiteering while still maintaining decent private insurers. It will free the burden from small-business owners and create new opportunities to increase GNP by taking the main worry out of small-business ownership- private healthcare premiums. Overall financial prospects for our country will improve and as Father Time says, we may once again gain rank as a productive nation instead of slipping into a 2nd-world status.

If you think our government is teetering away from capitalism now, just wait until its infrastructure crumbles enough from private-profiteers gutting it like MedMob has for decades. Last time I checked, weak countries get taken over...and not always by capitalist-sympathizers. Quit cutting your own throats and see that you need to take care of the ponies that pull your carts. Running them sick and emaciated in a race is a good way to lose.

"Note (and this is also beyond many's _leaping_ and grasping ability, intellectually, it sadly is the case) that this health care effort and Obama's weird nearly-quixotic insistence on getting something (mainly what's in the House bill) passed too soon, to satisfy a silly minority, continues to be the latest of a series f increasingly disturbing actions by the Dems since they've assumed power."

This is such a bizarre sentence. So it's beyond many's intellect to understand that you think the Dems suck. Mmmhmmm.

"The key question is whether there will be a level playing field, where the government must play by the same rules as private organizations and cannot make losses forever but must eventually make the books balance. "

You mean like GM? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

We knew all along that there wouldn't be "fair" competition [snicker], while the chumps said there would be. (Just as the chumps believe that a "public option" will be "fair" and "keep the private sector honest.")

GM, the company that is largely taken over by the federal government (including the UAW portion, which amounts to additional Dem federal control), at the expense of cheated creditors?

GM, the company that got a special tax break already?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702...

GM, the company (taken over by the wacky enviro-Dems) who has dumped its toxic sites?

(This hypocrisy is not in the least surprising to all but the truly gullible, like supporters of the current health care initiative, and especially the House effort.)

http://www.freep.com/article/20090807/BUSINESS0...

http://www.examiner.com/x-16307-Midland-County-...

Ha, ha, ha.

Yes how terrible it will be when people aren't afraid to start small-businesses because they cannot afford private health premiums. Just horrible for everyone, everywhere..lol...

More jobs, more GNP, more prosperity and health for all? Oh, the horror!

"This is such a bizarre sentence."

Crawling and writhing on the ground is no substitute for being vertically challenged.

"As I've correctly written before, this is a Trojan horse with flashing neon signs and loud warning sounds. This is the one of several _incrementalist_ measures (toward 100% federal health care) that was chosen by the Dems, no doubt influenced by recent similar incrementalist efforts involving growth of the S-CHIP program by greatly jacking upward the income threshold (as well as by the takover of General Motors and Chrysler with the rigged "competition" that achievement offers). It gets _so_ tiresome to explain the obvious!"

This is a tactic that I am really not found of..."don't give an inch because the boggie man wants to take a mile". Both sides play this game to the detriment of our country. Sometimes...just maybe sometimes, the extra couple of inches in the opposite direction is what this country needs.

If only the current administration would figure out a way to get it out to the public that public-options would create more jobs. All those folks lingering on their dwindling unemployment benefits with no insurance. Can hardly find someone who doesn't know someone personally who is suffering like this. Nothing like resonating truth that people have seen with their own eyes and stand up to tell the world about...nope...nothing like it.

Sure would be an eye-opener to see that displayed for all to see. Imagine if the idea that public-health meant public-profit caught on?

"eventually you run out — of other people's money"

1. Once more, the gullible will be surprised when the definition of "rich" gets re-defined downward to broaden the tax base (which the rest of us have already predicted, as wel successfully have before).

2. You know one "solution" to that problem (a serious concern in future years) -- deliberate inflation.

DLS- "Yes, every other market-centric entrusts consumers with the power to make decisions, and it works well."

Oh Lord save us....Then WHY prey-tell, is the world not rushing to copy our so-called healthcare system? Rather they scorn and laugh at our system! Their populations could easily propose and support and reverse socialized medicine in their own countries, but they do not! Nope...not even a hint.

You just cannot argue with hard living fact can you? Socialized Medicine is BETTER. Popularity proves it!

"public-options would create more jobs"

We know where, too. Hint: Who hired thousands of new people in California while currently going broke?

And just for a mile-marker consider this...

At first the MedMob was taking the propaganda-slant that a public-option would be too expensive and unwieldy...

Now they're crying that a public-option would [obviously] be cheap and quite wieldy..lol...and now puts them at "an unfair advantage to compete".

Which is it MedMob, unwieldy or cheap? Make up your minds now...lol...LOL...

"You just cannot argue with hard living fact can you? Socialized Medicine is BETTER. Popularity proves it!"

I preoccupy myself with facts, unlike my critics.

I'll address what you wrote even though you mistakenly directed it to me rather than the person who wrote it (what was that about "facts"?). Socialized medicine is not superior and if (when) we go to it (as we are being led now, incrementally) we will be exchanging current problems for other problems, for socialized medicine obviously has problems of its own, which will be made worse as our population ages, and as the practice of medicine thereby becomes more and more politicized in addition to the financial problems. (The socialized medicine programs in Europe and elsewhere are far from universally popular, and in Europe in particular, the programs there will be in even more dire shape than our current Medicare program given Europe's demographic future, something the low-IQ robotic worshippers fail to grasp.)

There are now facts for you to try to read and understand, if you can and it's your choice.

DLS---"public-options would create more jobs"

Well the Federal government is hiring. I see them as doing their part. So..when the hell are the corporate ... going to step up?

"At first the MedMob was taking the propaganda-slant that a public-option would be too expensive and unwieldy...

Now they're crying that a public-option would [obviously] be cheap and quite wieldy..lol...and now puts them at "an unfair advantage to compete".

Which is it MedMob, unwieldy or cheap? Make up your minds now...lol...LOL..."

******

Well? How will you spin this spin? C'mon, you got probably hundreds or thousands of staff-spinners scouring these sites and spamming your agenda. How will you spin this? The winner gets an all-expense trip paid to Fantasy Island..lol..

This is the one of several _incrementalist_ measures (toward 100% federal health care) that was chosen by the Dems, no doubt influenced by recent similar incrementalist efforts involving growth of the S-CHIP program by greatly jacking upward the income threshold

If you don't want incrementalist reform and you don't want radical reform, what's left? Leaving things the way they are?

The expansion of the S-CHIP program is not an example of incrementalism at all. It's an example of what happens when there is no meaningful health care reform -- insurance policy premiums and deductibles continue to go up, and more and more Americans, in higher income brackets, lose their insurance because they can't pay for it and/or cannot purchase insurance because it is unaffordable. The increase in the number of American children who come from families that cannot afford health insurance is a direct function of the stratospherically high, and escalating upward, cost of health care.

First, health insurance companies compete with medicare and medicaid now. Second, Fed Ex, UPS, DHL all compete with the Postal Service. Also the Bush administration made leaps and bounds into privatizing. Let's not forget the private prison companies competing with our prison systems. The private armies like Blackwater competing with our military. The faith based initiative competing with federal programs to provide social services. All do extremely well in competition with the federal government.

In terms of the level playing field, Obama has been very clear the public option would have to sustain itself. It is something to watch in the bill, of course, this is up to congress and how they write the bill. I see no precedent saying it would turn into a medicare. Show us your precedents.

DLS--"Socialized medicine is not superior"

Well 750 Million Europeans think so. There are no... revolts over there. By what standard do you judge? I think not losing your home to pay your local hospital it's unreasonable overcharges would be a good exchange for what? Maybe...happiness?

And I do appologize for the previous miss post.

If conservatives are so concerned about the truth of things why do they insist on claiming that any public option spells the doom of all private businesses when throughout Europe they co-exist? Since this has not been the case in the overwhelming majority of the industrialized world, what purpose do they have in claiming that it will be the case in the United States? FUD, of course. Just FUD. If this is not the case, show some proof that this in fact is the inevitable result of offering a public option.

Yes how terrible it will be when people aren't afraid to start small-businesses because they cannot afford private health premiums. Just horrible for everyone, everywhere..lol...

Sil I have a small business with 8 employees and I have no idea what you are so afraid of in the current system. If you want to start a small business just do it. Frankly I think the provisions for employer coverage in the House bill are much more likely to stifle small businesses than help them.

Your argument is reasonable. However, could you point to one Government Program that sustains itself as you say Mr. Obama asserts? My opinion is that it is unlikely that you could find such a program.

Jim--"when throughout Europe they co-exist"

Thank You.

PWT--

Corporations don't, "Sustain themselves". We the People, sustain THEM.

What is your definition of sustaining itself? Obama's definition is the public option would get start up monies and then have to compete with the private insurance companies on its own. It cannot come back to the government asking for more money. Now, tell me what private business of late has sustained itself in that manner. The banking industry, insurance industry, car manufacturers, airlines, etc have all asked the government for bail out monies. It seems to me the problem is NOT with the government.

DaGoat--"the provisions for employer coverage in the House bill are much more likely to stifle small businesses than help them"

How? Business just passes off the cost onto the customer anyway. If every business must comply with the same law, how does one business gain an advantage over another to "stifle" it out? Even so if it does...how does that “stifling" differ from the natural business cycle that stifles out weak and inefficient businesses during “economic down turns” under the pure Capitalist description of, “tough ...”.

Jim, I believe that you are confusing the death of the private INSURANCE business with the death of private business. Public and Private Health Insurance do not coexist in Europe.

smithmj---It seems to me the problem is NOT with the government.

Show yu right brotha!

What a shock. CS swallows the "They're gonna kill your Granny." crap. Before you bother denying it, CS, look at your own echoing of Isakson's statement about the House bill being coercive. It isn't. Claiming that it is does support the lie about the "death panels". And of course the whole <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/heres-johnny-isakson-pushes-back-on-death-panels-but-also-on-house-democrats-bill.html"Isakson kerfuffle is more nuanced than conservatives want to admit.

Yes, we sustain corporations but; we do it by choice. McDonald's continues as a going concern because people continue to purchase the goods that they offer. Sustaining a government enterprise is not done by choice.

Perhaps you could at least dig up a government program that does not operate at a deficit like Amtrak or the Post Office. A private corporation can only operate at a deficit for a finite amount of time, no such restrictions apply to government run enterprises. Perhaps you see my point?

Back to the original intent of this post; I believe that part of the problem is that there is nothing concrete to debate right now. Democrats are out in Town Halls supporting a bill that does not exist, yet. That they have no concrete language to defend, (i.e., the bill explicitly states that, ....) they are forced to rebut all arguments even though many will not apply when the final bill is produced. Republicans, taking advantage of this lack of a bill, fire at the democrats from all sides in an attempt to gain political advantage.

Both sides should put Healthcare (Insurance) reform on the back burner and concentrate on the Economy and Entitlement spending.

It's futile I know, but I'm going to remind those on the right about the exponential function. Insurance premiums double every 10 years (the equation is rate of increase divided into 70). Income does not. In fact, it's been flat for the middle class for many years now. Insurance premiums will be half the median income before Obama leaves the WH. HALF! (Mortgage payments will consume the other half. So sorry about the food and electricity and stuff you once enjoyed).

Companies will be paying as much for insurance as salary. They will be forced to drop it, as so many have already. Conservatives can continue to block progress in servitude to the insurance industry, but it will only get worse. 14,000 Americans lose their health insurance every DAY. If you don't think that's a train wreck, perhaps you can stretch your minds just enough to see that it will certainly be one soon.

"Sustaining a government enterprise is not done by choice. "

See? Conservatives can't even remember that we have elections.

"Public and Private Health Insurance do not coexist in Europe."

So, is this a lie or are conservatives just that willfully ignorant?

Businessweek in 2007

Facts are such messy things. Most European countries have both private and public insurance.

AR: Oh, so NOW the Left is concerned about the difference between 'misinformation' or 'inaccuracy' and 'lies'.

As opposed to "the Right" who've been spreading 'misinformation' or 'inaccuracy' 1993? See how easy it is to point fingers and use the few examples to broadly paint the majority?

I don't know about "The Left", but I myself as well as Joe and other contributes here at TMV have voice many times whenever either side has tried misdirection as a tactic.

Did you read the article? It talks about the universal coverage available in France and the UK. It goes on to talk about universal coverage but:

A further downside for residents of Britain: The cash-strapped NHS places less emphasis than the U.S. or France on preventive care. Annual physicals aren't insured. And screening programs are less generous than in the U.S. So despite the fact that pap smears can help detect cervical cancer, the second leading cause of death for women, they are only offered once every three years, as opposed to the recommended annual test in the U.S.

What neither the French nor the British system can overcome is the stark math of cost-benefit analysis. A cancer drug like Avastin, which can extend a patient's life by a few months, costs $48,000 annually per patient. It's far too expensive, by NICE's reckoning, to provide to all colon cancer patients, so it's available to none. In France, the state pays a portion and the wealthy are free to make up the difference. Money, in other words, buys good health—on both sides of the Atlantic.

The article does not mention for profit Health Insurance companies at all and it is over two years old, is that the best that you could do?

PWT...Germany has both private and public health care systems.

You seem very knowledgeable, but what you wrote is flat out wrong...

And again...this is a perfect example of what the WH is fighting against.

What a shock. CS swallows the "They're gonna kill your Granny." crap. Before you bother denying it, CS, look at your own echoing of Isakson's statement about the House bill being coercive.

Jim, I'm confident that anyone reading this thread can see that you are putting words in my mouth.

I quoted Isakson to point out the factual error in the way that Obama stated his position, and his involvement in the various bills. That has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not I agree with him about the House bill being coercive. If you wanted to ask my opinion on that, instead of claiming to know my thoughts, I would respond by saying that I can't possibly know whether he has a point or not because I haven't read the bills in question. He feels there's a difference in how it's set up, so that doctors would be initiating the process (potential for coercion in his opinion) vs. his concept which only has patients initiating these consultations. I have no idea whether or not the two bills really have that effect, but that seems to be his argument.

As for 'killing granny', if you're going to represent my position (which I hadn't even stated at all) or Isakson's position (which he went out of his way to say is NOT in agreement with people like Palin- he went on record with liberal blogger Ezra Klein, criticizing Palin for reading the 'death panel' thing into this provision), then you are the one who is distorting and misrepresenting things here.

GD- I wonder if it was a Freudian slip when you stated that insurance premiums will eat up half of people's income by the time Obama leaves office. Note that you didn't qualify that by saying that this will be the case if he fails to get health insurance reform legislation through- just that this will be the case at that time. Perhaps you unconsciously realize that the bills being pushed won't actually reduce premiums, and that nothing that's currently on the table is going to alleviate the cost problem? ;-)

Shorter John Isakson:

How dare the President reference what I did! Now all these maniacs are going to come stand outside my office!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/200...

Its actually too bad that Isakson is acting so cravenly. He had a good notion and its an important part of any healthcare bill that comes forward.

"I was for it before my party leadership told me that I should be against it."

CS, unless insurance premiums stop rising at the current rate (they haven't slowed in 30 years), they will double regardless of what we do. It isn't up to Obama. It's up to the insurance industry whose profit rose 500% under Bush. They certainly have no incentive to reduce profit or overhead; just the opposite. It's also sadly obvious that no rational discussion of lowering costs is possible, as frothing at the mouth ensues at even the mildest suggestion that some procedures at some point in a person's life just don't make sense.

Re your comment about Isakson, here's his statement from last year. Note that while the current legislation provides that such end of life consultation is voluntary but would be paid for, Isakson said medical power of attorney should be mandatory. And frankly, confusing a senator and a representative, with 535 of them to remember, is hardly much of an indictment of Obama. Was that supposed to be a "gotcha?"

I will talk about what we need to do in terms of Medicare eligibility. When somebody signs up for Medicare when they are 65 years old--you are supposed to go in 90 days before your 65th birthday; I am getting close, so I am looking at these things--I think you ought to be required to execute a durable power of attorney when you become eligible.

Eighty percent of the cost of health care to me, to you, and to anybody else happens in the last 60 days of life. More often than not, people are not in a condition to make a decision for themselves. Because of laws, and because we are a compassionate nation, the physician will keep you alive as long as he can. If you had a chance, you might rather say if I am being hydrated and given nutrition but will never become conscious again, I give the doctors the authority to make the appropriate medical decision. The money that would save is in the ``gazillions'' of dollars--if there is such a number. It would help us to manage that cost.

"...nothing that's currently on the table is going to alleviate the cost problem?"

That is my problem with what we have out there now.

Apparently the shoe has some reading comprehension problems.

France relies on a mixture of public and private funding, as does the U.S. But unlike Americans, every French citizen has access to basic health-care coverage through national insurance funds, to which both employers and employees contribute. Some 90% of the population also buys supplementary private insurance to provide benefits that aren't covered, and the government picks up the tab for those out of work who cannot gain coverage through a family member. "We pay higher taxes in France, but at least we get something for our money," says Leslie Charbonnel, an American who has lived in Paris for two decades.

The key to France's success is that its system, like the U.S.'s, values patient choice and physician control over medical decision-making. But France does it for far less, with per capita health-care spending in 2004 at just $3,500, compared with $6,100 in the U.S., according to the World Health Organization. All told, France spends 10.7% of gross domestic product on health care, vs. 16.5% in the U.S.

Emphasis mine to point out that the French system not only has private components but also is not that alien when it comes to the values it promotes.

No system is perfect but lying about something that basic is really foolish. In addition the Swiss system uses private insurers. This article provides summaries of systems in many countries. It mentions private insurance available in the Netherlands, Germany, Finland, Australia and Israel among others.

CStanley--

Somewhat better, so thanks.

The AARP is on board with reform this year, as your own link indicates:

We share the President’s commitment to act this year, and our members appreciate his insistence that any final reform package will not reduce Medicare benefits for the millions of people that literally depend on that program as a lifeline.

I added some emphasis to indicate Obama's stand is not reducing Medicare benefits for the millions of people who literslly depend on it as a lifeline,as, again, your own link shows.

(Maybe a link to something showing how his plan, as you put it, "relies on cost savings from Medicare"? The AARP doesn't seem to think so.)

As for Sen. Johnny Isakson, everyone probably knows he said Sarah Palin's death panels comments were "nuts". ABC News called the White House's "confusion" over Isakson's complaint understandable, reporting:

And it's true that his amendment is two pages whereas the section in the House bill is ten. But the bill Isakson offered has more similarities with the House Democrats’ bill than it has differences.

You don't have to have read the entire bill to know that the claims of coercion are lies. The relevant sections have been quoted in several places. Claiming that there are elements of coercion to it or in any other way trying to kowtow to the liars who agree with Palin is no better than the Republicans who refuse to completely dismiss the Birthers.

shannonlee, a public option costs less. That's exactly why the insurance lobby has pulled out all the stops to kill it. They can't compete and they know it. I mentioned that private insurance premiums will double in 10 years. Medicare is going up less than half that. At that rate, we have a hope of the economy growing fast enough to keep up, but unless things change, most Americans will be unable to afford insurance. Those who can't will visit the ER, further driving up costs for the rest of us. If you have employer paid insurance, kiss it goodbye. You think they'll pay twice as much for it? If you pay for it yourself, think about paying twice as much. This isn't fearmongering; it's pure mathematics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_function

SEC filings show that between the year 2000 and the year 2007, profit of the country‘s 10 largest health insurance companies rose 428 percent. In 2000, they had $2.4 billion in profit. By 2007, it was $12.9 billion.

[...]

So, while the 10 biggest health insurance companies were seeing their profits rise over 400 percent between 2000 and 2007, how were they doing at serving that important national need? How were they doing at the whole providing health insurance to the American people thing? Eww! Apparently, while they quadrupled their profits between 2000 and 2007, the number of Americans without health insurance grew by 19 percent.

Below is a link for the excerpts above and a Rachel Maddow interview with Wendell Potter.

Wendell Potter is a former health insurance executive-turned-whistle blower. He was the head of public relations for CIGNA, one of the nation‘s largest insurers. He‘s now a senior fellow on health care at the Center for Media and Democracy.

Rachel Maddow Show: Wendell Potter on the Health Care Industry Putting Soaring Profits Before People

And frankly, confusing a senator and a representative, with 535 of them to remember, is hardly much of an indictment of Obama.

He wasn't confused though- he clearly identified Isakson as a senator, and then talked about him writing an amendment to a House bill, and then seemed to realize that people would catch the disconnect so he threw in a phrase about how Isakson 'used to be in the House'. There was really no need for him to go through those contortions unless his intent was to imply that Isakson was actually directly involved in writing the particular bill provision that he was defending- and Isakson rightly took offense at being misrepresented in that way since he has strong disagreement with the way that House provision was written.

shannonlee, a public option costs less. That's exactly why the insurance lobby has pulled out all the stops to kill it. They can't compete and they know it
No, it doesn't cost less- the premium prices are less because the real costs are taxpayer subsidized, and that is the major problem here. Expanding the pool of people who are on such a public plan will expand our taxpayer funded costs.

There's a huge difference between price fixing, which is what govt 'negotiations' do, and actually reducing costs by cutting back on services or eliminating fraud and inefficiency. 'Price' does not equal 'cost', and if real cost isn't reduced then someone has to pay the fiddler.

I added some emphasis to indicate Obama's stand is not reducing Medicare benefits for the millions of people who literslly depend on it as a lifeline,as, again, your own link shows.

(Maybe a link to something showing how his plan, as you put it, "relies on cost savings from Medicare"? The AARP doesn't seem to think so.)

GS- the summary is thus: Obama's stated goal is to finance part of the healthcare reform package by reducing costs of Medicare (you haven't heard him say this?) but not reducing necessary benefits.

The question is, can he really pull that rabbit out of his hat? He's already been found out on cutting a backroom deal with pharma lobbyists so that the govt still won't be able to negotiate drug prices. He's also said he favors Mayo's way of cutting costs (which is largely based on eliminating fee for service and putting doctors on salary) but Mayo says his plan doesn't do what they do.

It seems quite apparent that the disconnect between AARP saying that they do want a reform plan to pass, but that they won't yet endorse, is that they aren't convinced that the plans that are currently in the pike will meet their demands of keeping all current Medicare benefits intact. That's just my interpretation, but if you can connect the dots in any other way that makes sense, let me know.

AARP's chief operating officer Tom Nelson quickly fired back, saying, "indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate."

SteveK

Thank you for linking to the SEC filings. For all the bluster, fear mongering, and concern for the holy economic health of insurance companies; profit growth like that cited coupled with a drop in the number insured certainly demonstrates where the "problem" of health care exists.

Hello everyone. The bill(s) proposed are written not for efficiency, not for public welfare, not even for political ideology. The bills as written to day are written to continue a system that bribes legislators so they will guarantee obscene profits for a few private companies.

The current plans proposed are solely devised to keep a good thing going.

Steve, I'm not sure why that comment was directed toward me...I guess you inferred that I was disputing the claim about the degree of inflation of premiums, but that wasn't what I was doing.

I'm with Hemm on this, BTW- I agree that that's a huge problem but I can also see that we don't get that problem resolved with the plans that are currently being pushed (hope I've not misrepresented what you meant with that, Hemm- correct me if I'm wrong.)

And that was why I was yanking GD's chain about this point, Steve- because I think that anyone who gives it any thought realizes that at the current rate of this 'debate', we aren't going to fix the problem of healthcare premiums/costs rising faster than wages do. Since he didn't preface his statement by saying 'if we don't enact Obama's/Congress's plan', I was teasing that perhaps he slipped up and reveals that he actually knows that it is going to happen either way.

CStanley--

Where, oh where, are the links to him saying any of that?

Where?

And yes, ma'am, I do understand when all you have is your "interpretation"--doesn't everyone?

Cs

No, you read me right. In another post yesterday, I stated my position even more clearly. I'm ready to advocate that no health care package be passed at this time! I'm afraid more people will have to loose their insurance and their homes before the political discussion will be real.

It's not about killing old people, and it's also not about capitalism. Everybody gets health care now, you and I pay for it. The costs keep going up, but not for the closely reasoned arguments you think. 428% increase in profits! HELLO!!!!

Make a list of legislators opposing health care reform and add a column that shows the money they've received from lobbyists. The list is for both parties mind you.

That should tell you what the real lies about health care really are.

Thanks, I feel better now.

The US spends more on health care per capita than any other UN member nation. It also spends a greater fraction of its national budget on health care than Canada, Germany, France, or Japan. In 2004 the US spent $6,102USD per person on health care, 92.7% more than any other G7 country, and 19.9% more than Luxembourg, which, after the US, had the highest spending in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).[19] Although the US Medicare coverage of prescription drugs began in 2006, most patented prescription drugs are significantly more costly in the US than in most other countries.

Click anywhere.

PWT:

on proof that in Europe public and private health Insurance do in fact coexist

"...and it is over two years old, is that the best that you could do?"

How recent does it have to be for you to admit you were wrong?

I agree with Greendreams. Which is it? Is is that the public-option will be too costly or that it won't cost very much at all? On the one hand MedMob attempts to make the case that we should all be worried and up in arms [literally] about how much this new system will cost us. On the other hand MedMob moans and howls about how it can't compete with the public-option.

Again I ask: Which is it? Is it too expensive or too inexpensive? You can't have it both ways *smile*.

I hear they are considering taxing soda and I presume other high-sugar death foods [think: epidemic diabetes and obesity]. Good. That would create a lot of revenue right there for the project. True, insurance companies can't compete with that at their current obscene rates. I think they're deathly afraid that Uncle Sam's public-option will work quite nicely indeed. So their industry will have to curb it's insane profiteering in order to stay in business. Sink or swim guys. Welcome to capitalism. I think it's healthy when monopolies have competition. The consumer always wins in that scenario.

@Sil- Actually that's why I made the point about price vs. cost.

The public option plans have a lower price tag for the beneficiary because the govt can mandate that through price fixing. But that doesn't lower the actual cost of providing the service.

So, the private companies that attempt to compete will not be able to offer the same low prices to their customers (they don't have the luxury of raising taxes or using deficit spending to make up the shortfall.)

It seems that you and several other people (I think Greendreams) are completely missing that distinction, and it is a critical one.

Several people bring up the analogy to UPS and FedEx competing side by side with the post office. To make that analogy work though, you'd have to have a situation where the govt insists that no one can charge more than "X" for a given service, or say, that they all have to be willing to charge the same amount to mail a 500 lb. package cross country that they would charge for a 10 oz. letter to go from one block to another within a city. Those kinds of things aren't being mandated for postal service, though, so the private companies can create their own business model and charge what the market will bear, providing services that people want as an alternative to the public postal service- and the postal service, meanwhile, fails to break even but can continue to be subsidized by tax dollars. If the mandates weren't being put into place by these healthcare bills then there would be a similar situation where private insurance companies could create alternative products to compete with the public option insurance plan.

Well, gosh, GS, in most discussions there's a baseline assumption that people know some of the basic facts. Are you actually unaware that Obama has been advocating Medicare reform as part of this plan? He began selling it this way even before the actual legislation got underway- getting the legislators to agree that the real problem with our runaway debt is tied to healthcare costs, and that's why it is essential to pass reform legislation (everyone pretty much agrees with this in principle.)

And the reason there's this pushback (some of it legit, other parts of it just due to misinformation and fearmongering) from senior citizens is that Obama also states that the $1T cost of the plan will be partly offset by savings they're going to create in the Medicare budget. And again, the issue is whether or not they can actually reduce those costs without making cuts that the seniors would find unacceptable. He says he'll only cut out waste, but obviously some people don't believe that enough of those savings will materialize and that they'll then have to cut back on what some people consider important or essential.

But, if you actually haven't heard any of this, I went ahead and found a couple of relevant quotes from last night's townhall (these are things I've heard him say over and over, so again I can't imagine why you aren't already aware of them.) It seems a bit irritating, frankly, that other commenters make statements frequently that go unchallenged but everytime I state something without a link (usually because I'm assuming it's a non-controversial point that most everyone is aware of) you insist that I go back and give a reference. I'm sure you are aware that it's time consuming, and although I try to get back and give you the citation it's not always possible for me to take the time to track stuff down and format the link codes and such.

But here you go:

Our deficit will continue to grow because Medicare and Medicaid are on an unsustainable path. Medicare is slated to go into the red in about eight to 10 years. I don't know if people are aware of that. If I was a senior citizen, the thing I'd be worried about right now is Medicare starts running out of money because we haven't done anything to make sure that we're getting a good bang for our buck when it comes to health care.

By definition, if we're helping people who currently don't have health insurance, that's going to cost some money. It's been estimated to cost somewhere between, let's say, $800 billion and a trillion dollars over 10 years.

Now, it's important that we're talking about over 10 years because sometimes the number "trillion" gets thrown out there and everybody think it's a trillion dollars a year -- gosh, that -- how are we going to do that? So it's about a hundred billion dollars a year to cover everybody and to implement some of the insurance reforms that we're talking about.

About two-thirds of those costs we can cover by eliminating the inefficiencies that I already mentioned. So I already talked about $177 billion worth of subsidies to the insurance companies. Let's take that money, let's put it in the kitty. There's about $500 billion to $600 billion over 10 years that can be saved without cutting benefits for people who are currently receiving Medicare, actually making the system more efficient over time.

Of course, as I'm sure you'll point out if I don't mention it, Obama carefully worded that to say that they're planning to reduce Medicare expenditures by $500 billion to $600 billion without cutting benefits.

But ask yourself- if AARP has said it wants reform passed this year, and they'll endorse a plan that doesn't cut Medicare benefits, and the president says that this plan meets that criteria, then what is holding them back from endorsing it? That's my logic in saying that they don't seem to believe just on his word that the plan will actually cut Medicare expenses to the govt without having to cut benefits. Is there any other explanation that makes sense to you?

CStanley wrote: "The public option plans have a lower price tag for the beneficiary because the govt can mandate that through price fixing. But that doesn't lower the actual cost of providing the service.

So, the private companies that attempt to compete will not be able to offer the same low prices to their customers (they don't have the luxury of raising taxes or using deficit spending to make up the shortfall.)"

It ISN'T "price fixing" CStanley, in a capitalist world it's called "negotiating through volume purchasing".

If my company buys two cars a year and your company buys ten cars a year you should get a better price because of your volume is five times more than mine... Well, the United States of America buys 10,000,000 cars a year, don't you think they should be able to get a better price than you or me?

Change the analogy from cars to drugs... The ONLY reason Medicare D is a "bad deal" is because there were enough legislators in the pockets of the drug industry that "price negotiation" was PROHIBITED. Imagine having to buy $100B of drugs a year and be forced to pay retail.

Change the analogy from drugs to health care reform... The ONLY reason Health Reform will fail is because there ARE enough legislators in the health care / health insurance / pharmaceutical industries pocket that ANY bill will be so weakened as to screw America (and Americans)... AGAIN.

What I can't understand is how so many good people making less than $100K are so vocally against something that would do them good... And 999 out of 1000 of you aren't getting a penny of the $1.4M / day the industry is spending to defeat Health Care Reform.

"What I can't understand is how so many good people making less than $100K are so vocally against something that would do them good."

I agree, that does seem hard to square with the opposition-is-all-industry-payola theory. Perhaps it's because they don't agree it would do them good?

The theory was in trouble anyway because it's simplistic. Insurance companies do indeed support some aspects of health care reform, but not others. Same with doctors. Same with unions. Same with bloggers.

Dr J writes: "I agree, that does seem hard to square with the opposition-is-all-industry-payola theory. Perhaps it's because they don't agree it would do them good?"

Phooey "Dr J"...
Your constant droll of how "put upon" the "Industry" is and how appreciative the "general public" should be leads me to believe that you sir are that 1 of 999 that is profiting from this fandango.

Facts, Steve, I'm all about facts. One fact: I wrote on this very page "I quite agree the private insurance companies have way too much power in the current system and should be dethroned."

I do get impatient with people trying to fob off a government entitlement program as market competition. Maybe they don't understand the difference, but since I've seen people explain it to them dozens of times, it's getting harder to give them the benefit of the doubt. So I do feel the urge to correct the misrepresentation, but it's not out of love for insurance companies.

However, could you point to one Government Program that sustains itself as you say Mr. Obama asserts? My opinion is that it is unlikely that you could find such a program.

The history would show just the opposite, I'm pretty sure. Once programs are initiated they're almost impossible to dismantle. Look how long it took just to reform welfare- it didn't happen until things got so bad, and so unsustainable, that no one could defend it any longer.

And consider a situation where 10 years out, a public option health insurance plan is not solvent without additional taxpayer subsidization. Once people have become dependent on this form of health insurance, do you really believe a politician is going to run on a platform of nixing the program? On the basis that Obama said we'd shut it down if it wasn't self-sufficient? Yeah, right.

It would be interesting to see if there's anything at all in the bill that would trigger a reversal on the program if costs are not sustainable without additional taxes or borrowing. Bush was forced to put a sunset provision on his tax cuts (and rightfully so, since there's the same dynamic with tax cuts- it's politically impossible to reverse them, and hard even with the sunset provision but at least that helps a bit.) So here too, I'm skeptical that this program would be shut down if it doesn't perform as Obama says it's going to have to perform, but I'm curious as to whether or not he's at least seen a good faith effort to write the bill with those guarantees or if he's completely talking through his hat on this.

CStanley--

I'm sure you are aware that it's time consuming, and although I try to get back and give you the citation it's not always possible for me to take the time to track stuff down and format the link codes and such.

You have low standards for yourself. "Basic facts" as you call them, should be easy to find.

Maybe you should have your sources available before you put your stuff out there.

I don't see why you can't do it.

By the way, you managed to cut-and-paste two large blockquotes from somewhere--without even linking to their source!!!

The problem is, the solution of the opponents to healthcare reform is to just ignore it and the problem will go away.

Has anyone read the "Healthy Americans Act" (also here: http://www.standtallforamerica.com). This one was proposed back in '07 before the mania ensured and seems to be getting the shaft even though it has bi-partisan support.

Shocking George, but of course you just lay back and throw stones instead of refuting anything.
The truth is CS sourced the quotes just didn't give you a link and you whine about her not putting out any effort? Lazy much? God forbid you enter into honest debate without personal attacks.

EEllis--

Thank you for sharing your opinion. Seriously.

It is, of course, difficult for me to "refute" anything without knowing its source. Surely you are aware of what passes for public discourse these days. I'd call some of them wacky, but they're being pushed by people who should be more responsible. I really don't care to give credence to rumors.

As for her sourcing the quotes and not giving me the link, she obviously had the source right up there in her browser or she couldn't have copied-and-pasted them. How much harder would it have been to provide the link? Not much, I think.

If you think calling it a "whine" makes my complaint about poor sourcing any less legitimate, all I can say is that this is a public thread. Defend poor sourcing with name-calling, if you think that's helpful.

I am practicing what you might call "tough love" with CStanley.

A couple notes. Head of govt affairs for AARP was on C-SPAN this morning. They do indeed favor reform, favor it this year, like what's in both the House and Senate bills, and have "been advocating for reform for over 20 years."

CS, my comments about Medicare are based on hard numbers. It is NOT a case of just *looking* like Medicare costs are rising at half the rate of private insurance because of deficit spending. I'm talking about the ACTUAL costs, as in "checks written" divided by "persons covered". Both are hard numbers. And "checks written" includes checks written to the government employees who administer the plan (translation for righties: bureaucrats) and to all the private contractors who help run the program. Cut out the for-profit contractors and the cost would be even lower, as it is in all the G7 nations who don't believe health care should be a for-profit enterprise.

Still, I'm tiring of the debate. Maybe things do indeed have to get much worse before reform is possible. Maybe it isn't possible at all. In all likelihood I'll actually BE on Medicare before there's any resolution. However, my insurance premium, just like yours, will have doubled by then, while benefits will have declined as they have already. Half the population will be without insurance (do the math. 14,000 a day lose their insurance) and the other half will be picking up their cost too. All to protect the insurance monopoly and profitability. Sad.

GD- I believe that Dr. J has given additional information in the past regarding those costs per capita that you frequently cite for Medicare (they don't include what the patients pay, for one thing- and there were other costs that made the comparison much less favorable than the way you see it.) In addition, what I'm referring to is the cost shifting that goes on when the govt negotiates prices and then the providers charge at a higher level to other consumers to make up the difference.

GS- As EEllis mentioned, I did cite the source- it was from a transcript of Obama's townhall. And I'm sure it never occurred to you that I might have closed the other tab I was cutting/pasting from without copying the link, and was practicing a bit of that tough love right back at ya since you can very well find the transcript yourself if you want to go to the primary source material.

CStanley--

It is your responsibility to provide sources to your claims.

Own it.

She did, George. I'm one of them. If you want to appear a receptive participant in the discussion, quit the passive aggressive "I require sources, but I'm not interested enough to copy and paste." Participate in the dialog, or don't. It's up to you.

And GD, your numbers are misleading. Checks written divided by persons covered is government accounting. Let's talk about what every private sector organization has to answer for: checks written plus checks likely to need to be written in the future, divided by checks cashed plus checks likely to come in. By this measure Medicare is haemorrhaging red ink.

CStanley couldn't provide a link because, um, she'd already closed the tab.

Honestly, Dr J, who's being passive aggressive?

That's right, George, I generally do, as a courtesy, put in a URL link to make it easy for people to look up the source that I cite. However, occasionally due to real life time constraints, I am unable to provide this convenience for you. Since I cited what the source of the material was, you're only complaint is that I didn't dump the primary source material into your lap and if you wanted to reference it you would have had to look it up for yourself.

So yes, your complaint appears petty, and appears to be designed to avoid addressing the substance of what I wrote, which is why other commenters are calling you on it. I'm happy to debate on the actual substance of the issues, but I'm not going to be drawn into repeatedly being put on the defense when I've met reasonable standards of backing up my claims (unlike many other commenters, I might again add- whom you don't continually question about their sources.)

CStanley--

If I'm continually questioning you about your sources, how can you say you generally include links?

You can't have it both ways.

you're only complaint is that I didn't dump the primary source material into your lap and if you wanted to reference it you would have had to look it up for yourself.

You personally can't be bothered to provide sources because of "real life time constraints". And if someone wants to double check the quality of your source it's their responsibility to use their own time to hunt it down or be called lazy and petty and passive aggressive.

So go ahead and declare yourself the winner.

George, providing sources means citing the source of the material, which I did.

Providing links, as I also mentioned, is a courtesy, not a requirement for backing up one's statements. The source of the material was provided- and easy access to it with me doing the work to make it easier for you is not a 'source', it's putting the primary source at your fingertips. What next, should I copy and paste entire primary source materials here to save you the finger click on a link?

I'm not interested in declaring myself a winner in your absurd game. If you have anything on topic to say (for instance, was I correct or incorrect in my earlier statement about Obama's healthcare plan relying on cuts to Medicare expenditures in order to finance the rest of it?) then I'll be back. Otherwise, I'm not wasting any more time on this.

DJ "checks written plus checks likely to need to be written in the future"

As I've noted, the same applies to private insurance. No company could meet its obligations, except by dropping patients if they actually need the coverage they're paying for.

CS, DJ the fact is that we pay over twice as much for worse outcomes than our global competitors. Both of you have claimed you are not pawns of the medical and insurance industry, yet both of you argue to prevent change in a toxic system that doesn't work. Not until you or a loved one face bankruptcy for something that would be covered EVERYWHERE ELSE on the planet, will you admit that this system was just about accumulating wealth and not about providing excellent, cost effective medicine.

yet both of you argue to prevent change in a toxic system that doesn't work.

There's that false accusation which we've disproven several times over, GD.

We don't agree with you on the type of change that you think will help. We've tried to explain why, and we've explained what changes we think would actually help rather than making the current cost problems worse.

Yet you choose to continually misrepresent our positions, and our motivations. Why? I don't doubt your sincerity or choose to believe that you want the country to go bankrupt- I just think you misunderstand the costs involved and our inability to pay for everything that you think everyone should have. I realize that you think that if profit were stripped out it would all work out for everyone, but that isn't at all self evident and the evidence instead tends to disprove what you believe.

What CStanley said, GD. I also dispute what you're representing as facts: that private insurance companies are not making their books balance, that we don't get anything for the additional money we spend over other countries, that they constitute competitors rather than beneficiaries of our spending (think how much more we spend on defense), or that the current system supports a few fat cats accumulating billions of dollars. And your characterization of my position is as relentlessly wrong as ever.

Basically, Greendreams, I don't think a single thing you've said is actually true.