I do not agree with the idea that stockholders or dividends should enter into the equation, which is the crux of the for- or not-for-profit debate.”

The bill would specifically not compensate the providers and owners for lost profits from conversion from for-profit to non-profit medicine.

This actually has nothing to do with whether or not non-profit is better than for-profit medicine, or if there is “market failure” or any kind, etc.; the reason it's ugly and unconstitutional is that converting anything to non-profit causes the loss of profits, and this is part of what is taken from the owners and providers, obviously, and so must be provided to them as part of compensation.  Otherwise, it is expropropriation, or plain outright low-life theft.  That this was specifically identified as a consequence of conversion and specifically identified for non-compensation is not only unconstitutional, but unquestionably ugly.

It's like any other similar event.  The longest term is the same as the longest term for public bonds, or other long term projection periods we have.  20-30 years of (growing) profits are obviously due the owners if there is conversion.  (The Conyers mentality is so poor that there's not even the pretence or half-hearted intention expressed to negotiate with a heavy hand, limiting growth to the rate of inflation or population growth, with adjustment for aging in society.  The Conyers mentality is so low and ugly, there is no intention to compensate at all.  It's pure taking–theft, due no doubt to a desire to act in a punitive, revanchist anti-profit and anti-market fashion.)

Well, that is one way to rationalize away the president’s inability to lead more diversity than one’s plate can carry.

I'm not interested in rationalizing anything done in the Federal government. I'm interested in getting to the root cause and either changing it or supporting it, regardless of what labels someone wants to wear or put on someone else. If you are so inclined as to frame matters as “Democratic vs Republican,” you are more than welcome to. I won't be partaking.

Yes it is a country of two parties. One that’s united and one that is not. As far as “sheep and celebrities” well, choose your own rhetoric I suppose.

If we are still on the subject of Democratic and Republican, I'll disagree with you – as will a growing portion of the independent voters disenfranchised with either of those groups.

[One can posture and postulate all that they like in regards to one individual responsible for the entire mess within our country, however such things are completely misguided. "All will be lost," as you say, not because the President was not able to be a proper dictator to the party which he currently heads, but rather because those that elected the representatives into power acquiesced to such "losing."]–

Well, that is one way to rationalize away the president’s inability to lead more diversity than one’s plate can carry. Herding cats I think is the metaphor. Cats just cannot be herded. They are not team players. Too self centered.

[This isn't a country of two parties. Nor is it a country of celebrities and sheep. Unfortunately, its citizenry tends to forget that]–

Yes it is a country of two parties. One that’s united and one that is not. As far as “sheep and celebrities” well, choose your own rhetoric I suppose.

Clearly a united minority is stronger than a disunited majority.

Of course. After all, a disunited majority is simply a coalition of minority beliefs. However, in the case of the Federal government, the minority has been given a handicap.

Embarrassing laughable, but indicative of an inexperienced and thus ineffective president. IMO, all will be lost because this president cannot unite his own party on any single issue. If indeed the Democrats can be singularly united on any issue.

One can posture and postulate all that they like in regards to one individual responsible for the entire mess within our country, however such things are completely misguided. “All will be lost,” as you say, not because the President was not able to be a proper dictator to the party which he currently heads, but rather because those that elected the representatives into power acquiesced to such “losing.”

This isn't a country of two parties. Nor is it a country of celebrities and sheep. Unfortunately, its citizenry tends to forget that.

Will you also acknowledge the fact that 39 House Democrats voted with the GOP and only one House Republican voted with the Democrats?

Of course. I'll also acknowledge that the reality of the current two-party system which exists in most levels of government affects my life fairly substantially. They aren't, however, the end-all-be-all of the system. They are, for better or worse, only the most vocal and entrenched of all segments involved.

It is no secret that Republicans are philosophically opposed to healthcare reform as defined by the Democrats. Republicans are united and Democrats are not. Clearly a united minority is stronger than a disunited majority. To many issues Shard. Democrats are pandering to to many people that want to many changes to soon. It won’t happen. Though they blather and TMV blog posters “bloviate”, (as described by one TMV poster), no real change has occurred even though Democrats have a clear and commanding majority and can do nothing with it!

Embarrassing laughable, but indicative of an inexperienced and thus ineffective president. IMO, all will be lost because this president cannot unite his own party on any single issue. If indeed the Democrats can be singularly united on any issue.

I'll grant you that the Democrats are not completely united in the Senate. To put the weight of passing or defeating a bill entirely on one party, however, is a bit of a misnomer: any number of the current Republican representatives can vote in support of a Democratic agenda, just as any Democrat can vote against. They are, after all, supposedly there to represent their constituents.

Will you also acknowledge the fact that 39 House Democrats voted with the GOP and only one House Republican voted with the Democrats?

For example, should health care, itself, have a for- or not-for-profit goal?

Depends, what sort of salary controls are you proposing to impose on dotors, nurses, technicians and others in the medical field?

I was merely correcting Leonidas on the use of socialism (I'm tired of hearing that term thrown around everywhere).

And incorrectly so, as I pointed out with my answering post, perhaps you missed the link I posted above regarding the socialist theory of Oskar Lange. Socialism is the appropriate term, although I wouldn't object if you wanted to specify market socialism to distinguish it from other branches of socialist theory.

An additional, albeit also ugly and unconstitutional, sign beyond this of how the bill's author feels and believes politically is that the bill would compensate private owners for their physical assets or infrastructure, but specifically not for lost present and future profits

Personally, I do not mind seeing physicians and others in the medical field be able to sustain a living from their profession. However, I do not agree with the idea that stockholders or dividends should enter into the equation, which is the crux of the for- or not-for-profit debate. The two goals, sustainable wages and exclusion of stockholders, are not mutually exclusive.

Healthcare Reform is a Democrat issue by which the Republicans have not participated. You cannot blame the Republicans for opposing reform they do not believe in.

The HC legislation failed because of dissent within the Democrat party, not because of the Republican party. There were enough Democrats to pass the bill. The Democrats are simply not united.

I'll grant you that the Democrats are not completely united in the Senate. To put the weight of passing or defeating a bill entirely on one party, however, is a bit of a misnomer: any number of the current Republican representatives can vote in support of a Democratic agenda, just as any Democrat can vote against. They are, after all, supposedly there to represent their constituents.

The HC legislation failed because of dissent within the Democrat party, not because of the Republican party. There were enough Democrats to pass the bill. The Democrats are simply not united. It’s no wonder with so many legislative ambitions that span all time and space and of course…ahem….the entire rainbow spectrum…visible and invisible….relevant and irrelevant…sexual and …oh gawd I want to puke….

That, which is just one example issue, is far from trivial. In fact, it hasn't been neglected; the Conyers bill for Medicare for All (the de facto federal legislative and systemic model) specifically converts private medicine from for-profit to non-profit. (An additional, albeit also ugly and unconstitutional, sign beyond this of how the bill's author feels and believes politically is that the bill would compensate private owners for their physical assets or infrastructure, but specifically not for lost present and future profits.)

No, I can't see a republican administration doing that Kathy, price fixing seems more of the socialism leaning types.

The more important debate being not whether a Democratic or Republican Administration would impose price controls on the health industry, but rather, what should the nature of health care in the USA entail?

Eschewing major political parties and their purported stances, is it possible to discuss the idea of health care as an ideological and sociological factor in determining the present and future of our country? For example, should health care, itself, have a for- or not-for-profit goal? Are either of these answers in line with long-held doctoral beliefs (such as the Hippocratic Oath), or should these beliefs, themselves, be modified to suit modern purposes?

Come on Shad, you are ruining the lynching. What about the whole year? And why do they need any profits, so greedy. Wellpoint shareholders over $250K, please drop something in the kitty.

The thing I was led to think about in turn about this was the timing. Why would Anthem do it this early? (Yes, to get more money as soon as possible, but why this soon?) It's almost as if Anthem is supremely confident it will get away with this and won't suffer any federal consequences. Does Anthem (and later, other insurers) know some “insider information” we don't about the people in Washington?

Moreover, when saying “federal” I've also been led to wonder aloud, never mind Baucus, or even Boxer or Feinstein in the Senate, or Miller, Stark, etc., in the House. What about the Governor and what about Sacramento? Not to beat the all-but-extinguished corpse again constitutional federalism unnecessarily, but — what's stopping the state insurance regulator and others in Sacramento? Also, while I've only been half-hearted in referring to the federalization of Blue Cross (nation-wide), which raises constutional problems, they also exist if states overreach, but why haven't we heard yet about having the state government outdo Massachusetts's scheme and actually take over Blue Cross (Anthem) or otherwise provide its real “public option”? There's no reason to wait and rely on the feds.