medicine.jpgWhile in many cases it has fallen on deaf ears, we’ve made efforts in the past to clear up some of the misinformation being handed out by proponents of Democratic health insurance reform proposals around the web, including here at TMV. I was mentally adding a few check points to that list today while reading Rick Moran’s latest column at Pajamas Media, “Take Health Insurance, Please!” One of the non-technical but completely valid points is this continual complaint I hear about how the Republicans won’t “be reasonable” and compromise to work with Democrats on health care. Of course, what most proponents don’t want to talk about is the fact that if you are only offered choices which run completely against every basic tenet of fiscal conservatism and individual responsibility, that’s really not much of a choice at all.

Democrats informed the GOP that health care reform would include a public option and other “no go” provisions that are an anathema to the founding principles of the party and conservatism. And the Democrats expected … what? That the GOP would embrace that reform, betray its principles, and shatter the party just to give Democrats cover with the voting public who will probably not like this “stealth single-payer” idea?

But it is a mystery why Democrats can’t see that voting for a bill with a public option (or it’s weak sister, health care insurance co-ops) would doom the Republicans with most of the rest of their party and enrage their base. Of course, they wouldn’t see that as quite the calamity the objects of their scorn would view the matter. But the hypocrisy is getting pretty thick when the Democrats bitch about the GOP refusing, in effect, to walk the plank because they can’t swim.

This, however, isn’t the major piece of disinformation that I want to address today. Here’s one of the big complaints about the GOP which I myself addressed last spring: “The Republicans complain about the Democrats’ health care proposals, but they don’t offer any plan of their own!” I’ve seen that one here over and over again, as recently as this week. However, shortly after I sat wondering where the GOP proposal was, it was delivered without my even knowing it. (Thanks, media!)

In fact, I only found out about the final version earlier this week on Rick’s radio show and had to go look it up online. Sure enough, there it was. Rather than the 19 page summary so many of us saw and scoffed at, Rep. Paul Ryan introduced H.R. 2520, The Patient’s Choice Act, on May 20 of this year. It was immediately referred to the House Ways and Means Committee, along with two others, where it languishes to this day.

There are quite a few reasons for that, not least of which is the fact that it was developed and introduced by Republicans, but because it also includes some common sense proposals which are essentially anathema to Democrats and liberals in general. You can read the entire bill here yourself. Coming in at less than 300 pages, in the rare instance that a member of Congress actually chooses to read a bill, it will at least take less time than the 1,000+ pages of the various Democratic versions.

What’s included? First, Title 1 is based entirely on a concept which most Democrats seem to back… focusing on incentives for preventative medicine and healthier lifestyles. Title 2 deals with one of the great problems in health insurance, allowing for state based health care exchanges and federal incentives for multiple states to band together, crossing state lines, to offer more choices. And the state based exchanges would be charged with providing group rates to people across a multitude of circumstances to reduce rates.

Title 4 provides for supplemental health care assistance to low income families, along with both tax credits and advancement vouchers so they can purchase health insurance through these group plans. Limits are also placed on excessive premium charges by private insurance companies.

Why won’t this ever see the light of day? (That is, aside from the fact that the GOP suggested it.) Among other reasons, because Titles 4 and 5 also include fiscally responsible proposals which too many Democrats despise. First, they mandate means testing for the direct government assistance in the form of grants and advancements which would cover every American citizen who can truly not afford health insurance. Why this is such an abomination to my liberal colleagues I will never understand. Also, Title 6 has a provision to encourage the reform and limitation of frivolous lawsuits which, along with other waste and abuse, drives up costs across the board.

That last one is apparently a real deal breaker for most Democrats, who rely on a group mentality where everyone will eventually slip and fall on the sidewalk of a rich person and hit the lottery. None of these, of course, will come to an open vote and likely never even be read by the public. But you should know that one of the biggest lies being foisted off on you by supporters of Obamacare is that Republicans are unwilling to get involved in a better solution. They already have. But nobody is listening or talking about it, either in the majority or the lion’s share of the media.

JAZZ SHAW, Assistant Editor
Sort by:   newest | oldest
GeorgeSorwell
Guest
GeorgeSorwell
7 years 1 month ago

That last one is apparently a real deal breaker for most Democrats, who rely on a group mentality where everyone will eventually slip and fall on the sidewalk of a rich person and hit the lottery.

Yikes!

imavettoo
Guest
imavettoo
7 years 1 month ago

Out of the last 36 years there has been a Republican in the White House 28 of those. Where were these great plans all those years? There wasn’t one, ever & that’s why the Democrats know they have to do something. Jazz, you shill too much for the party of NO!

Pug
Guest
Pug
7 years 1 month ago

If Obama were to completely accept Ryan’s plan tomorrow the Republicans would be against it. The “health care exchanges” sound like co-ops to me. Or should I say a government takeover of health care?

It’s fairly clear at this point the Republicans will not support anything proposed by or agreed to by Obama. It’s about a lot more than health care reform at this point.

Conservablogger
Guest
Conservablogger
7 years 1 month ago

@imavettoo: “…party of NO!?” Seriously, where do you get your talking points? From the DFL controlled state-media? How many times has tort reform been tried, only to have the greedy lawyer lobbyists shoot it down? If the party of NO is the party of NO big government, NO multi-trillion dollar deficits, and NO trampling on the constitution, I’ll gladly say “Yes!”

Silhouette
Guest
Silhouette
7 years 1 month ago

Hmmm democrats get accused of group mentality when it’s convenient and accused of not being cohesive at all when it’s funny…depending on the spin of the day..

Meanwhile,
***
“I hear about how the Republicans won’t “be reasonable” and compromise to work with Democrats on health care. Of course, what most proponents don’t want to talk about is the fact that if you are only offered choices which run completely against every basic tenet of fiscal conservatism and individual responsibility, that’s really not much of a choice at all.”
****
True, the millions of uninsured plus the millions of those people already “insured” who are hotly dissatisfied with their [lack of] coverage, plus the millions more who, when educated, will see we already have a chronic fiscal-hemorrhage public option in place, the ER-room, for those 50 million, are at loggerheads with an elite group of super-conservatives who use the short-term bottom-line as their guiding light…in bed with those who are making a killing [literally] on playing craps with human wellbeing…Gee, I wonder why dems aren’t willing to compromise?

The issue is one of a moral outlook. Those people with souls believe that human health and wellbeing isn’t a “fiscal issue”. Those people without souls think that it is. There is no bridging that gap short of a religious conversion one way or the other. In this case it isn’t left or right but rather Up or Down… respectively..

sfanony
Guest
sfanony
7 years 1 month ago

Silhouette,

I enjoyed your introduction of the ideas of morality and souls into the debate. Honest question: When do you believe human attains that soul, and do you think it’s moral to kill (or allow to do) a human after they’ve attained a soul?

stevea66
Guest
stevea66
7 years 1 month ago

Um…you state that because it was proposed by Republicans, nobody is talking about it? Give me a break!! You’ve got all the people shouting down townhalls, republicans and extreme right-wingers spouting lies left and right to strike fear into the hearts of our senior citizens, talking heads on every station bitching about Democratic proposals. The FACT is that nobody’s talking about it because YOU, and the rest of the republicans don’t BELIEVE in what they want to talk about. If they did, they’d be holding townhalls to talk about WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, not WHAT THEY DON’T WANT TO DO. Waaaah! Waaaah! Stop complaining and talk about what you actually want to do, if it’s such an amazing proposal. You apparently have the ear of the American people enough to drown out the Dems; use that to actually DO something!

gogo809
Guest
gogo809
7 years 1 month ago

look, I agree at times. Republicans didn’t do enough when they were “in power”. Granted, healthcare wasn’t QUITE as big an issue as it is today. We can, and should, thank the Democrats for making it so. I firmly believe both parties (Republican, Democrat) are necessary. They offer wildly disparate viewpoints and ideals on how government should be run. Reasons why nothing has been done about healthcare to date:
1. Insurance Lobbies – If the government starts imposing sanctions, their profits slip.
2. Trial Lawyer Lobbies – If Tort reform is enacted, they stand to loose a ton of money.
3. Not in top 3 issues “of the time”.

I think your idea that only “have a soul” if you support a national system is ludicrous. People without health insurance can and do receive healthcare. Hospitals cannot turn them away just because they cannot pay. As for the fiscal side of things, that is deathly important. Extreme case here: Government never “rights the ship” so to speak. The USA falls deeper and deeper into debt. Someday the liability on our loans will exceed the GDP to such an extent we will NOT BE ABLE to pay them back. In your situation you can just say oh well and file bankruptcy and start over. Unfortunately the bank gets your house and maybe your car. What of value does our government have to give? Alaska? Hawaii? Missouri? I mean scoff if you want, but seriously, someday we will be faced with some very tough choices. Me, I would rather pay a little higher taxes now, and have a lot fewer government programs now, and start making some headway on our loans. In small terms a $1,000 loan is alot easier to pay back than a $10,000 one. Not the least of which due to the interest difference between the two. Put that into the trillions and you get an idea about how much interest we are talking here.

National Debt clock: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Now I love and care about my fellow man/woman, but at some point you have to think about the unit as a whole. Sure we can cover all these people for the next 100 years, take care of their food and housing while we are at it, but at some point everyone could loose all.

(To get an idea about where my opinions come from, I am a fiscally conservative independent.)

Lit3Bolt
Guest
Lit3Bolt
7 years 1 month ago

“Among other reasons, because Titles 4 and 5 also include fiscally responsible proposals which too many Democrats despise.”

Jazz, you’re a hack. Nice “moderate” viewpoint there.

Leonidas
Guest
Leonidas
7 years 1 month ago

Jazz great to see a post that isn’t left of center for a change, I do enjoy the moderate left postings as weoll here, but they have been buried lately in far left threads of late.

kathykattenburg
Guest
kathykattenburg
7 years 1 month ago

I’ve addressed many of those supposedly “common sense” proposals in Paul Ryan’s proposal already here, so I won’t do it again now. The only thing I want to point out here is that you are asking and expecting Democrats to do *exactly* the thing you deplore Democrats asking Republicans to do: betraying our core principles. Why IS that, Jazz? Why is it that Republicans see the concept of core principles as referring only to themselves, and define “compromise” as emptying the store and giving away all its contents to YOU?

Dr J
Guest
Dr J
7 years 1 month ago

You are asking and expecting Democrats to do *exactly* the thing you deplore Democrats asking Republicans to do: betraying our core principles.

What principles are you referring to, Kathy? Jazz suggested means testing and discouraging frivolous lawsuits are anathema to Democrats, which seemed like a straw man; I was unaware Democrats defined themselves as the Party of Frivolous Lawsuits. But y’all seem to be conceding one or both are indeed inviolable principles.

Lit3Bolt
Guest
Lit3Bolt
7 years 1 month ago

“Jazz suggested means testing and discouraging frivolous lawsuits are anathema to Democrats, which seemed like a straw man; I was unaware Democrats defined themselves as the Party of Frivolous Lawsuits.”

You realize you just addressed a straw man argument that was rebutted with a personal attack with another straw man, right Dr J?

Dr J
Guest
Dr J
7 years 1 month ago

“You realize you just addressed a straw man argument that was rebutted with a personal attack with another straw man, right Dr J?”

No, Lit3, I asked a question. What inviolable Democratic principle is at stake?

Jazz
Guest
7 years 1 month ago

A quick FYI for all the usual suspects. You don’t like the tone of this post and the characterizations? I don’t hear any of you complaining when several frequent authors here post things about Republicans “lying” and “fooling the gullible” on health care and repeating lie after lie after lie, such as the lie that Republicans never put forward any proposals. And they don’t do it politely whatsoever. And you all hold your tongues. So it’s ok to laugh and insult and bash any conservative opinion, but if anyone else does it… Oooooo! You’re SO MEAN!

You’re not going to listen to reason anyway, but this is aimed at those who still may be weighing their options rather than being addicted to rhetoric.

SteveK
Guest
SteveK
7 years 1 month ago

Jazz wrote: “A quick FYI for all the usual suspects. You don’t like the tone of this post and the characterizations?..”

Getting a little Glen Beckian are we Jazz?

Then Jazz wrote: “You’re not going to listen to reason anyway, but this is aimed at those who still may be weighing their options rather than being addicted to rhetoric.”

Change that to a LOT Glen Beckian. Maybe a weeks vacation would do you (and the sponsors) good. :-)

Leonidas
Guest
Leonidas
7 years 1 month ago

Still waiting for you to cite the specific parts of the legislation on the other thread Katty. Let me know when you have.

kathykattenburg
Guest
kathykattenburg
7 years 1 month ago

Silhouette, I do admire your posts on health care reform. I think it’s time to tell you that.

Leonidas
Guest
Leonidas
7 years 1 month ago

Jazz look up HR 6110 A Roadmap for America’s Future also by Ryan

http://www.house.gov/ryan/roadmap/roadmap.htm

The democrats will hate it, why?

Well among other reasons, Ryan is a rising star, young, intelligent charming can handle a hostile media interview like a pro and will likely be a future president. They fear him if not in 2012 in 2016 and 2020.

He is Hope and Change without the Nanny State and with reality not just rhetoric.

intrepid_albatross
Guest
intrepid_albatross
7 years 1 month ago

What kind of doctor goes on strike? sisnt you take an oath to help people Greggers? what a great doctor pfff…

Jazz,

I’m not sure how this republican plan you presented will lower costs of healthcare and insurance? isnt that a major factor? as well as giving every american the right to good health is they so choose?

We are all paying for the uninsured who can’t pay medical bills already… it comes in higher hospital costs and premiums. where are the republicans on that part?

the GOP is obv playing politics and could care less if someone in the next year is denied healthcare they need and dies… every week we do not do something is another week a fellow american does not get better or healthier – or even dies fo no good reason at all… and it is a shame that in the most powerful country in the world we cannot put politics aside to help those in need of something as basic as medical care

Polimom
Guest
7 years 1 month ago

“The issue is one of a moral outlook. Those people with souls believe that human health and wellbeing isn’t a “fiscal issue”. Those people without souls think that it is.”

Wow. How do you get up and down stairs, Sil, without tripping over the hem of your habit? And doesn’t the light from your halo make it hard to sleep at night?

T-Steel
Guest
7 years 1 month ago

KathyKattenburg says: “The only thing I want to point out here is that you are asking and expecting Democrats to do *exactly* the thing you deplore Democrats asking Republicans to do: betraying our core principles.”

That is a fair point and here lies the problem: no one really wants to compromise on their core principals. There are core principals that I admire from Republicans and Democrats. But will either side REALLY want to compromise to make a truly bipartisan bill? I understand that whoever wins and has the majorities has the ball BUT in an issue so far reaching as health care, shouldn’t this be an All-American effort? Liberals and conservatives. Democrats and Republicans. Saabs and F-150s!

Lit3Bolt
Guest
Lit3Bolt
7 years 1 month ago

Jazz,

I’m more than willing to admit my liberal bias. My problem with you is that you don’t admit your deep Republican bias and try to pass it off as “moderate” when it is anything but. Also, allow me to laugh at you for this gem:

“lie that Republicans never put forward any proposals”

You just admitted yourself in this post that you were unaware of any Republican proposal because of a lack of media coverage until you dug and dusted off H.R. 2520, The Patient’s Choice Act. If this is such a smashing piece of legislation, how come Republicans’ are not talking about this instead of death panels or carrying guns to protests? 2 months this bill has languished and I cannot recall any Republicans advocating it or defending it on TV, but naturally it’s the librul media’s fault. I repeat: You admitted that you yourself did not know about this bill until recently. But somehow it’s the liberal commentators fault for spreading this evil evil lie.

So Jazz I would like you a lot more if you just admitted your conservative bias and deep friendship with Cap’n Ed rather than playing the cutesy “Tee hee! All Democrats are evil partisans but I’m a sweet and reasonable moderate” game.

Cindy Whitehair
Guest
Cindy Whitehair
7 years 1 month ago

Lit – as someone who has sat and debated issues with Jazz for well over a year now, I can assure you that he is more moderate than a vast majority of the commenters in this thread. Jazz would get kick out of the “conservative club” because of his stands on all of the social issues (not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan – have you forgotten about the war?)

Just because you disagree with him on this does not make him a “conservative” by any stretch of the imagination….

LL

intrepid_albatross
Guest
intrepid_albatross
7 years 1 month ago

also Jazz,

I see you comment on other websites on other’s articles.. mostly conservative sites. you don’t know your ass from your elbow… you have no clue about the constitution, get you talking points about health care from other right wing nut jobs, and the way you use childish language only furthers most of your reader’s beliefs that you should prob go find a real job… b/c your a horrible writer and you just feed hate to the internet…

in the words of Barney Frank:
“But it is also clear that left entirely untouched by public policy, the capitalist system will produce more inequality than is socially healthy or than is necessary for maximum efficiency.”

Leonidas
Guest
Leonidas
7 years 1 month ago

Lit3Bolt.

I think of Jazz as a moderate Republican or maybe a moderate Libertarian, just like I think of Joe Gandleman as a moderate Democrat. Compared to someone like Katty or Michelle Malkin thats an easy position to justify. Do you ask Joe to justify that he is a left leaning moderate? Do you ask Katty to admit she is a flaming left-winger?

And BTW what does Jazz’s friendship with Ed have to do with anything? Do you refuse to be friends with anyone right of center?

Jazz
Guest
7 years 1 month ago

I think of Jazz as a moderate Republican or maybe a moderate Libertarian

I was a registered Republican until 2005 when I left the party and I’m now a registered independent. The party was too full of people I disagreed with fundamentally on core principles for foreign policy and social issues. I didn’t join the Democrats because they are as bad, if not worse, in the other direction. Obviously many of our commenters don’t know or care about that, since they think I’m a “hard core Republican” and never read the rest of the things I’ve published over the years. Doesn’t bother me. I define me. You don’t.

Lit3Bolt
Guest
Lit3Bolt
7 years 1 month ago

“I define me. You don’t.”

More of that great Jazz exceptionalism. I wish I could avoid responsibility for anything I post by lazily pointing a finger in the direction of my body of work.

Lit3Bolt
Guest
Lit3Bolt
7 years 1 month ago

*sigh* I know he is. But seriously, Leonidas, crap like

“That last one is apparently a real deal breaker for most Democrats, who rely on a group mentality where everyone will eventually slip and fall on the sidewalk of a rich person and hit the lottery.”

is NOT an argument from reason for tort reform (which I support, btw, astonishing, ne?) This article deserves some pushback because it was espeicially snarky. Kathy gets no more or less from the conservatives on this site. And if Jazz is going to play “B-b-but Dems do it too!” game, then he deserves to be mocked for it. When he tosses rhetorical bombs he shouldn’t be surprised when he gets them in return and attempt the “moderate argument from authority.” If he’s so tired of the Itchy and Scratchy BS, then he should put his money where his mouth is and think, or at least apologize after a post like this.

Lit3Bolt
Guest
Lit3Bolt
7 years 1 month ago

Leonidas, Ed used to be good but has veered sharply to the Republican shill side of things ever since he moved his site. You just have to take things he says with a much bigger grain of salt nowadays.

CStanley
Guest
CStanley
7 years 1 month ago

I agree with TSteel about the core principles (and I guess, for once, I’m agreeing with Kathy!)

But what I think is necessary is for people to be able to defend those core principles. Not demonize people who hold to (or start from the perspective of) other core principles. Actually say why you think that your approach is the best way to address a problem, instead of acting as though any reasonable person MUST default to the same core philosophy as you do unless they’re morally bankrupt cretins.

This healthcare is a glaring example of the absence of that kind of defense of principles. After reading dozens of posts (maybe hundreds), from people who are firmly opposed to any plan that doesn’t include public option or single payer, I have yet to hear a single person explain why that’s so all important.

What about it, anyone? Can you explain why you think reform is not possible without adding another government run insurance entity? That should be the starting point to convince doubters who might be persuaded. Step two is to explain what your thoughts are on the cost problems with current govt run entities, and how they should be addressed so that we’re not taking one problem that already exists and doubling down on it.

Polimom
Guest
7 years 1 month ago

“What about it, anyone? Can you explain why you think reform is not possible without adding another government run insurance entity? That should be the starting point to convince doubters who might be persuaded.”

I have even opened an entire thread with a different post, inviting exactly this.

Leonidas
Guest
Leonidas
7 years 1 month ago

Inrepid, oh thats rich

You cite Barney Frank and condemn someone of partisanship?

ROTFLMAO

Leonidas
Guest
Leonidas
7 years 1 month ago

Oh BTW I think T-Steel’s post is good, and Katty does have the right to assert that liberals are no more willing to give up their core values than are conservatives. I have no problem with that, even if I disagree with those core principles I respect their right to hold them.

The decision will come down to this though, will core values be sacrificed enough to get any reform passed? The Conservatives don’t have the votes, the liberals don’t have the votes. If anything gets passed it will have to be moderate, otherwise we will have to wait until more of the left wing of the democratic party and more of the right-wing of the Republican party get kicked out of office. Neither of the wings seem able to effectively govern the nation.

GreenDreams
Guest
7 years 1 month ago

“You’re not going to listen to reason anyway, but this is aimed at those who still may be weighing their options rather than being addicted to rhetoric.”

Pretty arrogant, Jazz. I don’t know why the insurance giants are such sacred cows to you guys, or why you dismiss the reasonable arguments of those who disagree with you. So I’ll take your arrogant tack.

Jazz, you’re not going to listen to reason anyway, but for those who still think for themselves:

The insurance industry gets huge taxpayer largess from this bill. Everyone gets covered only through private insurance. Awesome. For the insurance industry. Even the “State Exchanges” have to buy private plans. We all become guaranteed customers in a mandatory sales scheme that would make Scrooge blush. By law, we would all become their customers unless we’re too poor (in which case they still get the customer, compliments of Uncle Sam). If that happens, I will certainly invest in insurance companies. Their profit already went up 500% under Bush, while our rates have doubled. Of course, when they double again, within 10 years, many more Americans will be “truly unable” to afford private plans, and will need public payment. Median income, $45,000. Insuring the family, $12,500 now, $25,000 in 9 years (current doubling rate).

Next, the pathetic, tired and discredited meme about “tort reform”. Several states have already capped damages. In every case, malpractice insurance rates in those states went UP, not down. So, ZERO savings. Incidentally, the cost of all malpractice, both the insurance and the payouts, is < 2% of health care cost. In most cases, there was actual malpractice and people were harmed or killed by it. Now the "personal responsibility" issue gets real cloudy. You want consumers to be held responsible but not doctors. If a surgeon shows up drunk, or amputates the wrong leg, or through error or incompetence, kills your wife, you want the WRONGDOER to be protected? Really? Let's pretend that half of the settlements are excessive (which I doubt). So maybe you have a 1% savings there. But apparently not, because even with damages caps, the insurance companies have no intention of EVER lowering rates.

It's all about OUTCOMES. The outcome of tort reform should be to lower costs, but it doesn't. So I reject it. The outcome of single payer systems is better health performance in nearly every category at lower cost. On what basis do you reject it?

Now let's talk outcomes for the "preventative" (preventive) health care strategies. You want to create a new bureaucracy to lecture us about living healthier lives? Name me a single area of public education in this regard that is not ALREADY being done. Seen enough anti-smoking messages? Never heard of the massive 5 servings (fruits and vegetables) a day effort from USDA? What about all those ads about walking farther from your car to the shopette, or playing outside with your kids? Jazz, I think you're dreaming to think that people will change their dietary or lifestyle behavior because of some new government ads.

But on a single payer plan, every person could go get cholesterol, CRP and other tests (e.g. PSA for men, mammograms for women), with no concern for the cost, no co-pay, and no fears that their lab test result will be used to DENY them coverage.

The Ryan bill is a super-sized extravaganza of obscene profit for private insurers, in which I assume you are an investor. It is far, far away from addressing in a serious way, the crisis of health care we currently face.

SteveK
Guest
SteveK
7 years 1 month ago

GreenDreams wrote:

The insurance industry gets huge taxpayer largess from this bill. Everyone gets covered only through private insurance. Awesome. For the insurance industry. Even the “State Exchanges” have to buy private plans. We all become guaranteed customers in a mandatory sales scheme that would make Scrooge blush. By law, we would all become their customers unless we’re too poor (in which case they still get the customer, compliments of Uncle Sam). If that happens, I will certainly invest in insurance companies. Their profit already went up 500% under Bush, while our rates have doubled. Of course, when they double again, within 10 years, many more Americans will be “truly unable” to afford private plans, and will need public payment. Median income, $45,000. Insuring the family, $12,500 now, $25,000 in 9 years (current doubling rate).

Next, the pathetic, tired and discredited meme about “tort reform”. Several states have already capped damages. In every case, malpractice insurance rates in those states went UP, not down. So, ZERO savings. Incidentally, the cost of all malpractice, both the insurance and the payouts, is < 2% of health care cost. In most cases, there was actual malpractice and people were harmed or killed by it. Now the "personal responsibility" issue gets real cloudy. You want consumers to be held responsible but not doctors. If a surgeon shows up drunk, or amputates the wrong leg, or through error or incompetence, kills your wife, you want the WRONGDOER to be protected? Really? Let's pretend that half of the settlements are excessive (which I doubt). So maybe you have a 1% savings there. But apparently not, because even with damages caps, the insurance companies have no intention of EVER lowering rates.

It's all about OUTCOMES. The outcome of tort reform should be to lower costs, but it doesn't. So I reject it. The outcome of single payer systems is better health performance in nearly every category at lower cost. On what basis do you reject it?

Now let's talk outcomes for the "preventative" (preventive) health care strategies. You want to create a new bureaucracy to lecture us about living healthier lives? Name me a single area of public education in this regard that is not ALREADY being done. Seen enough anti-smoking messages? Never heard of the massive 5 servings (fruits and vegetables) a day effort from USDA? What about all those ads about walking farther from your car to the shopette, or playing outside with your kids? Jazz, I think you're dreaming to think that people will change their dietary or lifestyle behavior because of some new government ads.

But on a single payer plan, every person could go get cholesterol, CRP and other tests (e.g. PSA for men, mammograms for women), with no concern for the cost, no co-pay, and no fears that their lab test result will be used to DENY them coverage.

The Ryan bill is a super-sized extravaganza of obscene profit for private insurers, in which I assume you are an investor. It is far, far away from addressing in a serious way, the crisis of health care we currently face.

And I thought it ought to be repeated.

It would be nice if one of the health industry shills here would disprove or argue against anything GreenDreams wrote.

$199537
Guest
$199537
7 years 1 month ago

It would be nice if one of the health industry shills here would disprove or argue against anything GreenDreams wrote.

I would argue that one of the main goals of tort reform is to reduce excessive testing, not just to bring down malpractice rates. Currently doctors practice CYA medicine where tests are ordered on the off-chance there might be a lawsuit later. Tort reform needs to be looked at as more than just reducing the cost of malpractice insurance, and the numbers GreenDreams cites are really a red herring.

Jazz
Guest
7 years 1 month ago

SteveK,
Greendreams’ tired screeds against anything and everything that anyone who isn’t a died in the wool liberal has ever proposed have already been taken to task. Failures in some instances of insufficient tort reform are not a basis to throw the baby out with the bath water. Most of his tirade is nothing more than a poor man’s screed complaining about people who make more money than he does. He doesn’t think there is a place for insurance companies in America. He probably doesn’ think there’s a place for banks who charge interest on loans, either. Everything should be free. That single player plan should be looked at by people in the UK, one of whom we interviewed on our radio show this week. He loves the NHS. Of course, he’s always been poor. I asked him why there were still private hospitals and private insurance companies. He said it was because those were for people who “had more money and wanted better conditions.” That pretty much said it all.

These liberal arguments on health care are driving us toward a cliff. The sad part is that they will likely eventually come true and when their dreams are realized, it will be several years before the country is broke and we all realize how much we’ve all been screwed.

ldenton
Guest
ldenton
7 years 1 month ago

Hmmm . . . don’t most states now require car insurance of some kind? Come to think of it, I don’t know of a state that doesn’t. Have you watched TV in the last few years? Every other commercial is for car insurance. And, what has that done for the rates? You guessed it – brought them down. Why? It’s called capitalism and the free market. If you can’t handle the free market, may I suggest a few other countries that would love to have you.
Private industry is not allowed to make a profit? Well then, let’s just run out of business any industry that dares to do so. We’ve already done it to the auto industry and the banking industry. Now, you wnat to take over the health insurance industry also. Of course, the oil industry should go – they make way too much money. Let’s see, what else? It seems to me that software and computer companies are also on the “take”. After all, Bill Gates has become a billionare off Microsoft. That shouldn’t be allowed. So, I suggest we take them over, too. Definitely add to the list some of these stupid restaurant chains like McDonald’s. Why in the world should they be allowed to make money from the rest of us when they serve up food that can only add to our health problems? Let’s take them over, too. And don’t forget the tobacco companies. They should just be done away with. And how about the alcohol and beer industries? Should they be allowed to make money when folks are dying in car accidents? Let’s either run them out of business or take over. Hey, I say we shouldn’t allow the grocery companies to make any money either. After all, we have to eat, don’t we? Why should they be allowed to profit off something we have to have. Same goes for the construction industry. It just isn’t fair that there are people who are actually getting rich off the fact that our human condition demands we have shelter. What an outrage! Off with their heads! Off with all their heads! Our government should just take it all over! Obama can handle it all! If he can’t, we always have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid!

intrepid_albatross
Guest
intrepid_albatross
7 years 1 month ago

Joe Gandelman is a Birther Lit3Bolt… that is not a moderate democtrat – sorry.

intrepid_albatross
Guest
intrepid_albatross
7 years 1 month ago

i just dont get how expanding american’s health coverage will hurt people.. if you dont want the gov OPTION – than dont take it and stick with ur current insurance

intrepid_albatross
Guest
intrepid_albatross
7 years 1 month ago

Leonidas,

who did I condemn with partisanship?

Leonidas
Guest
Leonidas
7 years 1 month ago

Lit3Bolt,

“Ed used to be good but has veered sharply to the Republican shill side of things ever since he moved his site. You just have to take things he says with a much bigger grain of salt nowadays.”

Ed hasn’t changed, Ed is still good, he just isn’t being critical of Bush so much with Bush out of office. He is addressing the man in Office, Obama, whose policies have not been very moderate and his approach which has greatly resembled that of his predecessor, just replace WMD with stimulas for example. Both invoked a fear of disaster if immediate action wasn’t taken and resulted in poorly thought out programs.

Ed is still a good guy, he might be at a more Conservative location, but he still freely calls BS on Conservatives when merited.

Wannabe_Centrist
Guest
Wannabe_Centrist
7 years 1 month ago

When the republican bill includes “And stick it to the insurance and pharm industries” i will be 100% for it. Aside from that, my line of thinking is with Sil. Millions of us have seen first hand the stubbornness of big insurance in helping out people who have paid for insurance and are sick to death of it. Health insurance’s number one goal should be to help every person who is suffering that is under there plan, which they are not. Therefore, anyone who is siding with the corporatist standpoint is far from the people’s side…a losing mindset from the very beginning as far as this debate goes. When the GOP can prove to the people that they are MORE on the people’s side than on the corporatist side, THEN liberals and left of center moderates will give them credit. Now that we have confirmation from Ridge about raising threat lvl’s for cheap fear votes and the revelations about a right-wing militia group being the preferred for secret hit squads by the CIA simply to keep its hands clean (GWB and his adminstration have killed the GOP for the next decade, mark my words) can someone who is 100% against Obamacare tell me why any good Christian should listen to ANYTHING the right has to say given our current moment in time???????? Jazz has said he is no longer with the Republicans, and now I no longer believe him when he says such statements, which sucks because as far as the conservative bloggers who post here go, i have the most respect for him.

Leonidas
Guest
Leonidas
7 years 1 month ago

The republican plan includes freedom to buy insurance across state lines. this sticks it to them.

Welcome aboard Wannabe_Centrist.

Leonidas
Guest
Leonidas
7 years 1 month ago

Intripid

“who did I condemn with partisanship?”

Jazz of course, unless you mean something different when you write:

“…get you talking points about health care from other right wing nut jobs”

So if you see Jazz as a “right-wing nut job” you aren’t accusing him of partisanship?

Seems to me your posting like a left-wing nut job.

Wannabe_Centrist
Guest
Wannabe_Centrist
7 years 1 month ago

I’m also going to out on a limb and claiming a new “silent” majority. This group waited patiently for GWB to leave office, refused to give the GOP a second chance, got what they wanted, and now want to give the GOP a second chance but cannot because of the horrible misconduct of the last 8 years and even to this day (death-panals and death threats to Obama’s wife and kids?). There are millions of us in this group and it includes a lot of young voters, including myself. I may not be an expert at HC, but I have always had a good instinct for political moods and GOP continues to dig its hole deeper. I wanted Obama to take a bi-partisian approach for obvious reason but no longer. I remain a wannabe centrist for the time being.

and to PM: At least sil is willing to stick to her principle of people before self-interests, something that seems rare among the right at the moment.

Polimom
Guest
7 years 1 month ago

and to PM: At least sil is willing to stick to her principle of people before self-interests, something that seems rare among the right at the moment.

That’s all fine, Wannabe. What I reacted to was the “anybody who doesn’t want to do this my way is soulless”.

Wannabe_Centrist
Guest
Wannabe_Centrist
7 years 1 month ago

So new private insurance companies can head down the same path as the hated ones of today…no thanks leo, I think I’ll pass on that idea.

Leonidas
Guest
Leonidas
7 years 1 month ago

For some of us on the right its our kids future before ourselves. We don’t want to mortgage their future to pay for our own fiscal irresponsibility.

Leonidas
Guest
Leonidas
7 years 1 month ago

“So new private insurance companies can head down the same path as the hated ones of today”

Nope so they wont be protected from competition by the government and allowed to run up the price tag.like they do now. Getting government out of the equation will slash into their prices and profits.

Increasing spending to meet costs is a losing formula, Healthcare already devours more of our GDP than anything else. Reducing costs and getting more bang for the buck is the only possible solution that doesn’t mortgage our children’s future even more.

Leonidas
Guest
Leonidas
7 years 1 month ago

SteveK, proving Jazz was right.

GreenDreams
Guest
7 years 1 month ago

How feeble, Leonidas. You mean instead of buying Anthem of Colo coverage, I could buy Anthem of CA? Oh boy. That sure sticks it to them. Hey, I want a business in which the government forces everyone to buy my product and guarantees my profitability. Love that free market.

Silhouette
Guest
Silhouette
7 years 1 month ago

Thanks for the compliments Kathy [way up above]. It’s nice to hear once in awhile. Since this has degraded into a “who is conservative, moderate or liberal” debate..

****
Jazz great to see a post that isn’t left of center for a change, I do enjoy the moderate left postings as weoll here, but they have been buried lately in far left threads of late~ says Leonidas
******
What isn’t being grasped is that this isn’t a partisan issue at all. This is an issue of an overwhelming majority being convinced it is a partisan issue. If we were debating only the pure mechanics of the de facto public option already in place, the astronomically expensive ER-option, then we’d have an avalanche majority supporting a cleanup of that option by legitimizing it once and for all.

Instead we’ve been cleverly lead to believe this is a partisan issue. That way the GOP can pick up more numbers from sheer blind obedience than if people opened their eyes and realized THEY’RE ALREADY PAYING WAY TOO MUCH FOR THE PUBLIC OPTION…that the revised public option proposed would save taxpayers [gop faithfuls and dems alike] SCADS of money by its simple enactment. Add to that supplimental funding from taxing of harmful substances with little or no healthful values, add a tiny monthly premium per individual and you’d have yourself the best health care program in the world, hands down…and operating in the black..

[If, like polimom, you want to keep the morality side of the debate out of it]

Yeah, the GOP/MedMob momentum would be dead in the water at that point…

I can hear the drumbeat at the MedMob/GOP spin-centers…”Keep it partisan! Keep it partisan! Above all KEEP IT PARTISAN!!”

Cindy Whitehair
Guest
Cindy Whitehair
7 years 1 month ago

Sil – you are getting the same “keep it partison! Keep it partisan! Above all KEEP IT PARTISAN!!” out of the Democrats too so what’s your point?

LL

GreenDreams
Guest
7 years 1 month ago

“Tort reform needs to be looked at as more than just reducing the cost of malpractice insurance, and the numbers GreenDreams cites are really a red herring.”

Outcomes are never a red herring. You’re welcome to cite examples in which tort reform DID lower costs. As for needless tests, see, I think THAT is a red herring. Doctors and hospitals get paid for doing tests, hence there is a pure profit motive unassociated with malpractice fears. What evidence do you have that they’re covering their asses, which are already covered by malpractice insurance?

$199537
Guest
$199537
7 years 1 month ago

Doctors and hospitals get paid for doing tests, hence there is a pure profit motive unassociated with malpractice fears.

I agree with you on this, and part of health care reform also needs to be reducing the reimbursement gap between cognitive services and procedures. However I think it’s wrong to say that all excessive testing is due to the profit motive and none is due to fear of lawsuits. It seems to me both are reasons for excessive testing, and the existence of one doesn’t cancel out the other.

To my knowledge there are no studies saying tort reform reduces excessive testing, since over-testing is extremely hard to quantify. Maybe the best indirect evidence would be the excessive C-section rates in the US which are currently around 50-60% higher than in Canada and the UK, but even that is not direct evidence.

Leonidas
Guest
Leonidas
7 years 1 month ago

Not only tort reform but getting government out of the business of deciding where the people can buy their insurance from. If the ability to purchase across state lines was opened, people in New Jersey wouldn’t have to pay twice what people in California do for the same coverage. The high cost states would see tremendous reductions and the lower cost states would see reductions in costs as well as competition occurred.

Lit3Bolt
Guest
Lit3Bolt
7 years 1 month ago

@ Leonidas-so what then prevents insurance companies from merger and upping the rates for the entire nation? I’m not convinced cross state insurance is an awesome idea, mostly because like so many other ideas in the Great Healthcaremoot, no one seems to have any firm evidence of what it would actually do.

Ack, I went a little too crazy with the parentheticals, so I removed them. I have DLS disease! lol

Lit3Bolt
Guest
Lit3Bolt
7 years 1 month ago

@ PM – It’s hard not to feel like sil does when everyone has rediscovered their inner fiscal scold during the healthcare debate but were ambivalent about the war, bailouts, etc. It may be just me but it seems that Jazz has argued more passionately for fiscal responsibility during the Great Healthcaremoot than any other issue. I’d love him more if he was as consistently obsessed about finances in trade, war, the bailouts, subsidiaries, etc etc.

Jazz
Guest
7 years 1 month ago

It may be just me but it seems that Jazz has argued more passionately for fiscal responsibility during the Great Healthcaremoot than any other issue. I’d love him more if he was as consistently obsessed about finances in trade, war, the bailouts, subsidiaries, etc etc.

No problem, It is,in fact, just you. Go do a quick search in my author archives here over the years. I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning (and even marched in the streets against it) and also complained about the cost of the war in, yes, money, in addition to the greater cost in blood wasted. I screamed about the Bush administration’s spending ways, as did Ed Morrissey (who has also been maligned in this thread, though the far Right castigated him for it as well.) I oppose NAFTA, opposed the bailouts in TARP and the Porkulous bill. I argued against subsidies for Big Corn for ethanol and other agricultural interests. It’s all right here on TMV. Feeling more love more me now, Lit3Bolt or would you care to dig up some non-existent posts where I’m inconsistent?

Lit3Bolt
Guest
Lit3Bolt
7 years 1 month ago

“No problem, It is,in fact, just you. Go do a quick search in my author archives here over the years. I opposed the Iraq war from the beginning (and even marched in the streets against it) and also complained about the cost of the war in, yes, money, in addition to the greater cost in blood wasted. I screamed about the Bush administration’s spending ways, as did Ed Morrissey (who has also been maligned in this thread, though the far Right castigated him for it as well.) I oppose NAFTA, opposed the bailouts in TARP and the Porkulous bill. I argued against subsidies for Big Corn for ethanol and other agricultural interests.”

Ok, so you finally burnished your cred and came out of the woodwork. Took you long enough. So, Jazz, would you agree that costs not being discussed in regular political discourse is a feature, not a bug? Why are you arguing as if Republicans are acting in good faith and the Democrats are not and secretly want to hang crushing entitlements on the American people? Both parties have committed egregious violations of fiscal trust, which you have finally acknowledged no but refused to do so in your post. The fact that you don’t address these issues at all and just launch rhetorical bombs exclusively at the Democrats makes me suspicious of the purity of your motives. So if you actually ADDED the crushing cost of the Republican (and now Obama’s) wars in the same breath as healthcare, I’d believe you. But you don’t and write a post that would fit in great at Redstate. Your ONLY retort to this is “B-b-but you don’t call out Kathy on her behavior!” which makes you a hypocrite because I don’t see you constantly prowling the messageboards consistently calling out conservative BS.

So no, Jazz, you can’t participate in the healthcare fight and pretend to be above it at the same time. That’s my problem with your attitude.

Secondly, your argument against Greendreams is so blatantly classist I don’t want to dirty myself by addressing it. What, do we come to TMV to drop our incomes? Jesus.

“Of course, he’s always been poor.”

That’s some gooooooood moderation right there! If this is “moderate,” I don’t want to associate with it.

Dr J
Guest
Dr J
7 years 1 month ago

Why are you arguing as if Republicans are acting in good faith and the Democrats are not and secretly want to hang crushing entitlements on the American people?

Can we stick to the facts? We definitely have crushing health care costs, which crush 5% harder every year. The Democrats are in fact proposing to turn those costs into an entitlement. The only exaggeration is that they’re doing it in secret.

As for who’s acting in better faith, that’s a religious argument best avoided by anyone hoping for a productive dialog. The gist of Jazz’s original post was that it sure would be nice if people stopped saying Republicans are opposed to any health care reform and haven’t put forth a plan, because they’re not and they have. Looks pretty accurate to me. Why turn it into another hundred-years-war?

Cindy Whitehair
Guest
Cindy Whitehair
7 years 1 month ago

Lit – then you have not been paying attention to Jazz’s writings in previous years….you know that whole “body of work” thing that you so quickly dismissed….Jazz spent a lot of time excoriating President Bush on his free spending ways ESPECIALLY when it came to the war!

LL

Lit3Bolt
Guest
Lit3Bolt
7 years 1 month ago

@ LL

My problem is this specific post and Jazz’s recent body of work. I realize Jazz is an Elder holy moderate, but he cannot argue in good faith that quotes like:

“Among other reasons, because Titles 4 and 5 also include fiscally responsible proposals which too many Democrats despise.”

“most Democrats, who rely on a group mentality where everyone will eventually slip and fall on the sidewalk of a rich person and hit the lottery.”

“He loves the NHS. Of course, he’s always been poor.”

“when several frequent authors here post things about Republicans “lying” and “fooling the gullible” on health care and repeating lie after lie after lie, such as the lie that Republicans never put forward any proposals.”

are made from a stance of moderation and decency. There is only blatant hypocrisy and an argument from authority, because since Jazz can claim he’s a moderate and above all this petty partisan bickering which he dives into with glee and jumps out untouched by the mud he’s wallowed in. Anyone who disagrees with him on this issue is a filthy partisan, especially when we point out that he is carrying water for the Republican party, big time. So what, the Iraq War never happened? Bailouts? Medicare Drug Plan? The Republican party was for all these things, is STILL for all these thigns, and now Jazz is credulous enough to advocate a Republican healthcare plan over the Democratic one?

Jazz can flaunt his blogger cred all he likes (and he deserves to), but to paint the Democrats as flithy tax and spenders while holding up the Republican minority as a model of fiscal restraint and ingenuity is dishonest. And that is what Jazz has recently been doing. Being a “moderate” is no excuse, and not a get out of jail free card for Jazz to polish snark on the Democratic party but then clutch at pearls and sniff smelling salts when he gets the same treatment. I’ll repeat myself: If he is tired of the Itchy and Scratchy BS, he should act like it and not participate in it. If he’s tired of Democratic lies, he shouldn’t repeat Republican lies.

GreenDreams
Guest
7 years 1 month ago

Leonidas, I would suggest that instead of New Jersey seeing “tremendous reductions”, CA would see tremendous increases. Apart from “medical loss” (paying claims), insurance company profit and overhead “are not expected to vary by more than a percent or two” according to the insurance industry itself. Perhaps “medical loss” is higher in NJ than CA. But the industry won’t compromise its profit to compete with itself. It will simply increase rates in CA to cover the costlier NJ customers.

Let me return to what I think is the central problem with insurance-company mediated health care.

Insurance companies will NEVER care as much about your health as their profit. The more they deny and refuse, the higher their profit. So does that refusal to pay yield reduced costs? Never.

EEllis
Guest
EEllis
7 years 1 month ago

Lets face facts, most doctors don’t even know the cost of the tests they do. Who cares because insurance pays them. Even if they are doing extra tests for the money it’s still the same thing, who cares insurance pays them. Insurance has done more to jack up prices than anythng else.

CStanley
Guest
CStanley
7 years 1 month ago

Insurance companies will NEVER care as much about your health as their profit. The more they deny and refuse, the higher their profit. So does that refusal to pay yield reduced costs? Never.

This is true in virtually every industry though and it’s only a problem with regard to healthcare because we don’t really have the option of choosing another provider if our current one screws us over.

My grocery store could refuse to sell fresh food, or refuse to sell bread for less than $50 a loaf- but since they know I can go to another store, they know they can’t get away with that. The gas station on the corner could dilute their gasoline with water, but again, they know they wouldn’t have customers any longer if they did so.

I really don’t expect the Publix manager or the gas station owner to ‘care’ about my needs in an emotional sense- he/she only needs to care that my needs will affect his/her store’s profitability.

Polimom
Guest
7 years 1 month ago

And CStanley brings the argument full circle to “the public option”.

Or not.

Actually, I’m very curious about something. Given the hue and cry, and the widely held belief that insurance companies are fleecing the consumers for the sake of very high profits, wouldn’t you think some kind of competition would have shown up by now, even within the system we have?

I mean… if the dollars are that big, why hasn’t a company shown up that will take only 5% (like grocery stores, for instance)? It’s not as if that still wouldn’t be a LOT of money…

TheMagicalSkyFather
Guest
TheMagicalSkyFather
7 years 1 month ago

Why didn’t more people start car companies to compete against the big three? The reason is that their are little sweet regulations that the industry had a hand in writing that allows them to cut out anyone large that is not in on the game, and then anyone small can be crushed with rising prices that your larger customer base can more afford once distributed. This is the way our capitalist system works. Small businesses are wonderful I agree but fewer and fewer of them exist that really matter because the mega corps get their ways and they continue the dance for their stock holders of ever rising returns but that is not sustainable for the nation because those profits come from us in the guise of higher prices and ever more paperwork and legalize.

Dr J
Guest
Dr J
7 years 1 month ago

“Why didn’t more people start car companies to compete against the big three?”

They did. Tesla’s in the news these days, but Toyota and Honda used to be small car companies that were not only able to compete, but to eat Detroit’s lunch. In fact most of the companies you might deride as mega corps got that way after knocking the previous champ off its perch. Of course small companies exist, and of course they matter.

APR
Guest
APR
7 years 1 month ago

I’m not so sure that simply opening up the state lines to nationwide insurance competition will do the trick of pushing down the costs of the healthcare system. Sure it will increase competition in the insurance market but it doesn’t do anything to restrain the cost of health care procedures, which are also increasing rapidly. If the costs of actual treatment aren’t dealt with, it won’t matter how many insurance options there are, premiums will still be high. Also, a majority of Americans dont directly participate in the insurance market, they get it through their employer.

Still I think it’s probably a good idea. It just isn’t a magical solution any more than a public insurance plan is.

CStanley
Guest
CStanley
7 years 1 month ago

PM- in another thread, I pointed out that lower cost plans ARE showing up, in states that allow them. Some states have mandates though that all insurance products have to cover everything, including some services that a lot of people will never use or would be perfectly happy paying out of pocket for instead of buying a jacked up insurance plan.

CStanley
Guest
CStanley
7 years 1 month ago

APR- the thing is though that there’s no real market pressure on the procedures right now because the insurance companies negotiate price but they’ll still pay probably more than anyone would if they had to pay it from their checking account.

Jazz
Guest
7 years 1 month ago

What a great comment thread. I took some more time to go out and finish some badly needed edge trimming around the yard and then came in to read the rest of the invective. And the funny part is, I’m not bothered by the arguments, or feeling driven to further argument. It’s actually kind of endearing. I don’t ascribe any false, evil motives to the people who so fervently argue against the items I’m pointing out. In fact, I’m almost envious. I do get that it’s a strongly held belief in an ideal. You honestly do believe that, even after all this time, that if we just try hard enough, if we elect the right people and write up the correct pieces of paper, that everything is going to be ok. If we just, finally get it right, government will provide the answers to all of our problems and he bad parts of the world will simply go away. It’s almost like those hobbits in the Lord of the Rings. If we can just win this one more fight then the good king will marry the elf queen and a thousand years of peace, prosperity and love will settle over the world.

Unfortunately, it’s the government. It’s composed of people with all the same flaws as all the rest of the people. And it’s not going to happen. And every time you hand over more power and control to them you are setting yourself up to be screwed by those you keep surrendering control to.

Good luck with that,though. Let me know how the rainbows taste.

Lit3Bolt
Guest
Lit3Bolt
7 years 1 month ago

“Good luck with that,though. Let me know how the rainbows taste.”

Ok, this is the argument from cynicism aka “realism”. Then why do you even post Jazz? What about YOUR Republican rainbows? Didn’t you trot out a 3 month old piece of legislation that no one has heard about, discussed, and doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of passing just to “get even” with all the people who have asked to see the Republican plan for healthcare? Don’t you toss rhetorical bombs and lies as well? Will you deny that? And let’s see, here, what’s this:

“I don’t ascribe any false, evil motives to the people who so fervently argue against the items I’m pointing out.”

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA. This is too easy, Jazz! Make me work a little!

Also there’s this:

“And every time you hand over more power and control to them you are setting yourself up to be screwed by those you keep surrendering control to.”

So you trust corporate bureaucrats more than government bureaucrats. Fair enough I suppose.

In any case, I bow to your superior moderate wisdom, in all things.

kathykattenburg
Guest
kathykattenburg
7 years 1 month ago

Still waiting for you to cite the specific parts of the legislation on the other thread Katty. Let me know when you have.

Here you are, Leonidas.

By the way, my name is Kathy, not Katty.

Provides a refundable tax credit – $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families – to
purchase coverage in any State, and keep it with them if they move or change jobs.
[…]
Modernizes Medicaid and strengthens the health care safety net by reforming high-risk
pools, giving States maximum flexibility to tailor Medicaid programs to the specific
needs of their populations. Allows Medicaid recipients to take part in the same variety of
options and high-quality care available to everyone through the tax credit option.
[…]
For those currently under 55 – as they become Medicare-eligible – creates a Medicare
payment of up to $9,500. This payment is adjusted for inflation and based on income,
with low-income individuals receiving greater support. It is also risk-adjusted, so those
with greater medical needs receive a higher payment.
[…]
Offers workers under 55 the option of investing over one third of their current Social
Security taxes into personal retirement accounts, similar to the Thrift Savings Plan
available to Federal employees.
[…]
Simplified tax rates are 10% on income up to $100,000 for joint filers, and $50,000 for
single filers; and 25% on taxable income above these amounts. Also includes a generous
standard deduction and personal exemption (totaling $39,000 for a family of four).

kathykattenburg
Guest
kathykattenburg
7 years 1 month ago

That is a fair point and here lies the problem: no one really wants to compromise on their core principals. There are core principals that I admire from Republicans and Democrats. But will either side REALLY want to compromise to make a truly bipartisan bill?

Thank you for acknowledging my point, T. I appreciate that.

As for whether either side will really compromise, I would argue that Democrats made a huge compromise at the very start of this process by taking single-payer off the table before any discussion even got started. Republicans and other conservatives who insist that the public option has to go, and who berate Democrats for not being willing to jettison it, fail to appreciate that the public option, for Democrats, IS the compromise.

Now, having said that, we all know that the White House and some Democratic leaders have been indicating their willingness even to get rid of *that.* And having offered to give up everything that makes health care reform a reflection of Democratic core principles, the Republican leadership has actually — amazingly, astoundingly — said straight out that they will oppose the bill anyway!

I totally agree with you, T., that compromise and bipartisanship is important. But Democrats have shown their willingness to do that, even beyond what’s reasonable, and Republicans have refused.

Leonidas
Guest
Leonidas
7 years 1 month ago

GreenDreams

” Leonidas, I would suggest that instead of New Jersey seeing “tremendous reductions”, CA would see tremendous increases.”

I don’t think you understand market forces very well at all, LOL. So tell me, why haven’t generic drug makers raised their prices to match name brands? If there is a profit to be made by keeping prices low, someone will take that market segment. Pretty much always has been (except during the great monopolies of the Robber baron days) and always will be.

As an example of another area this concept could be applied, the Post Office. The post office can send mail for non profits charging 11.2-17.2 cents for a regualr envelope, they charge 44 cents to the general public. They have a legally mandated monopoly on this business. Don’t you think someone could find a way to make money charging more than 17.2 cents but less than 44 cents?

casualobserver
Guest
casualobserver
7 years 1 month ago

The only way public option is a true compromise is to take it out of the budget and make it support itself outside of tax revenues paid by non-subscribers. What do I get out of a “compromise” that requires me to fund both the before-compromise and after-compromise construction? Where’s the option for me to be totally uninvolved?

Leonidas
Guest
Leonidas
7 years 1 month ago

Polimom

“Actually, I’m very curious about something. Given the hue and cry, and the widely held belief that insurance companies are fleecing the consumers for the sake of very high profits, wouldn’t you think some kind of competition would have shown up by now, even within the system we have?

I mean… if the dollars are that big, why hasn’t a company shown up that will take only 5% (like grocery stores, for instance)? It’s not as if that still wouldn’t be a LOT of money…”

Yes you would, where is the George Soros insurance company???

Thing is, Insurance companies do no provide healthcare. That is a critical fact that gets ignored in the effort to demonize them, what they do is risk management. If you want to bring down the costs of risk management outside of increased insurance competition, you have to reduce the risk, in this case the cost of healthcare. Whats driving those costs? malpractice insurance that doctors pay, the cost of pharmaceuticals, research, doctors fees, expensive tests, non transparency of health provider costs. These have to be addressed if we want real solutions.

Leonidas
Guest
Leonidas
7 years 1 month ago

Dr.J,

“The only exaggeration is that they’re doing it in secret.”

not so fast check the Obamameter

To achieve health care reform, “I’m going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We’ll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies — they’ll get a seat at the table, they just won’t be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.”

Sources: Town hall meeting on Aug. 21, 2008, in Chester, Va.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/517/health-care-reform-public-sessions-C-SPAN/

Obama promised — repeatedly — an end to closed-door negotiations and complete openness for the health care talks. But he hasn’t delivered. Instead of open talks of C-SPAN, we’ve gotten more of the same — talks behind closed doors at the White House and Congress. We might revisit this promise if there’s a dramatic change, but we see nothing to indicate anything has changed. We rate this Promise Broken.

wpDiscuz