Reading in the Rageosphere (ie, the nutty wing of the Paranoia Party), I have read some stuff about the Health Care Package that is being worked on. Things like...
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is prepared to jail any American who does not buy a qualifying health insurance plan if the healthcare bill she sponsored (H.R. 3962, as amended) is passed into law.
On November 6, Congressman Dave Camp (R-Mich.), the senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, released a letter he received from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) in response to his inquiry as to potential penalties for failing to comply with mandates set forth in the so-called “Affordable Health Care for America Act.”
The information set out in the response should be shocking, but such unconstitutional abuses of power are becoming de rigueur and have almost lost their ability to stupefy. Still, the details are sinister. As the old saying goes, the devil is definitely in them.
In a letter dated November 5, the Joint Committee on Taxation informed Congressman Camp that there is a broad range of civil and criminal penalties applicable to any American who fails to purchase a health insurance policy that passes legislative muster, or as euphemistically styled in the bill itself: “acceptable health insurance coverage.”
As reported by the Congressional Budget Office, the lowest annual cost of an approved family non-group policy would be approximately $15,000. That is to say, currently written in the bill under consideration, if a family’s health insurance plan doesn’t cost at least $15,000 a year, then you are breaking the law and will be held accountable.
Naturally, I assume that they may well not have their details correct. On the other hand, our government IS a fallible entity (being human and all) and a plan to enforce compliance may well be part of the plan. I would find that hard to believe, at least as how it's being described.
I'm not learned enough on this health care package. Can anyone out there provide some actual intel on the topic? While of course believing in the notion that adequate health care is a vital part of society, I am not one who has been convinced that the current plan is a good one. My main argument in favor of it is all the demonization it has received by the Wacky Wing of the Palin Party.
However, the fact that Palin et al are opposed to it is not, in my mind, adequate reason to support it. Anyone care to make their case to me - one way or the other - in small words so I can understand?
102 comments:
BTW, another favorite wingnut lie is also exposed as mere crazy paranoia here:
"(1) REQUIREMENT- No individual shall be an eligible individual under this section unless the individual is a citizen or national of the United States or is lawfully present in a State in the United States"
So no, this will not pay for insurance for illegal immigrants.
Thanks for the info, Alan. May I ask a few other questions?
What of the self-employed person who does not wish to participate? Is that an option?
You note a religious exemption: Does that mean who for reasons of faith, do not wish to take part (and who are not getting insurance from elsewhere), that is okay? For instance, the Amish, I could imagine, may not wish to take part in this. So, the Amish farmer (being self-employed and without insurance from some other source) can opt out if it's against his or her personal beliefs?
What of the unemployed person or a poor individual making, say, under $10,000/year? I suppose they're not having to pay for the privilege of taking part?
As far as I know there is a mandate for all people to participate, as with the Massachusetts program that Romney helped create.
The reason for this mandate is that insurance companies claim that the only way they can afford to cover preexisting conditions is if more people buy insurance. And, if there wasn't a mandate and a person didn't have insurance, then goes to the ER and discovers some terrible disease, then they can go out the next day and buy insurance which would cover that preexisting condition, but they've never paid premiums before, which would likely bankrupt insurance companies.
Yeah, the religious exemption if for folks like the Christian Scientists who don't use traditional medicine, etc.
As for those who can't afford health care, their supposed to be able to get covered under this plan at reduced rates through the health care co-ops (or whatever they're calling them now) or through government subsidized insurance.
Again, most of this is phased in over 5 years or so, so that (hopefully) there will be time to work out the kinks.
ugh...typos galore! But you get the idea. :)
Thanks for the info. For what it's worth, I'm wary of mandates and that might be one area of concern for me.
I mean, I get the point and understand, for instance, that drivers are mandated to get insurance to pay for the other guy if they get into a wreck.
I'm just wary of gov't mandates...
There is absolutely nothing in there about jail time at all. At. All.
Because if you decide not to get insurance, and decide not to pay the fine, I'm sure the government will be very understanding and not throw you in jail for non-compliance.
True, jail is not a first resort in the bill, but it is, as it is for everything mandated by the government, it is a second resort. Your "I suppose" rejoinder seems to be trying to minimize a point on which those you disagree with are, in fact, right.
Dan, that wariness of government mandates is a healthy wariness.
Yes Doug, if one fails to pay their taxes, they are probably subject to jail time, as I stated above, should you choose to, you know, actually read my comment.
But there's nothing new about that. "Man jailed for refusing to pay taxes, and dog bites man, next on the Nightly News."
Dan, I agree that mandates aren't perfect, but it's a cost benefit analysis. What's worse, mandates, or requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions? You can't have one without the other.
Alan, I was just noting the forcefulness of your assertion that the bill says nothing about jail time. At. All. But then your admission that it can still happen completely knocks the legs out from under it. So while your initial statement may be true, the practical effect is the same as if specific prison sentences were there.
Kinda' makes your comment about "the wingnuts" simply spouting their "usual lies" sound rather silly, which is my main point.
And yes, I did read your full comment, as I referred to your "I suppose" paragraph. You did read my full comment, right?
The section describing the fine is on p.167 of the bill.
I think that 'tax' is not a good word choice for this provision. Since it's intended to punish (and therefore deter) a particular activity, it's a fine. And if you don't pay it, you can go to jail.
It would not be dissimilar from a mafia organization insisting that a local business purchase 'insurance', and then punishing that business for failing to comply.
Americans don't have the ability to opt-out of this program (just as the business owner doesn't with the mafia). They can't say "I don't want your insurance or anyone else's." This strikes me as impugning the free choice of the individual.
"Americans don't have the ability to opt-out of this program (just as the business owner doesn't with the mafia). They can't say "I don't want your insurance or anyone else's." This strikes me as impugning the free choice of the individual."
We also don't have a choice not to buy auto insurance.
So?
and it makes sense to me in the case of auto insurance - there would be an unfair impingement upon someone else's liberty if you couldn't pay for your driving.
But is there a corresponding reason for requiring health care that is equally good? So far, the compelling case I have heard from you, Alan, is...
"insurance companies claim that the only way they can afford to cover preexisting conditions is if more people buy insurance. And, if there wasn't a mandate and a person didn't have insurance, then goes to the ER and discovers some terrible disease, then they can go out the next day and buy insurance which would cover that preexisting condition, but they've never paid premiums before, which would likely bankrupt insurance companies."
And that's just harder for me to wrap my mind around.
So, let's say I don't get insurance. I save all sorts of money. But then I feel sick one day, go to the ER and find out I have cancer. I then go home that day, log onto the internet, buy health insurance that day, and expect them to cover my expenses, and they have to cover them because the law states they have to cover pre-existing conditions.
Now what happens if everyone does that?
There are certainly enough horror stories out there about people unable to get coverage because of pre-existing conditions, and most of those stories are from people who *paid for insurance* before they got sick, but then for one reason or another had to get new insurance (eg. new job, etc.)
I think it's pretty clear that banning the practice of refusing to cover people for pre-existing conditions is important. If that's the case, then how can you make that work? Seems to me the only way to cover those folks in a reasonable way is to require them to have started paying before their condition was diagnosed. Otherwise no one would ever pay for insurance until they got sick. Insurance only works if most of the people who pay for it aren't sick.
Also, assuming everyone has insurance, they can get better preventative care instead of going to the ER only when they're terribly sick, thus reducing everyone's overall costs. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Alan, the prerequisite for the requirement to buy car insurance is that you first must own a car.
The prerequisite for the requirement to buy health insurance is ... living.
I see a material difference.
Unless I'm mistaken, Doug, the requirements are to be living and to be able to afford it and it must not be against your religious beliefs, and you must not be currently covered by your workplace insurance, so there are some outs, right?
And for some pretty large portion of the adult population of the United States owning a car is a necessity to get to get anywhere.
I do not see a material difference, except that living seems a heck of a lot more important than owning a car, so if we require insurance for something that you believe is optional, like owning a car, then it seems even more reasonable to require insurance for keeping people healthy.
Not exactly the analogy I would have chosen if I were going to try to make your point, Doug, since it makes my point even stronger.
Dan,
the requirements are to be living and to be able to afford it and it must not be against your religious beliefs, and you must not be currently covered by your workplace insurance
A few outs, perhaps, but not many, and that last one isn't really an out, since choosing not to be covered by your employer, which you can do, means you do have to have a government one, so you can't choose not to have any.
So the requirements are that you are alive, and have money that the government can force you to spend, with a religious fig leaf.
Alan, whether or not something is a necessity or not, it's still a choice. Just ask the greenies who keep trying to get people to choose cycling or public transportation. It's much more a choice.
And it's the choice that's my issue here. As important as living is, when the government mandates that you spend your money because of the very fact that you're living, it is an awfully slippery slope. Food is, arguably, more important than health care for living. Next, the government can require you to buy certain food types to stay healthy. And this would lay the foundation since they're paying the insurance.
Whoever pays has the power. When the government start mandating what you buy, that's only the beginning. As I said, wariness of government mandates is healthy.
I agree with Alan. I don't have a problem requiring everyone to purchase health insurance since everyone and their dog uses it anyway.
You drive the roads. You go to the doctor or ER. What's the difference?
Say you don't have health insurance, you get sick, go to the ER, get care...expensive care...then leave your bill unpaid whether you have the money to pay or not. It happens. Everyday. Someone has to pick up the tab. Requiring everyone to buy into a plan is the best way to keep from passing on the cost of those unpaid bills to those of us who have health insurance. Seems to me.
Oh, we'll pick up those bills. Where do you think the money to subsidize the public option will come from? Not much changing there.
I'd urge Christians reading this to check out this episode from Crown Financial Ministries "MoneyLife" program. When government becomes the main provider, find out what gets lost, culturally and religiously. You want government mandates? How about this? In Sweden, you get called for when it's time to make a dentist appointment, and if you don't you get fined. They can do that since they're paying the bills. How much freedom and choice are you willing to give up to the government? How much control over every aspect of your life?
Oh, and by "free" I mean via a minimum tax rate of 30%. And listen to how this pastor's wife in Sweden is viewed when she decides to be a stay-at-home mom to her kids. She's an outcast, someone who supposedly wants to tear down society. Why? Take a listen. And then decide what you don't have a problem with.
I'll check it out further, Doug, but I will let you know right off the top of the bat that it is exactly these sorts of programs that win me for the OTHER side.
When one group pits the other group as hopelessly lost, thankless, "descended from a lower form...," etc, etc - ie, demonizes the Other, they've lost the debate based on poor reasoning and ugly posturing before they have even begun.
If you want to win me for your side, you have to present an argument based on facts, not demonizations and twisted views about the Other Side.
Alan wrote:
So, let's say I don't get insurance. I save all sorts of money. But then I feel sick one day, go to the ER and find out I have cancer. I then go home that day, log onto the internet, buy health insurance that day, and expect them to cover my expenses, and they have to cover them because the law states they have to cover pre-existing conditions.
Now what happens if everyone does that?
In this scenario, the problem is not the absence of a law requiring insurance, but the presence of a law requiring that insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions.
Also, assuming everyone has insurance, they can get better preventative care instead of going to the ER only when they're terribly sick, thus reducing everyone's overall costs. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Again, the problem is a law requiring that hospitals care for non-paying customers.
There's a trend here: government interference causing problems. The proposed solution? More government interference.
I guess one problem, John, is that I think probably most of us don't want indigents dying on our streets, we don't want poor children to suffer, we don't want the poor in general to just go out in the woods and die.
If we allow hospitals to turn away the poor, will this not happen?
I'm not convinced one way or the other about the current Health care reform, but I am convinced that we - and I - don't want to be a society that just allows the poor to die (or lose limbs, or hack up blood, or suffer miscarriages, etc, etc) if they can't pay for needed treatment.
Are you suggesting this is what we as a society ought to do?
Dan,
Three things all of us need to think about:
1. On one hand we have laws that say that hospitals and emergency rooms must treat everyone regardless of financial ability. Now, that may all be nice and heartwarming but the reality is someone has to pay for this kindness.
2. In rural areas healthcare is hard to find. Why? Because people have no insurance and pay cash thus they make less visits. So, we end up with a real disparity in the availability of healthcare.
3. Right now the government pays for almost half of the medical bills in this country. Then the vast majority of everyone else gets their healthcare via their employer. What happens when you lose your job? You not only lose your source of income but you are also stuck paying COBRA rates for insurance which are 102% of actual premiums.
Your employer gets two tax breaks for providing employees with insurance, one for the expense of the premiums and two, since most insurance deductions are on a pretax basis on the FICA and Medicare taxes that they pay on an employees behalf.
People who buy their own insurance only get a deduction IF the premuims and their medical bills total more than 7.5% of their gross income...
Basically this healthcare reform is just horsetrading...the insurance companies give in on pre existing conditions and lifetime maximums and the government will mandate that everyone has to buy insurance.
Just wanted to make a connection here. Dan asked:
If we allow hospitals to turn away the poor, will this not happen?
TAO notes:
On one hand we have laws that say that hospitals and emergency rooms must treat everyone regardless of financial ability.
So Dan, we are currently not a society that turns away the poor, and John, I believe, was not suggesting that we should be. Your question was a non sequitur. With or without passage of HCR, the poor will still have access to health care.
Now you can debate the quality of care and such, but to ask someone, "Are you suggesting this is what we as a society ought to do?", as in turn away the poor from hospitals, is rather unfair.
"Oh, we'll pick up those bills. Where do you think the money to subsidize the public option will come from?"
I'll pay my part. Happily.
Doug said...
So Dan, we are currently not a society that turns away the poor, and John, I believe, was not suggesting that we should be...
...but to ask someone, "Are you suggesting this is what we as a society ought to do?", as in turn away the poor from hospitals, is rather unfair.
For the record, John is someone I consider to be a friend and I was not suggesting one way or the other, I was asking to get his opinion. I happen to know that John is fairly libertarian on such matters and I thought it may be possible that this was his position, but didn't know. So, I asked. I don't think John would take that in any way other than as a clarifying question. Fair enough?
Thanks for the additional thought, all. Thanks, TAO for the input. I'm still digesting.
Can anyone tell me:
1. What is the final bill for the latest version of the health care package? and,
2. Are we already paying this amount in various ways, anyway - and this is just a way of taking that investment we're already spending and using it more efficiently, ideally? Yes, no?
Alan,
I'll pay my part. Happily.
My point was that Marty seemed to think that health care reform would not pass these costs on. He said, "Requiring everyone to buy into a plan is the best way to keep from passing on the cost of those unpaid bills to those of us who have health insurance." We are paying them now and, as I was trying to point out to Marty, we'll also pay them later. HCR will not keep us from anything.
That you are, and will be, happy to pay this is a non sequitur.
Dan,
So, I asked. I don't think John would take that in any way other than as a clarifying question. Fair enough?
I am indeed ignorant of how you two view each other, so from that perspective, yes, fair enough.
Regarding cost, I don't know the full cost of all this, but the CBO just came out this morning and said that, regarding the "deficit neutral" claim of the Obama administration, savings from Medicare waste and fraud will not be enough to pay for all of this. It'll come in at least $300 billion short.
And to hope that maybe HCR is just "taking that investment we're already spending and using it more efficiently" seems to me to be contrary to the "efficiency" of most government programs that have ever existed. I mean, allegedly there's enough fraud and waste in Medicare itself to pay for HCR. We're banking on dealing with the rampant inefficiency in one government program to pay for another. Hoping that this time human nature will be curbed seems way too optimistic.
And Medicare is costing an order of magnitude more than it was ever predicted to cost. So when you hear them say that it'll cost $1 trillion over 10 years, please understand that that's either a blue-sky baseline (at best) or low-balling to sell it to an unsuspecting public (at worst).
My big question would be, if health care reform fails to pass, will the administration still pass a bill to at least deal with the waste and fraud? If the savings are so huge, we could certainly spend it on other worthy causes, right?
"We are paying them now and, as I was trying to point out to Marty, we'll also pay them later."
And again, I'm happy to pay it. Not sure what's difficult to understand about that.
It's a fair question. Seems to me, regardless, we ought to always streamline and minimize waste and fraud. (The Pentagon budget is another great candidate!)
I can't imagine anyone opposing streamlining and minimizing waste and fraud in any area of our budget.
As to this...
I don't know the full cost of all this, but the CBO just came out this morning and said that, regarding the "deficit neutral" claim of the Obama administration, savings from Medicare waste and fraud will not be enough to pay for all of this.
I'm not just talking about streamlining and cleaning house in current gov't programs, but I'm asking how much are we spending already as a society on our medical plans or lack thereof? How much are we paying in non-emergency ER visits that would not be needed if people had a health plan that didn't require it? How much are we spending in lost days of work due to illnesses that go untreated due to lacking a health plan? THESE kinds of costs that we are already paying as a society?
It is my suspicion that many gov't programs (but certainly not all) may have a price tag of, for instance, $10 million - which means $10 million that you and I have to pay to support that program - but in the ABSENCE of the program, we might be spending $20 million individually/societally. I think these kinds of numbers NEED to be assessed and factored in (as best as we're able) when we're making decisions about gov't spending.
My favorite example (because it is so well-documented and easy to understand) is prisoner education and rehabilitation. Study after study shows that by spending (for instance) $10 million on a prisoner literacy project, the result is REDUCED recidivism. The price of housing prisoners IS a drag on our budget, just as surely as the $10 million spent on literacy projects. In fact, studies show that the savings from the reduced recidivism more than pay for the costs of the program.
THOSE kinds of gov't programs make sense to me. If it costs $10 million to run a program but $20 million NOT to run a program, well by all means, run the program.
It is my suspicion that Health Care Reform COULD be that kind of "cost." One that ultimately saves money. But I'd rather see some studies or numbers that support that.
I can't imagine anyone opposing streamlining and minimizing waste and fraud in any area of our budget.
Neither can I. Yet this apparently vast store of riches hasn't been tapped by a politician of either party for decades. They promise it, but they never deliver it.
Which is why I think it reasonable to think that if HCR doesn't pass, Medicare reform won't either. Heck, probably won't even be proposed.
Hence my great skepticism over projected costs of HCR. Any cost/benefit studies that use predicted costs like this is being willfully ignorant of government's long-running tendency to expand.
Doug said...
Yet this apparently vast store of riches hasn't been tapped by a politician of either party for decades. They promise it, but they never deliver it.
Didn't Al Gore do that during the Clinton presidency? The Reinventing Gov't Program?
I don't know, did it? That press release you linked to is full of platitudes, but precious little substance.
And again, Medicare is still, currently, post-government-"reinvention", a big enough source of waste and fraud that it could, allegedly, keep an upending of 1/6th of our economy "deficit neutral".
I don't know, either. I was not a fan of the Clinton administration and don't know much about the details of Gore's work.
I DO know that the rate of gov't growth slowed significantly during Clinton's years, something that did not happen in the Reagan/Bush/Bush years, AT ALL, during which gov't got MUCH bigger.
Well, lacking context, you're correct, but we've been there before. My short answers:
Reagan: Spent the Soviet Union into oblivion rather than bombing them. A good thing, which took a lot of money.
Bush 1: Not the most conservative guy, but also got hoodwinked by a Democratic Congress that promised Bush they'd cut spending after they raised taxes. He went on board the Dems gave us the taxes but no spending cuts.
Bush 2: Really not the most conservative guy. Gave fiscal conservatives a bad name by posing as one.
Jury's still out on Obama, but he's on track to make Bush 2 look like an amateur.
Regardless, the idea that you can trust government estimates of cost, or assume that they really want to try to reign in waste and fraud, are both delusions, as Republicans and Democrats have constantly shown. Giving them $1 trillion more dollars is, in its face, foolhardy, as history has constantly shown us.
Dan wrote:
If we allow hospitals to turn away the poor, will this not happen?
I'm not convinced one way or the other about the current Health care reform, but I am convinced that we - and I - don't want to be a society that just allows the poor to die (or lose limbs, or hack up blood, or suffer miscarriages, etc, etc) if they can't pay for needed treatment.
Are you suggesting this is what we as a society ought to do?
No, as a society, we should not do this. But 'government' does not equal 'society'.
Absolutely. And it may or may not surprise you to know that MY preference would be that private enterprise, charities, churches, families and other entities would step up and fill this need.
I am not a fan of gov't intervention.
However, when the private world does not step up (and they haven't in sufficient numbers) and it's going to cost us as a society anyway and if no one else does anything we will have people dying and suffering in the streets, then I have no problem at all - in theory - with the gov't stepping up.
I'm all about end results.
This is why I am less than impressed by so many on the Right decrying gov't intervention - the church and community could ABSOLUTELY kick gov't out of the helping business if they would only step up and provide solutions.
Failing that, I want results, not complaints about what the gov't doing the "work of the church."
On this you and I pretty much agree, except that I'd not say I'm "all about end results". I think that's what has put us here. The church, as the New Deal kicked in, does get pushed out of areas it should be dealing with. I will most certainly agree with you that the church, in general, has not stepped up, though I can, and have in the past, pointed out examples of churches and denominations pulling their weight.
But what has happened is a mind-set has set in in the culture where government becomes the first resort, not the last. This makes further incursions by a mindless bureaucracy all that more likely and, indeed, popular.
So watch out those ends justifying the means. If more government intervention now means more intervention later, and you don't generally like that, then the solution is not bigger government, but a revolution inside the church. Government programs, as Reagan noted, are the closest thing to eternal life we'll see this side of heaven.
So what do we do with the poor in the meantime, while the church dithers? Same thing we do with the question of the unsaved in the meantime between; get the word out, get the churches involved, and support those actually doing the work, both socially and evangelically.
Like I've said, I grew up in the Salvation Army and I think they're doing more than their share on both fronts. But that's a whole 'nother topic. :)
Our church is in the inner city, we have several homeless programs and a homeless minister. We have many social workers who attend our church, my wife included. We also have mental health workers and people who work with kids in various venues, etc, and none of us work for "state" agencies (well, except for those in the education field working for public schools).
We obviously believe in non-profit solutions to social problems.
But the need is too great and consequences too dire to just say, "well, let's cut off state funding and see if the private world can't pick up the slack." I ain't buying that. My friends who are homeless, mentally ill, orphaned, imprisoned and otherwise marginalized can't afford that.
Again, any time the private sphere wants to step up and meet the challenges, they could put the state out of business.
If there were almost no homeless families, no homeless veterans, no children without parents or safe homes, etc, then the state agencies would just dry up and go out of business and - knowing social workers as I do - they'd generally be among the first to celebrate.
Doug, first of all I am a she not a he.
I know we already pay the costs of the uninsured. My point was that by requiring everyone to buy into a plan those costs passed on would be less. You may disagree. Fine. But we won't know for sure until we at least try it.
Something has to be done.
Employer sponsored health care is on it's way out the window. Each year more and more of the costs of health care are passed on to the employee in higher deductibles and co-pays, reductions of employer contributions, etc. Plus if you do get a serious illness you may find you're not fully covered anyway.
I'm with Alan. I'll glady pay my share. I say lets expand Medicare to all Americans. Medicare took very good care of my Dad up until the end. His monthly premium was only 90 bucks a month. He had much better coverage than I do with employer based private insurance and his premiums were considerably less.
Doh, sorry about my gender ignorance.
Fair enough. I just wanted to clear it up, as it seemed you were saying that HCR would keep those charges from being passed on; as in zero cost. My mistake.
Dan wrote:
I'm all about end results.
This is an understandable, but I think dangerous approach. The world will always be imperfect -- poverty, suffering, hardship. The end result that we desire can always scale upwards into the unachievable. And so governments can always argue that they need more power, more control, in order to achieve ever higher and higher goals -- in the name of "end results".
Wait, Marty is a girl? If I had known, I would have put some pants on.
I always find it interesting when someone talks about "the government" as if it is an entity with a mind of its own, which is always malevolent, and cannot be controlled.
It is probably human nature, I suppose. Those people in Congress, etc., are just too far outside of our Monkey Sphere to be anything but some anonymous, faceless "they."
Frankly, given that we get to vote them out every 4 years, I'm far more comfortable with the limits on "The Government's" power than on heretofore unrestricted power of insurance companies.
I always find it interesting when someone talks about "the government" as if it is an entity with a mind of its own, which is always malevolent, and cannot be controlled.
I do, too, as it's true. Well, except the "mind" part.
It is probably human nature, I suppose. Those people in Congress, etc., are just too far outside of our Monkey Sphere to be anything but some anonymous, faceless "they."
And conversely, we are outside of their monkeyspheres.
Frankly, given that we get to vote them out every 4 years, I'm far more comfortable with the limits on "The Government's" power than on heretofore unrestricted power of insurance companies.
If you don't want an insurance company do have power over you, then don't do business with it. You don't have to give it any money at all. Whereas with government, you can't opt out. If you don't pay government taxes, government puts you in jail.
Insurance companies can't do that.
I would add that 'we' -- the collective -- might have power over government. But 'you' -- the individual -- do not.
"If you don't want an insurance company do have power over you, then don't do business with it. You don't have to give it any money at all. "
Alas I am not independently wealthy and cannot therefore afford medical care without insurance.
"But 'you' -- the individual -- do not."
As long as elections can be decided by only one vote, I certainly do.
Tell him like it is Alan.
"Wait, Marty is a girl? If I had known, I would have put some pants on"
Not to worry John. I don't embarrass easily. Besides, I'm probably old enough to be your mother anyway.
If you don't want an insurance company do have power over you, then don't do business with it. You don't have to give it any money at all.
Alan, what I believe John was saying was not that you might choose not to buy insurance (which, as you note, means you have to have quite a bit of cash), although that is an option. I think what he was driving at is that you can switch insurance companies, but you can't switch governments quite as easily.
You can vote on an insurance company with your dollars, and change your vote pretty much any time you'd like, subject to some restrictions. The government is the government. While you can vote once every 2/4/6 years.
While you may want to throw the bums out in Washington, if a majority of other don't want to, it won't happen. But if you decided to fire your insurance company, you can do it now. You have far, far more control over who insures you than who governs you.
Ack, meant to combine a couple sentences up above, but left a fragment.
"While you can vote once every 2/4/6 years,and while you may want to throw the bums out in Washington, if a majority of other don't want to, it won't happen."
And then you have to wait some time before you can try again.
"I think what he was driving at is that you can switch insurance companies, but you can't switch governments quite as easily.........
You have far, far more control over who insures you than who governs you."
That is not true in call cases or even in the majority of cases.
Whether you can switch insurance companies or not depends on the circumstances. My husband and I can't. We are dependent upon his employer and they decide who the insurance company is and what type of coverage. My husband has a pre-existing condition, so that means it would be difficult to purchase health insurance on our own and should we even able to, our age and other health factors, would make the premiums out of reach for us. Plus an insurance company can cancel your individual coverage at will. I know. Been there.
So no. Many of us, do not have a choice of insurance providers, nor the type of coverage they offer.
"I think what he was driving at is that you can switch insurance companies, but you can't switch governments quite as easily."
Maybe *you* can, or perhaps you're using *you* in the hypothetical or generic sense to mean *a hypothetical person* can switch insurance companies. But if you mean *you* as in, *Alan* can, then you are incorrect.
In this country, employer based health insurance means you take what you get rather than having a group of insurance companies all competing for your insurance premium dollars, which is one option being proposed in health care reform. That option would provide real choice.
(I'll also point out that the the advantage some people have of being straight and getting free insurance through their employed spouse, is not an option for everyone either. So much for "choice.")
Throughout the health insurance debates in this country over the last few months I hear a lot of people speaking as if their particular experience with health insurance is the norm. Yet in almost every case, what those folks are talking about and the real-world experience I've had first hand and/or know about from friends are very different.
I used to think I have pretty good insurance until I started hearing people talk about theirs.
For example, it sounds like Doug can change insurance companies to any company or plan he wants whenever he wants. However, most people have one plan -- maybe a couple if they're lucky -- to choose from through their employer, and can only change when they change jobs or have a "qualified event" in their lives.
From these debates, it sounds like other people can actually choose to reduce coverage in order lower their insurance premiums, but I've never been offered that choice. If I could, that would be great since neither I nor my partner are ever going to need maternity coverage, pediatric coverage, Ob/Gyn coverage, etc. If this is really about "control" vs. "choice" where's my choice to jettison any female-centric coverage in my plan and trade it for something I would use, like say, chiropractic care?
It sounds like Doug has control over his medical decisions along with his doctor. However, many people have their medical decisions dictated at least in some part by what their insurance company will and will not pay. Medicine A works for you, but Medicine B, which is a cheap generic of another drug doesn't? Tough luck, you're taking B or nothing. Choice vs. control? Where's the choice there?
I'm not sure where one gets these gold-plated insurance plans that one can change anytime one wants, and with which one can actually make their own medical decisions, and in which one actually has some semblance of choice. Everyone who is against health care reform seems to have these plans. Boy, they sure sound nice! I must be in the wrong business.
Alan, you first seem to criticize the use of anecdotal or personal evidence...
Throughout the health insurance debates in this country over the last few months I hear a lot of people speaking as if their particular experience with health insurance is the norm.
...and then you proceed to present anecdotal and personal evidence.
Yet in almost every case, what those folks are talking about and the real-world experience I've had first hand and/or know about from friends are very different.
We could spout dueling anecdotes all day. I could talk about friends of mine who lost insurance coverage from their small employer and, though they don't make a whole lot, they did shop around and found an insurance company to cover them personally. It took some time and was touch-and-go for a bit, but in the end they have coverage.
Or I could talk about the small company I work for, that, whenever we change insurers looking for a better deal, they insisted that my pre-existing condition be covered from day 1. From when the company was less that 10 employees to now that we have >70, my case was one of the driving forces behind who got our money. I'm quite happy to be "trapped" by my employer's coverage.
But in the end, dueling anecdotes miss a much larger picture.
While stories like Marty's are certainly a problem, the Republicans have a plan to deal with these things without taking over 1/6th of our economy. And if you think you'll get more out of Democratic HCR, here's an article on 5 basic freedoms you'll lose under it (no, from not Fox News Channel; from CNN). In short, you lose:
1. Freedom to choose what’s in your plan
2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs
3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage
4. Freedom to keep your existing plan
5. Freedom to choose your doctors
Basically, everything you say you hope to get from a government takeover.
From these debates, it sounds like other people can actually choose to reduce coverage in order lower their insurance premiums, but I've never been offered that choice. If I could, that would be great....
Well, I'm sorry that you don't, but under the Democrats plan, nobody will.
"Alan, you first seem to criticize the use of anecdotal or personal evidence... ...and then you proceed to present anecdotal and personal evidence.
Um...no, actually I don't. If you read what I actually wrote, you'll see that what I actually did is talk about the similarities and differences between other people's experiences an my own. In 5th grade we called this a "compare and contrast" essay. In this case I compare and contrast what I hear from people about their insurance plans (which evidently everyone is completely happy with) with my experience and what I've seen.
"In short, you lose:
1. Freedom to choose what’s in your plan
2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs
3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage
4. Freedom to keep your existing plan
5. Freedom to choose your doctors"
Excellent, then I have no problem with the Democratic plan at all since:
1. I cannot choose what is in my plan now. As I have already stated, I have coverage for things I'll never use (gee, thanks for the mammogram!), and no coverage for things I would use. In addition, I cannot get prescription drug coverage for drugs that are effective for me, but can get coverage for drugs that don't work.
2. I don't have that freedom now.
3. I don't have that freedom now.
4. I will be able to keep my existing plan under the plan proposed by the Democrats as well.
5. I do not have that freedom now.
So, if I assume your list is an honest one, then I see no argument for supporting the plan that the Republicans have supposedly proposed. Thank you for convincing me that I'm even righter than I thought. But of course, I always suspected that was true anyway. :)
Thanks to everyone for the comments. I am not saying much because I don't have much to say, but this is interesting.
I will note that I am like Alan, in that I don't have any of the freedoms listed as being lost in the Dem plan. If those are accurate.
BTW, Doug, I took a quick look at the Repubs talking points about their plan, and one of the things that I see missing is any statement about whether or not it will cover the majority of people who currently do not have coverage. Interesting that a health care reform plan would not trumpet the millions of uninsured people that would now be covered under their plan.
While it's fun to debate the pros and cons of my health care coverage with you, I wouldn't want you to get the impression that my health care coverage is actually my primary concern, because it isn't. I'm far more concerned about the 8 million children in this country who go without health care.
So while I'm clearly dissatisfied with the current health insurance system, I'd be happy to keep it, or even reduce coverage, or pay more if more people could get covered.
I also didn't see anything about coverage of preexisting conditions (I admit I just skimmed it quickly.)
Oops, just found the preexisting condition part. Still don't see number for people who will be covered.
Doug, I guess I would wonder how the GOP plan could guarantee those freedoms? Will they force the private insurance company that my employer uses to offer those choices that I don't currently have?
Or, for that matter, how would the Dem plan take those away from someone's insurance?
I obviously haven't had a chance to review those sites, I'll try to look at them when I get a chance.
Alan, if your happy with, not only your perceived lack of freedom, but with taking it away from others, I really can't discuss this much more with you. This "I don't have it, so why should anyone else" attitude is a bit of a roadblock, for me at least. Someone else may be more persuasive than I, given this.
And if you think that making those who pay 95% of the taxes in this country pay even more is an economically viable solution, then, again, we have little in common to discuss. Caring little for how we get to $600 a year per individual is, in my mind, reckless. But in concern for ends over means, you and Dan seem to have common ground there. Fair enough, but I don't.
Dan, you, and your employer, would have more choices under a Republican plan. For starters, you could buy insurance across state lines, increasing your options. Also, individuals would get the same health insurance tax breaks that businesses have. And that's just on the cost side. As Alan found, insurance reform (e.g. pre-existing conditions) is included.
Basically, I've said my piece on this, especially regarding your quotes from the "Rageosphere", which, as it turns out, are more factually based than as you originally presented them. No rage required.
Doug, I appreciate your input, even if I remain skeptical (as I remain skeptical of the Dem approach, but maybe less so).
I don't tend to count you (or John) as amongst those in the "rageosphere," but they are definitely out there (on both sides, to be sure, but I just see it more on the rageosphere right).
"This "I don't have it, so why should anyone else" attitude is a bit of a roadblock, for me at least."
Actually if you've read anything I've written (which I'm now beginning to doubt) my attitude is "I have it [health insurance] so why shouldn't everyone else?"
Your summary is the exact opposite of what I've written. Yes, the "I've got mine suckers!" attitude of most people in this debate is a non-starter for me too, so at least we can agree on something. What we disagree about is who are the people saying those things. But one thing I know for sure is that it isn't me, though frankly it does sound like you've been saying that all along.
"For starters, you could buy insurance across state lines, increasing your options."
This part makes me nervous. As we know, nearly every credit card company in the country is located in Delaware. Why is that? Because they have the least amount of state regulation on those businesses.
So under the Republican plan what's to prevent all insurance companies from flocking to some podunk state with little/no insurance regulation and/or enforcement?
Doug,
It's nice to know that the Republican plan would provide for pre-existing conditions and cancellations. But I am still thinking that the health insurance an employer provides would still cost considerably less than the open private individual market. An employer has access to group rates and most pay a least a portion of the costs. So I really don't think it would be to anyone's advantage to switch from the coverage their employer provides to an individual plan.
"Actually if you've read anything I've written (which I'm now beginning to doubt) my attitude is "I have it [health insurance] so why shouldn't everyone else?"
Amen!
Alan, when I listed what freedoms you lose under the Democrat's plan, you responded "Excellent, then I have no problem with the Democratic plan at all", and then noted that you, personally, don't have those freedoms yourself right now. I think my finding of an "I don't have it, so nobody else should" attitude is at least understandable. I did read what you posted, and I think that's an understandable conclusion to come to.
It was apparently wrong, and I apologize for it.
That is not true in call cases or even in the majority of cases.
Whether you can switch insurance companies or not depends on the circumstances. My husband and I can't. We are dependent upon his employer and they decide who the insurance company is and what type of coverage. My husband has a pre-existing condition, so that means it would be difficult to purchase health insurance on our own and should we even able to, our age and other health factors, would make the premiums out of reach for us. Plus an insurance company can cancel your individual coverage at will. I know. Been there.
So no. Many of us, do not have a choice of insurance providers, nor the type of coverage they offer.
Forgive me if this seems insensitive, but I don't think that the comparison is apt. Yes, you don't have complete control over an insurance company, and you're not completely free to switch insurance companies like changing underwear. But:
1. You don't have to move out of the country.
2. Insurance companies, unlike governments, lack the power to incarcerate or execute you.
This is why I favor diminishing government control and returning power to private individuals and companies.
"1. You don't have to move out of the country.
2. Insurance companies, unlike governments, lack the power to incarcerate or execute you."
With regard to health care reform?? Incarcerate or execute you? That's about the most ridiculous statement I've read so far in this thread. What in the world are you afraid of John? What ae you talking about?
"This is why I favor diminishing government control and returning power to private individuals and companies."
What we have now is a government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations and that includes the health insurance and prescription drug industry.
Please, John explain yourself further lest I consider you a fool.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marty wrote:
With regard to health care reform?? Incarcerate or execute you? That's about the most ridiculous statement I've read so far in this thread. What in the world are you afraid of John? What ae you talking about?
Alan argued that insurance companies have more power than governments. I offered the incarceration and execution as evidence to the contrary. Governments can do these things, but corporations cannot. Therefore it follows that governments are more powerful than corporations.
What we have now is a government of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations and that includes the health insurance and prescription drug industry.
Please, John explain yourself further lest I consider you a fool.
We have government by corporations because corporations have learned that they can purchase elected officials who then use the levers of government power (taxation and regulation) to their advantage. Thus the problem is government, and the solution is less government. Powers denied to the government are powers that corporations cannot purchase and wield.
Thanks for the explanation John.
"Powers denied to the government are powers that corporations cannot purchase and wield."
Ah...but I disagree. Corporations can be powerful and corrupt. They don't need the government for that. Right now I'm thinking I trust the government more that the corporate health insurance companies. I still support a single payer government controlled system. Unless you can convince me otherwise.
Here's the thing about corporations that bother me:
Now Corporations Claim The "Right To Lie"
"Alan argued that insurance companies have more power than governments."
Actually I didn't. Didn't say anything like that. Don't even remember having a thought like that. Not now, not ever.
What I said is that the happy butterflies and flowers picture that people paint of the oh-so-altruistic insurance companies vs. the evil mean government is unrealistic in my experience.
BTW, bringing up the death penalty does make the very best argument I can think of in favor of health care reform: If our government has the right to kill us, it ought to have the responsibility to help keep us healthy.
Also I'm thinking that public financing of elections will take the corporate money out of the pockets of the politicians.
Marty wrote:
Ah...but I disagree. Corporations can be powerful and corrupt. They don't need the government for that.
True. Even a solitary person can be corrupt. But access to government levers of power allows the corrupt to cause greater damage than they would otherwise be able to wreak.
Right now I'm thinking I trust the government more that the corporate health insurance companies. I still support a single payer government controlled system. Unless you can convince me otherwise.
Therein lies, a think, a fundamental difference in our thinking. For I believe that power always corrupts, and therefore government -- the residence of power in a society -- should be as limited as possible.
Now Corporations Claim The "Right To Lie"
Then I suspect that they will run up against a copyright claim by governments.
Ha! Funny.
Again, thanks for the thoughts everyone. I find it interesting even if I don't have a lot to contribute.
I would say that I agree that corporations can be and are corrupt and gov't folk can be and are corrupt and individual citizens can be and are corrupt.
I don't know that I trust gov't more than corporations or corporations more than individuals. With gov't, at least, we have some options for oversight that we don't have with corporations.
On the other hand, as has been pointed out, oftentimes with corporations, we have the option of ignoring them entirely (health care is an exception, I reckon) for the most part.
Alan quoted me and then wrote:
"Alan argued that insurance companies have more power than governments."
Actually I didn't. Didn't say anything like that. Don't even remember having a thought like that. Not now, not ever.
Alan, I drew this interpretation from this comment that you left in this thread:
I always find it interesting when someone talks about "the government" as if it is an entity with a mind of its own, which is always malevolent, and cannot be controlled.
It is probably human nature, I suppose. Those people in Congress, etc., are just too far outside of our Monkey Sphere to be anything but some anonymous, faceless "they."
Frankly, given that we get to vote them out every 4 years, I'm far more comfortable with the limits on "The Government's" power than on heretofore unrestricted power of insurance companies.
Did I misunderstand your comment? If so, please explain.
What I said is that the happy butterflies and flowers picture that people paint of the oh-so-altruistic insurance companies vs. the evil mean government is unrealistic in my experience.
Although there may be people who argue that insurance companies are altruistic, I am not one of them. I assume that insurance companies are selfish and desire to maximize profits.
I also assume that government officials, be they elected, appointed, or employed, are only looking out for their own individual self-interests.
BTW, bringing up the death penalty does make the very best argument I can think of in favor of health care reform: If our government has the right to kill us, it ought to have the responsibility to help keep us healthy.
This is an interesting argument, although it's not with me, as I oppose the death penalty.
"Then I suspect that they will run up against a copyright claim by governments."
Yeah that was quite clever. Gave me a snicker or two.
"This is an interesting argument, although it's not with me, as I oppose the death penalty."
Ah...like the good Methodist minister you are.
I'm curious John. How do you stand on the 2008 United Methodist Book of Discipline regarding health care:
¶ 162 V) Right to Health Care
............
"Like police and fire protection, health care is best funded through the government’s ability to tax each person equitably and directly fund the provider entities......
We believe it is a governmental responsibility to provide all citizens with health care."
...
That might be a sore point, Marty. Tread carefully, please.
Okay.
I would like to add the United Methodist Women's stand on health care reform. I am the Social Action Chair of the UMW at my church.
UMW Action Alert August 2009
Thank you for your sensitivity, Dan. I've decided to respond anyway.
Marty, your entire argument is fallacious, as it constitutes an appeal to authority. And not a very effective one, as I'm not a Methodist.
Found some other costs of health insurance reform that you don't hear about much. Posted some of the details on my blog. The true cost of this "reform" is more than just a few (or a bunch of) extra bucks out of your paycheck.
It's important to note that, unlike the numbers that Republicans have been using in some of their talking points, which came from the CBO, these numbers do not come from the CBO, but are partisan numbers cooked up by Republicans for Republicans.
So take them for whatever you think they're worth.
The CBO, for instance, has stated that the current proposals would decrease the deficit, not increase it, etc.
Except that most of the numbers I cited are not "by Republicans" (one of the sources is the CBO itself). Those for whom a source is not cited are simply statements of what's in the bill.
And here's post noting how the Democrats have tried to hide other health care spending by splitting out rather expensive measures to a separate bill. Complete with CBO numbers.
"Marty, your entire argument is fallacious, as it constitutes an appeal to authority."
John you are right. So right. Never thought about it like that either.
Forgive me, I thought you were a United Methodist Minister.
Against my better judgment I'm going to chime in with 2 things.
1. Will the 300 million "enticement" to Landreau be counted as part of the "cost" of the health care bill?
2. Now that support for health care reform is at 38% doesn't it make sense to slow down a bit and take the time to get it "right" or will the dems be happy with a 2 years majority and a flawed bill?
For clarification, I am not necessarily a big believer in polls except as an indicator of trends, and the trends have been significantly down. Further even if the real number is lower than 38% that's a lot of voters who aren't going down this road again.
"Those for whom a source is not cited are simply statements of what's in the bill."
If you're talking about your most recent link, the source is identified as "The numbers appears to come from the House Republican Conference’s policy shop, which is the group overseen by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)."
So, sorry Doug, I'm unlikely to take as gospel truth the claims about this bill made by the same crazy people who were screaming about "Death Panels" just a few weeks ago.
Ah, the "Death Panels" angle. Yeah. When the costs of a universal plan become unwieldy, what is the likely conslusion but to figure on who gets what based on cost/benefit analysis? This is not something spelled out in any of the current Dem proposals for reform, but is what must happen on some level down the road, because we see evidence of this in other countries that went down this path already. Would there actually be a panel of gov't bureaucrats deciding who lives and who dies? Not as such, but, when deciding how to spend limited amounts of money, don't you think similar decisions would be made?
Regarding the comparison to mandated auto insurance, as far as I know, this is done to protect the person you run into. You don't have to insure against the cost of replacing or repairing your own vehicle or body. In the past, if you had no insurance and caused and accident, the other party would have to sue for damages. If you had no money, he'd be S.O.L. Now, you can't get in the car unless you have some means of paying the consequences of your poor driving. Health insurance is about covering one's self. To force someone to purchase anything is outside the job of gov't, but at least with auto insurance, you're bad or irresponsible driving won't put a financial bind on the victim of your shortcomings.
One thing to consider with the right wing proposals is the benefit of free market forces. Just as Alan (I think it was) criticized the hand-wringing over the evil "they", as in gov't, it seems the same is done over the other "they", meaning corporations, in this case the insurance companies.
They are far from unregulated now. Alan spoke of coverage for feminine needs he'll never use. Pressures from consumers AND gov't have forced coverage for many non-catastrophic situations, which is what insurance is supposed to be for. But insurance is probably best as an ala carte option, which won't happen under the gov't plans, but could and likely will happen with a more free market atmosphere. There is already a demand for such a thing. I would be much happier paying out of pocket for routine checkups and visits for minor illnesses or injuries and saving the insurance for the heavy duty situations. This would mean my policy would be much cheaper, and to keep it that way, I wouldn't be running to the Dr for every little thing. This is a major problem in the cost of health care these days. Everyone expects everything to be covered. But as Alan suggested, I don't need PAP smears covered because I don't need them to begin with. But even without the gov't, there's a bit of one-size-fits-all that is wasteful.
Alan suggested that like credit card companies, insurers would flock to the states with the best regulatory environment. That's not such a problem if they are all competing for our business. They would still be looking for something that gives them the edge over their competition. Price is always a factor as is quality of the product.
The thing about businesses is that the greedy are eventually found out and are put out of business. Most businesses understand that doing business in an unethical way is not cost effective. Any windfalls are short lived as people catch on. Then they tank.
But the main issue with all these lefty proposals is that they don't address the causes of the high costs. The right wing alternatives do. And in the end, they bring down costs so that insurance is more affordable for more people. Giving insurance to everyone, particularly when forcing others to pay for it, does not make things less expensive and that is the main bitch about health care---that it's too damned expensive. It'll only get worse under their plan because it assumes too much that history has shown won't happen. They WON'T address waste in the system because they never have before. They CAN'T control costs, because they never have before.
But here's another heartless right wing suggestion. I don't believe we should turn away anyone who needs emergency care. That care might be an earache for some people, but that's besides the point. But once that care is given, the patient should be billed. It doesn't matter what their personal situation is or how much money they make. They MUST be billed. It also doesn't matter how quickly they pay. Could be ten bucks per month for all I care, but they MUST be billed. When everyone knows they have to pay, they will avoid using emergency rooms, and all other health care providers, needlessly or use them only when truly necessary. They'll be more likely to take care of themselves. Personal responsibility HAS to part of the plan.
But most importantly, part of the problem with health care costs is the number of people out of work. I've been out of work and immediately found a better deal than COBRA, but, it ain't a breeze paying for anything when one is unemployed. At this point in time, with Bush's actions at the end of his last term, together with Obama doing the same things at a more devastating pace, the likelihood of the economy rebounding quickly is very poor. Proper fiscal policies, something Barry doesn't understand, will allow businesses to begin to flourish once again, putting more people to work, which means more people are able to afford health insurance, or are covered by their employers. It will also provide more charitable giving to cover those still unable to work and/or aquire insurance, leaving very few uncared for.
And by the way, I believe churches are still taking care of business. Still belonging to the heretical UCC, I know that they are like Christian first responders when there are disasters. Yet, they are only one denomination. All in all, I think churches are still doing their part to care for the needy. But they'll do better when really smart people are running the country rather than those who only appear so. To some. Mostly on the left.
Thanks for the thoughts, Marshall.
One response. You said...
The thing about businesses is that the greedy are eventually found out and are put out of business. Most businesses understand that doing business in an unethical way is not cost effective. Any windfalls are short lived as people catch on.
It is entirely true that sometimes those on the Left are too hopeful and maybe even naive about how effective a given gov't program might be, but THAT comment has to be about the most naive suggestion I've heard. Being unethical is NOT cost effective???
Tell that to the folks tearing down God's creation in order to more cheaply ("cheaply," as in, "not really, only if you don't count all costs") get coal from mountains. Tell that to advertisers. Tell that to those who exploit women and children to sell products. Tell that to auto dealers.
Unethical = bad business? In what dream world is THAT in? Do you understand how our capitalism system operates today (and for the last century, at least)?
With Marshall leaping onto the absurd, paranoid, wingnut crazy "death panel" bandwagon while also suggesting that unethical behavior is bad for big business, I think it's pretty easy to see how rational his ideas are.
It's good to know some things never change. LOL
I guess the thing that seems inconsistent to some of us is that while the more conservative amongst us insist on the depravity of humanity and yet, they are comfortable trusting the "free market" to let people be free to do the right thing.
But then, for some conservatives (not the more libertarian), even with the free market, there are limits.
This is what seems inconsistent to some of us. "I trust the free market to let coal companies pour only an 'acceptable' amount of toxins into our rivers and to blow up only an 'acceptable' amount of creation, BUT I don't trust the free market to properly shield us from scantily clad women. We HAVE to have SOME regulations when it comes to using scantily clad women to sell products but we don't need much when it comes to regulating toxins into our water..."
WHERE is the sense or reason in that?
Dan wrote:
This is what seems inconsistent to some of us. "I trust the free market to let coal companies pour only an 'acceptable' amount of toxins into our rivers and to blow up only an 'acceptable' amount of creation, BUT I don't trust the free market to properly shield us from scantily clad women. We HAVE to have SOME regulations when it comes to using scantily clad women to sell products but we don't need much when it comes to regulating toxins into our water..."
WHERE is the sense or reason in that?
There can definitely be some inconsistency, especially among moderates who don't like to play "more libertarian than thou" games. But it is consistent to say that individual A doesn't get to harm individual B without his consent. And if individual A dumps toxins into the drinking water of individual B, then A is harming B.
If A refuses to pay for the health care of B, A is not harming B. A might be a ungenerous and parsimonious, but he isn't actively harming B. That's a very real policy difference.
Alan, I said,
Those for whom a source is not cited are simply statements of what's in the bill.
You responded:
If you're talking about your most recent link, the source is identified as "The numbers appears to come from the House Republican Conference’s policy shop, which is the group overseen by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN)."
So, sorry Doug, I'm unlikely to take as gospel truth the claims about this bill made by the same crazy people who were screaming about "Death Panels" just a few weeks ago.
Indeed, but just a quick hand-wave away of the data just because he has an "R" following his name is a lazy way of discrediting.
Take this info from Talking Points Memo (definitely no "R" after that name):
Democrats did indeed diminish the cost over the first 10 years (2010-2019) by delaying the tax-and-benefit provisions for a until 2014, long after the bill becomes law. They felt as if they needed to push some key reforms down the road to keep the bill's CBO score from exceeding Obama's $900 billion top line.
So the cost of the health care bill has been gamed to come up with the right number, knowing full well that the CBO only ever looks out 10 years. And so indeed most of the spending has been pushed out 3 years to fool folks who take CBO numbers at face value without taking into consideration what a big-government politician will do to get a bill passed.
You need a more skeptical eye than one that simply looks at party affiliation.
According to David Broder (net exactly someone that anyone would describe as a raving right wing nut job)
" . . While the CBO said that both the House-passed bill and the one Reid has drafted meet Obama’s test by being budget-neutral, every expert I have talked to says that the public has it right. These bills, as they stand, are budget-busters.
Here, for example, is what Robert Bixby, the executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group of budget watchdogs, told me: “The Senate bill is better than the House version, but there’s not much reform in this bill. As of now, it’s basically a big entitlement expansion, plus tax increases.”
Here’s another expert, Maya MacGuineas, the president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: “While this bill does a better job than the House version at reducing the deficit and controlling costs, it still doesn’t do enough. Given the political system’s aversion to tax increases and spending cuts, I worry about what the final bill will look like.”
These are nonpartisan sources, but Republican budget experts such as former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin amplify the point with specific examples and biting language. Holtz-Eakin cites a long list of Democratic-sponsored “budget gimmicks” that made it possible for the CBO to estimate that Reid’s bill would reduce federal deficits by $130 billion by 2019.
Perhaps the biggest of those maneuvers was Reid’s decision to postpone the start of subsidies to help the uninsured buy policies from mid-2013 to January 2014 — long after taxes and fees levied by the bill would have begun.
Even with that change, there is plenty in the CBO report to suggest that the promised budget savings may not materialize. If you read deep enough, you will find that under the Senate bill, “federal outlays for health care would increase during the 2010-2019 period” — not decline. The gross increase would be almost $1 trillion — $848 billion, to be exact, mainly to subsidize the uninsured. The net increase would be $160 billion."
More Broder,
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20091113/OPINION/91113013/David-Broder--Health-care-bill%5C-s-flaws-are-clear
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2009/11/14/brod12.ART_ART_11-14-09_A10_SPFLDNO.html?sid=101
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20091123/OPINION06/911230338/David-Broder--Promised-health-care-savings-are-not-real
http://www.delmarvanow.com/article/20091113/OPINION01/911130338/David-Broder--Health-care-reform-must-be-done-right
Dan,
I should know better than to not paint a more detailed picture in my comments. By unethical business, I was referring to out and out cheating and fraud that will impact the health and safety of customers. As such is found out, fewer customers will patronize a business (or do you continue to do biz with those who cheat and harm you?). Businesses by and large understand that such practices are unnecessary to produce great profits. All that IS required is to provide a good product or service at a good cost to the consumer.
As far as how some businesses might use sex to sell their product, I don't know that merely having a beautiful woman in the ads constitutes whoring, but I will say the Abercrombie and Fitch style of ads compels me to do biz elsewhere.
Freer markets might indeed allow for immoral (as opposed to "unethical") practices, but then, we've done all we can to reduce the influence of Christianity in the public square so who's to blame for that, and what result could you expect? There was a time when even fraudulent business owners wouldn't dream of sexing up their ads too much because there'd have been a public backlash. If you've ever felt like supporting the nonsensical "separation of church and state" policies, then you've only yourself to blame for such practices in advertising.
As for the coal industry, coal is a resource we need to use to help make us energy independent. If you want to whine about how it's done, that's not a bad whine if it's accurate and you have an alternative method for it's extraction. Our economy depends on energy independence (as does our nat'l security). Of course if you and people like you are cool with foregoing your own electricity needs, then whine away. Wind and solar ain't good enough to replace coal and oil at this time.
Regarding Alan's snark,
We see in other countries using universal and/or gov't controlled health care that people suffer as a result of the cost/benefit equation. Even in our own country, the gov't run health care, such as that on Indian reservations, result in people suffering. As the economy is already in the crapper, adding what is intended by Reid, Pelosi and the idiot in chief will further burden the economy, the health care industry, and ultimately each of us as more people WILL lose their jobs. There will be fewer sources of tax revenue. What do you think will happen then? "Free" health care for all? Not on your already shortened life. Cuts will occur. Waiting times for services will increase. Decisions will have to be made regarding who will get care. This isn't some crackpot notion, except to fools like yourself who are so in the tank for the fools in Washington that you won't extrapolate based on the current reality.
None of this is necessary, whether there's an actual panel deciding that your old gray haired auntie must die, or that she dies because she won't get the necessary care she needs. The end result is the same and it happens to one degree or another where this form of health care exists.
When the Dems remove their heads from their rectal hide-aways and actually study how money and economies work, these issues will almost fix themselves. As it stands, every move they're making is compounding the problems, not fixing them.
Doug wrote, "Indeed, but just a quick hand-wave away of the data just because he has an "R" following his name is a lazy way of discrediting. "
Lazy? Nah. Quick, and in my experience remarkably accurate. You know the old joke, right?
Q: How can you tell when a politician is lying?
A: His lips move.
You and others here may trust politicians to tell the truth if you wish, Doug, I'm afraid I've never developed the ability to simply unplug my brain and be that naive. I'm a skeptic by nature.
BTW, you'll notice that, instead of using secondary or tertiary sources for what I've talked about here, I've actually looked at the bill. For example, if you go up and glance again at the very first comment on this thread, rather than accepting some politician's lying BS as gospel truth about jail time, I actually -- *gasp* -- read the actual bill itself.
But then, actually doing some real work to find things out rather than simply suckling at the teat of the talking heads is a habit of mine. ;) My apologies.
Alan,
Use your head. If someone refuses to buy health insurance, and they refuse to pay any financial penalties, do you think they'll be left alone or threatened with jail time? Get serious. You're trusting the politicians a lot more than you say you are by pretending this consequence would not come to pass.
Alan wrote:
You know the old joke, right?
Q: How can you tell when a politician is lying?
A: His lips move.
You and others here may trust politicians to tell the truth if you wish, Doug, I'm afraid I've never developed the ability to simply unplug my brain and be that naive. I'm a skeptic by nature.
And yet you want politicians to have greater power over health care?
Dan,
You have a decided and distinct hatred for corporations. This is a given. But you make judgements you are not in a position to make. Unless you are in the boardrooms and involved in the decision making of these companies, I think you engage in the type of lying and slander of which you accuse many of your blog opponents. You, like too many, seem to think that all who are wealthy and powerful are corrupted by their money and power. What proof do you have that this is the case? The bottom line is important for every business because the point of business is profit so that the business can continue to exist.
But the bottom line should be important for every individual so as to remain as independent as possible. You're Mr. Back to Nature. Live with less, reduce consumption. Well that's fine, but I doubt you walk the talk completely. Are you living without electricity? Did you build your own little windmill or install solar panels? Or are you simply burning wood? Maybe you're just fartin' in a can to burn later.
People NEED the electricity that is provided by the evil coal companies, who are, by the way, run by human beings with families of their own and are developing clean coal technology. What will power the CAT-Scan machines that will determine what the hell is wrong with your brain? How much more will health care cost if we don't have a reliable source of electricity?
So, getting back to the issue, I'd much prefer to put my money on corporations than gov't any day of the week. Corporations can't force me to do anything. Only gov't has the means to try.
Adding to an old post, I know. :) But Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute has a great piece today about how Congressional Democrats are gaming the system, taking advantage of the openness of the CBO calculation system, so that many of their costs (potentially the lion's share of them) don't get figured in to the CBO score.
It's a short read, with copious links, and a devastating conclusion:
The Medical Loss Ratios memo is the smoking gun. It shows that indeed, Democrats have been submitting proposals to the CBO behind closed doors and tailoring their private-sector mandates to avoid having those costs appear in the federal budget. Proposals that would result in a complete cost estimate — such as the proposal by Sen. Rockefeller discussed in the Medical Loss Ratios memo — are dropped. Because we can’t let the public see how much this thing really costs.
Crafting the private-sector mandates such that they fall just a hair short of CBO’s criteria for inclusion in the federal budget does not reduce their cost, nor does it make those mandates any less binding. But it dramatically reduces the apparent cost of the legislation. It is the reason we’re all talking about an $848 billion Reid bill, rather than a $2.1 trillion Reid bill.
If someone sold you a house, or a car, or a mutual fund this way, we would put them in jail.
Post a Comment