How would the ‘public option’ outcompete private enterprise?

As I said yesterday: it is totally within the power of the insurance companies to end this “healthcare debate” flat…but the won’t do it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Walk me through the process by which the public option would supposedly eliminate private competition.

Well, let’s see, employers would dump their employees onto the death panel “option” and reduce a payroll cost.

Sure, you libs can tax them, but only until they relocate to Texico (Jaggie- I know how to spell Mexico. Trust me. You can harangue me if you’d like.)

• Link
• Report this comment

This is one of five committee bills that will have to be reconciled on the floor of the Senate. The other four all have public options on them. The fifteen people on the Finance commitee are going to have to convince the sixty on the other four comittees to accept a bill without a public option. Not likely,
.

The fact is that Harry Reid is going to have to MELD the bill that he presents from the Finance Committee with the Bill that comes out of Chris Dodd’s Health Education and Labor Commitee which DOES have a public option as well as the reconciliation with HR 3200 which DOES have a public option:

Senior Senate Democratic leadership sources tell Fox that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, will not include a so-called “public option” in a healthcare reform bill he will create once the Finance Committee completes its action this week, a decision first reported by The New York Times.

Reid must meld that more conservative product with the more liberal one crafted by the Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee once headed by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-MA. Kennedy’s bill, which was sheppherded by his longtime friend, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-CT, called for the creation of a public plan.

That puts the ball squarely in the court of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, who is currently working with her leadership team to craft a bill that many believe will include some version of a public option.

The fight would then turn to a House-Senate conference where differences must the be reconcilied. It is unclear what would happen if a final House-Senate conference product included a government-supervised plan. No doubt, though, the White House will be called upon to play an integral role.

Reid does retain the right to use a controversial budgetary tactic, used over the years by both parties, called “reconciliation” – which permits him to get a bill passed with just 51 votes. This tool, however, is not easy to use and would likely blow any chance to gain GOP support, not to mention create a situation that would make it very difficult to pass broader healthcare reform.

http://congress.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/09/29/public-option-dead-in-senate-for-now/

Keeping the public option out of the finance committee is simply a method by which the Blue Dog Democrats can save face with their constituents for next years elections. When the public option is eventually reconciled into the final bill, they can say, we tried, but we were outgunned.

Teddy Kennedy’s memoirs are filled with stories about how Southern Democrats and Republicans often made big speeches in support of something and Kennedy thought he had their support until they voted in the exact opposite way that the speech indicated. A Southern Democrat from North Carolina told him. Support for that bill was evenly divided in my state. My speech was for those who supported it, my vote was for those who didn’t.

Public option is 99 percent sure thing at this point. Only a single committee has opposed it. The internal reconciliation process in the senate, plus the House/Senate reconciliation will end up requiring that the final bill reflects the condition of the majority of committee positions taken.

• Link
• Report this comment

This isn’t really a question of competition in my view. If a public option is enacted, I see more and more employers dropping coverage for their employees, much like they moved people from defined benefit pensions to 401K’s. Given the cutbacks in employee benefits in the past 20-30 years, I think it’s inevitable. Employer based insurance is going to decrease; a public option would just hasten the process.

Evenutally tax money will be involved in this; that’s also inevitable.

• Link
• Report this comment

There is a Progressive piece of legislation called the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. It says that an entity with a great deal of resources cannot so lower prices that it drives all competition out of business, thereby creating a monopoly. This was considered a good idea by Progressives and the JP Morgans of the world were bound by it and unable to use their extensive resources to destroy the competition and create monopolies. It does not apply the the US government.

The US Government has unlimited resources – as evidenced by this Congress/President’s spending of billions, soon to be trillions, of dollars. So, the government uses its limitless ability to print money to price all private companies out of the market and then become a monopoly. Further as it will have no one regulating it (that’s what governments are supposed to do regulate), other than itself, there will be no one to stop it. For a lesson in self regulation, look to Georgia where the EPD (the watch dog) is a division of the DNR (the entity it regulates). Yeah, that’s worked well.

The great irony is that the people who think of themselves as “Progressive” will be behind creating this monopoly. It’s OK, because I have yet to meet anyone educated in public high school after the 80’s who made it to or past WWI in American history, if they made it that far.

I hope that helps you understand.

• Link
• Report this comment

If I owned the post office I’d put a computer terminal where ever there is a flunky standing now. Machines don’t ignore you or need coffee breaks.

Same goes for the DMV.

• Link
• Report this comment

“It does not apply the the US government.”

Yep. And that’s why the USPS has driven ALL other mail and package carrier just slap out of business, right?

• Link
• Report this comment

Government competes with the private sector like an alligator competes with a duck.

• Link
• Report this comment

The way ALL of the bills are structured it would cost a company that currently provides health insurance more to drop them and dump it on the public option than it would cost to cover them.

Its the reason these bills are so many pages long. A company does not get to drop their coverage and simply get away scot free. They will be hit with a combination of taxes and penalties that will cost them anywhere from 25 percent to 50 percent MORE to do that than to keep their employees covered.

• Link
• Report this comment

Government outperform the private sector in the medical field. All of those great things about the American health system that conservatives rant about were all created by the government with public funding. Federal, State, Local and Universities fund 76 percent of medical research. Industry funds 24 percent. The health insurance industry funds zero percent.

Medicare Part A is one of the LARGEST funding sources of medical research in the United States.

The Gamma knife for brain tumors..100 percent government research at the University of Florida.

The MRI. 100 percent government.

71 percent of all the new wonder drugs on the market are either totally or largely the result of government funding.

A recent research project discovered that 70 percent of all patents in the United States were the result of government funded research.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, I got “ripped” in four weeks following these two rules:

Inject steroids 4 times a day and live on protein shakes.

• Link
• Report this comment

Also, once the insurance companies are out of the way, the government will make sure its ruthless inefficiency continues.

NJ – I worked on government grant projects that lead to new discoveries while in undergrad. Just because you pay for something, does not mean you created it. Oh, and our government has created the most best military and weapons in the world.

However, that does not mean that the functionary across the table from you whose job is a property right and knows he/she cannot be fired without multiple hearings is going to give a rats patottie whether you get swift care or die waiting.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, let’s see: Public option eliminated. Gosh! Who could have seen that coming.

Healthcare industry leads in campaign contributions

It’s time for a bit of the old bend over.

• Link
• Report this comment

OK, I’ll try to answer Bookman’s question:

Public option: Does not have to pay commissions to agents and brokers. Direct enrollment.
Private plan: Must use part of gross premiums to pay agents and brokers.

Public option: Does not need to pay underwriters and other policy issuance personnel, other than those employees who enroll people.
Private plan: Must pay underwriters and other policy issuance specialists to guard against anti-selection.

Public option: Does not need to make a profit; break-even is ideal.
Private plan: Must make a profit if a stock company; needs to return dividends if a mutual company.

Public option: Does not need to market plan.
Private plan: Must pay marketers and others involved in “selling” the benefits of products to consumers.

Public option: No underwriting and no underwriting expense. Like Medicare, it will accept applications via Internet and automatically enroll applicants.
Private plan: Must pay professional underwriters before policy issuance.

Public option: Very little claims expense, other than that involved in farming out claims to private insurance companies, as happens now with Medicare.
Private plan: Great claims expense involving hundreds of personnel.

There–does that answer your question, Bookman?

• Link
• Report this comment

@TGT
Right on man, government is the biggest and most out of control monoply there is. It is also one of the only entities that can take your money by force legally.

• Link
• Report this comment

Sorry, but any insurance company, public or private, has claim and underwriting expenses. And if it doesn’t work, and isn’t cheaper, then no one will buy from it and it will fail.

So what are you afraid of?

• Link
• Report this comment

First off you’re gonna have to tell me how participation can be mandated by a turnip on a turnip – constitutionally speaking, that is.

Aside from that small inconvenience, employers would be dumping coverage thereby forcing their employees into the public option or government’s limited option plan.

And this?

The best attempts I’ve seen involve claims that in LATER legislation Congress might CHANGE the law to produce such an outcome, but opposing a bill today based on what you imagine Congress might do years later isn’t much of an argument.

Given the fact that Obama clearly stated his preference for a single-payer system, there’s no doubt that is exactly what he will pursue.

I can’t believe you’re that naive, jay. O.K., so I was trying to be nice. You obviously ARE that naive.

When he (Obama) repeatedly says “We” won’t force you to change insurance, what he really means is that it’ll be your employers who do that – ’cause that’s how WE’VE set it up.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay writes, “If employers are going to do that, they would do so regardless of whether a public option exists.

Guess I didn’t make myself clear. I agree with you on that, as I said, I think a public option would hasten it. I also didn’t say I was necessarily opposed to a public option. It would depend on what form it would take. Actually if I had my druthers, from talking to Canadian friends of mine, I wouldn’t be opposed to giving something like their system a try.

• Link
• Report this comment

@@

Employers are dumping people every day. Heck, more to the point, insurance companies companies are dumping people every day. Wouldn’t it be nice to have an option for insurance if that happens?

BTW, since the topic’s health insurance:

Had a nice thing happen today. Went to get a haircut. The guy who cuts my hair has had some unfortunate events occur and things are pretty tough for him. His health insurance was $700 a month and he dropped it.

Has a son who’s 18. Been experiencing tumors. Just found out he qualifies for S-CHIP and his son’s still eligible. Scheduled for an MRI.

I like it when my tax dollars go to do some good for people in tough spots.

• Link
• Report this comment

Nuts. The son wasn’t experiencing tumors, he was experiencing seizures. Big difference.

• Link
• Report this comment

The constantly morphing healthcare bill is a moving target, and kind of like Gump’s box of chocolates. My fervent hope is that once they actually have a bill that it will be published for public comment, and fielded by a group of non-conflicted economists and financial types, so that we can get a reasoned, rational opinion on it. Of course, all of this is wishful thinking, as the Democrats will run that baby through in the dead of night if possible.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m one of these folks who sees this bill as a failure if there isn’t a public option – I don’t see why a business would not drop coverage for employees if given that a public option exists. The idea of employers providing health care premiums is outdated, and too costly for production to be efficient any longer. This bill shows us our politicians are still in bed with the insurance companies and does nothing to really address costs.

• Link
• Report this comment

“If your employer drops your coverage now, would would you have?”

And if your employer wants to arbitrarily drop coverage and the fines, etc. would be MORE than the cost of the insurance…what would you have?

• Link
• Report this comment

There are many countries in the world that have universal health insurance AND public options and the private health insurance industry is alive and thrives in them. In order for the health insurance industry in the U.S. to be aversely effected by a public option, we would have to adopt the Canadian System where private health insurance is illegal. There is plenty of private health insurance in Great Britain and most Brits have private health insurance in some for to cover what is not covered by the public plan. Same in France

The only method by which a private insurance health reform to work in the United States is to do what is done in Switzerland where insurer cannot make a profit on basic health insurance policies, only on add ons for things that are not normally covered by health insurance. Breast enhancements, Lasik surgery, resort spa visits, etc/

• Link
• Report this comment

welcher, don’t worry too much. Your Aryan Nation component of the Republiconned Party will handle everything.

You do remember the dead census worker in Kentucky who’s body was found hanging in a cemetery with the word ‘fed’ scrawled on his chest just recently?

I presume the murderous, “conservative” slimeball responsible was also, like you, of the belief that the “government” must be stopped at all costs.

And so the filthy b@st@rds hung an innocent public servant.

Look at his face real closely, Andy.

This is your enemy:

http://news.lalate.com/2009/09/24/census-worker-killed-hanged-in-daniel-boone/

• Link
• Report this comment

You do remember the dead census worker in Kentucky who’s body was found hanging in a cemetery with the word ‘fed’ scrawled on his chest just recently?

Yeah, all us Conservatives hate census workers and CRAVE THEIR BLOOD, AMWET, nothing, I say, nothing makes me see red like a census worker, ewww, say, are YOU a census worker?

Meanwhile, back on Earth, I heard he ratted out some drug dealers but whatever. You know, Kentucky, meth?

• Link
• Report this comment

Of course, the best long-term approach to health care is to mandate that anyone that sells anything or employs anyone in the US be required to provide payments to health insurance providers for premiums for a basic catastrophic health insurance policy, as defined by the citizens, for every citizen of the US. hehehe

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, so in order to get health costs off employer’s books they want to impose huge fines to companies who do just that? Seems pretty silly to me.

• Link
• Report this comment

Worst case scenario, for you wiper, is that it is someone like your buddy McVeigh.

And if you’re a little lucky, it will turn out to be the poor white, anti-government trailer trash, that are merely joined at the hip with you Republiconneds, culturally and politically.

And if you’re REALLY lucky welcher, the murder was done by one of Those People!

And even then you are screwed because that’s something you and the gang bangers have in common.

A blind murderous hatred for the liberals and the “gubmint”.

What strange f’ed up bedfellows…

• Link
• Report this comment

Unfortunately I REPORT, there is nothing in the legislation that does anything with regard to how private employers get health insurance for their employees NOR anything that tells private insurers what kind of discounts they can give to whoever they want to give them to.

What the Republicans are up to is giving the private health insurance industry a wind fall that is 200 percent of their best years profit in the last ten years.

The current legislation without a private option, basically creates 60 billion in profits for the health insurance industry each year for ten years. In a year with best possible profits, the health insurance industry makes 30 billion dollars in profits. And that is when they do five percent profit in a year. Usually its three.

What does not having a public option do to those with employer based health insurance. It allows them to risk losing huge numbers of people who are already covered by employer based health insurance because it will have that sixty billion a year to fall back on. That is, it can decide to increase premiums in commercial employer based health insurance by 20, 30, 40, percent a year, and if 10 or 20 percent of their employer based enrollees are lost, no sweat, they will be making money from those companies that can afford to pony up the increases, and which means they still make their 15 to 20 million a year on the private employer based insurance income, and they still have their 60 billion in profits on the government based income.

Lack of a public option gives the private insurers the buffer necessary to experiment with increasing their profits by raising premiums on their employer based commercial policies to the point of an a acceptable loss of enrollees on the private employer side of their business.

• Link
• Report this comment

“JT, you’re spouting ideology, not practical explanations. Guns and printing presses for money will have no impact on how the public option operates. ”

Spouting idealogy IS practical explanations. C’mon Jay, a GOOD statist would cut the evil middle man insurance exec out of the equation entirely. There will be no real reform of our health-care as long as the insurance company is involved.

Don’t be so milqe-toast.

And do you REALLY believe that guns and printing presses will have no effect on how a public option operates? Tell that to destitute sugar farmers in Haiti. Or medical pot growers in California.
Or moon shine distellers in Tenneessee. Or privately owned hydro-electric facilities. Or what about the 100+ automobile manufactorers at the turn of the century? GM and a few others had good connections. It goes on and on.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Maybe so but it’s darn near bankrupt now”

How about some numbers to prove that assertion?

• Link
• Report this comment

Paul:

Until there’s a constitutional basis for mandating an individual carry medical insurance, this whole argument seems moot to me. If there’s such a rush to get it done, why wait until 2013 to put it into effect? You can bet there are those waiting in the wings to file a class-action suit if and when it is.

I will forever maintain a healthy skepticism of all government “promos”.

It’s just my nature.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Spending other people’s money on other people.”

Ummm…isn’t that the bedrock foundation of ALL insurance?

• Link
• Report this comment

dammit, 40 year old retirees.

geez

• Link
• Report this comment

What the employer has to deal with when providing insurance is far less than that. What they base their decision on is the tax break they get for providing it. Because of the ability to deduct this as a business expense, on average the employer only ends up paying 20 percent of the cost. They would be paying taxes on what they spend on health insurance otherwise if it was not used this way How would they shelter that money from taxation if it was not given in benefits. The only real option would be to give the money to their employees as SALARY. Which means the taxes of the employees would go up so you end up with the same thing. The government taxes the money.

This is the main thing that make the Republican and conservative claim that a public option would result in businesses dropping their employees coverage and just letting them go on the public option. The tax consequences alone would be brutal and the taxes and penalties associated with all versions of the legislation for large businesses that would think about dropping their employees insurance would make it worse for an employer to drop it after the legislation passes than it would if they dropped it now.

The employer is not paying for the insurance out of nothing. They are using money that would otherwise be taxable income.

If all employers decided to just drop health insurance coverage, the tax status of the money they currently use to pay those benefits changes from tax sheltered benefit business expense, to taxable profit.

This is why small businesses have much more problems providing health insurance for their employees. The tax benefits do not make sense at the tax brackets they fall into.

Large businesses can lower their tax obligations considerably by providing benefits.

This is why the idea of a public option resulting in businesses dropping employer based health insurance is so much blather. If every employer who provides health insurance to their employees did that, it would raise their aggregate taxes by about 210 250 billion dollars at the very least just on the additional income. Then they would be hit with an 8 percent tax on their profits on to pay for their employees public option.Plus whatever penalties the new legislation would slap on them. So you would end up with the employer being taxed on that income by an additional 42 percent at the federal level and of course there would be consequences on their state and local business taxes.

• Link
• Report this comment

Right now the only bill without a public option is the finance committee bill. Three from the House and Chris Dodds Health committee bill have a some form of public option. The votes to pass a legislation with a public option are there, and in the various reconciliation processes on the floor of the senate,.you can be sure that there a public option will end up in the bill that ends up being passed in Senate. If not, they have to reconcile with the House bill. This is probably the most non public place part of the process.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay….This is a moot point when you have Baucus, Conrad, Carper, Lincoln, Nelson and Conrad
sucking from the health insurance and pharma t**ts…..

I have no dogs in the race here as I”m eligible for VA and medicare….But what these phonies do is downright criminal. The reek of legalized corruption ought to stink into every American’s nostrils.

They are greed driven, and to hell with the public. They are now probably being seated at a fine restaurant in D. C. and about to be wined and dined by some insurance/pharma lobyist with their only tab being to make sure the next bill that affects the health industry is again voted down.

• Link
• Report this comment

As I understnd this matter the democrats have a full majority in each house. This is in their court. But apparently it is a good enough excuse for one group to speculate what will happen, that the bill will not pass on the senate floor, but it is not ok for the opposing geoup to speculate, as in thinking that the public option will handicap private enterprise.

Hypocracy is thy name Bookman.

So even though the dems could push this through if all of their members would vote for it. The failure to pass this legislation are placed at the feet of the Republicans?

Why not give us a list of all the democrats who are not voting for this to pass, similar to the list of republicans from GA who voted against a measure for extending unemployment benifits? Thats right that would go against party line, my bad forgot.

So again I ask why is it acceptable for one group to speculate about what will happen, but we get shouted at in CAPS if the other group dares to speculate.

• Link
• Report this comment

sorry the geoup should have been gRoup. D@mned crooked fingers.

• Link
• Report this comment

jt, you do a HORRIBLE Redneck Convert/George American imitation…

• Link
• Report this comment

There is simply no way the bill will not -pass on the Senate floor. Either the Blue Dogs will be threatened by the DNC with having their funding not extended for the next campaign or they will be Liebeman’d. The Dems will nominate someone else to run for their seat. It takes at least ten million to run a Senate campaign in a small state.

Or they can go with a reconciliation vote and pass it on 51 votes. Rahm Emmanuel has said they are perfectly willing to go that route and force an up or down vote. The Republicans spent six years of the Bush Administration doing that. Bush passed his tax cuts that way. Its not the big deal the media says it is.

• Link
• Report this comment

eagle scout, thanks much for that link downstairs.

And before he turned musically stupid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ8k6fVe25k

• Link
• Report this comment

I’ve been surviving many years now without many of the healthcare benefits that my former employer once provided at no extra charge from my paycheck. We no longer get dental coverage or mental health coverage or vision care coverage and all other coverage has been slashed from it’s glory years. The only thing different this time around is that if I lose catastrophic health insurance (for whatever reason) and I get really sick, then I stand to lose everything including my house and savings. I would have to take steps of some form to prevent that from happening in spite of Republican’s best efforts to thwart it. Desperate times could call for desperate measures. As for the Republican offering of tort reform to lower healthcare costs, I think that the only reason they support that option is because the insurer could then be protected from claims brought by the insured for such things as cancelling a policy for not crossing a t or dotting an i.

• Link
• Report this comment

opposing a bill today based on what you imagine Congress might do years later isn’t much of an argument.

It’s a good enough argument for the best Congress money can buy.

• Link
• Report this comment

Watching Jay Rockefeller’s amendment get shot down by shills for the Insurance Lobby made me want to spit. I believe Paul Krugman was right in thinking that our country is no longer governable with the corporate lobby’s hold over congressmen. We the people no longer matter, and half of the people (the half against single payer health care) are deluded by misinformation.

Its very simple. Your money can go to an insurance company that skims thousands off the top before getting to the health care system, or it can go directly where it should go. If you don’t get that math, you’re too stupid to vote.

• Link
• Report this comment

@ Paul–

The Constitution spells out Congress’ power to mandate insurance coverage; they don’t mention the collosal amount of whoring your Repubozos do for the insurance and pharm companies. Try reading it. You need the cite?

Paul writes:

“Public Option 7:15
I thought you were going to tell us how a public option would run private companies out of business? Or are you saying Republicans only say that as a smokescreen to mask the bribery…. I mean… campaign contributions?”

I’m saying Repubozos don’t give a damn about anyone’s health care besides their own families–unless you want to count John Ensign’s mommy and daddy contributing 100 grand to his hooker. They are voting to make insurance companies and pharm companies rich and middle America and seniors broke because they are bribed along with Blue Dogs. The fortunate thing about the Blue Dogs is that they are assured of losing if they vote against not for a public option and they are just as bad as the Repubozos that would replace them and it could be other dems replace them.

I don’t think a public option would run private companies out of business at all. But it would sure stop the exponential rise of their premiums and deductibles that are forcing large and small employers to drop insurance and some of these companies to go on the ropes. The competition that would force them to lower premiums to be competitive is what’s driving the bribes.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I’m saying Repubozos don’t give a damn about anyone’s health care besides their own families”

Right because Republicans are all evil. So how simple that is. It’s not a matter of people having different policy views. It is a matter of good people like you against bad people who disagree with you.

Did they teach you that at med school, “doctor”?

• Link
• Report this comment

jt

“Spending other people’s money on other people.”

Please see my 6:31. My money. Spent on his son’s illness. Seems to have worked out pretty well.

That is real nice. I prefer to do things like that without a gun to my head. Socialism is fine and dandy until the money runs out.

AMWET-

I imitate no one.

• Link
• Report this comment

From Early August:

A Duke Professor Explains What the Health Care Bill Actually Says.

Highlights:

Will the PLAN destroy private health insurance?

6. With private insurance starved, many people enrolled in the government “option” will have no place else to go.

• Link
• Report this comment

@ Jay–

It doesn’t seem to be a conspiracy theory. Read the junk that Wooten and Wingfield write. It’s difficult to believe they are paid by a newspaper.

You don’t have to look at FEC filings to find out the incredible amounts of money being given to Republicans and Blue Dogs to oppose

1) a public option
2) competitive Medicare bidding that would close the donut and stop the huge out of pocket payments demanded of seniors for their meds

You asked the questions why the Republicans/Blue Dogs essentially are doing what they’re doing and bribery is the answer. Endless polls have shown that they are not doing what their constituents want, and if you go state by state their is an extraordinarily high percentage of people in states like Arkansas and North Dakota who are uninsured and too poor to afford insurance or who have been dropped via recission. So they are voting the interests of insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies and not their constitutents.

I am at a loss to explain why so many of the fecal slinging conservatives here who aren’t wealthy want to fight tooth and nail to raise their insurance premiums and continue domination of their medical equations by insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies.

I think the links I provided give you a starting point:

http://www.campaignmoney.org/threevotes

http://www.campaignmoney.org/pressroom/2009/07/27/elected-officials-voting-against-health-reform-received-65-more-in-industry-campaign-donations-than-those-v

There are also formal congressional links that report contributions “above the table,” (not in someone’s freezer) but you don’t need me to find them for you.

A message is undercut by default when a large percent of the recipients are too lazy and ignorant to understand that–and there is no shortage of those here. You’re often the recipient of their ignorance. And check out the comments for an epicenter of serial hate that has nothing to do with any of my comments.

There is as much chance of winning them over as there is of getting Republicans to vote for any viable health reform. It’s not going to happen. And Olumpia Snowe, a pure bred narcissit, has received far too much attention. She had no intention of voting for anything that helps her constituents; other than minor amendments in Senate Finance she hasn’t yet and never will.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, the answer to your question has been given ad nauseum. I suspect you KNOW that it’s been given ad nauseum. Apparently you and other mind-numbed Obama backers think that if you keep pretending the question hasn’t been answered, you’ll be able to convince folks that it’s still an open question. It isn’t. The emperor has no clothes on this one–folks who have been paying attention know that you and the Democrats lie. The leftists want a single payer system and destroying the free market in insurance is their way of achieving that.

• Link
• Report this comment

Here’s a question for YOU, Jay. Obama claims that he can cut hundreds of billions from existing government-run health care programs. Why isn’t he already doing this?

Here, I’ll answer it for you…because Obama is lying.

• Link
• Report this comment

PODS, you need a bedside manner makeover. Is this how you treat people all of the time? After reading your material for quite a while now, I do believe that you have done more research on this subject than anyone else on this blog. But, you lose me with your sarcastic, hate filled posts directed at all that happen to disagree with you. I agree with Jay. If you want to get your point across, then lose your own fecal matter slinging.
You may have some validity on this issue of right wing editors, but I find most of it hard to believe. This paper has been a liberal rag for years and now that there are a few people writing right leaning columns you call it a right wing paper. You’re not the only one with an opinion. I know it’s hard to believe, but that’s all your rantings are… OPINION. Which, in the end, doesn’t mean a damn thing.

• Link
• Report this comment

I might add that Specter is a Republican who calls himself a Democrat only for the purpose of surviving his primary in Penn. He votes Republican every time although he may vote for health care due to his hours in outpatient waiting rooms for Tx of his recurrent Hodgkins.

• Link
• Report this comment

Countdown to reconciliation continues. October 15 draws nigh.

…here’s how health care reform would work under the reconciliation process:

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay wrote in his blog on this thread

“Committee Democrats who voted against the measure generally did so on grounds that a bill including the public option would not pass on the Senate floor.”

The quote from Baucus was that he could count and he didn’t see how their were 60 votes for a public option.

I’ve got news for Baucus–he needs to get someone to teach him law, because the Dems only need 51 votes to pass public option via Reconciliation and that’s probably where it’s going.

• Link
• Report this comment

Insurance companies stand to make 453 billion from the gold mind that would be theirs without a public option. Their main expenditures are lobbying or paying their whores.

Pharmaceutical companies have the same #1 expense that far exceeds R&D as do their absurdly repetitive ads that sometimes don’t change for years on ends in the medical journals.

I don’t know who they think is reading them the 2nd through the 100th time–because Gossip Girl fans and Ashton Kutcher twitter afficianados probably aren’t all over them.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dove was fired [as Senate Parliamentarian] in 2001 (Frumin replaced him) after Republican senators, then in the majority, disputed several of his rulings. Dove, who was hired by GOP senators, had decided that parts of a Republican tax cut plan couldn’t be passed through the reconciliation process because to do so would have enlarged the federal deficit.

• Link
• Report this comment

Y’all Republicans worry too much. There will not be any mandate to purchase health insurance without first obtaining major concessions from the insurance companies on coverage for folks with pre-existing conditions, etc., and all of that discussion along with many other issues will be rendered moot if this debate goes into reconciliation and that is where it will most likely end up. Then, we will see a significantly pared back bill that extends coverage to millions more that are currently not covered and it will be paid for with things like tax increases on cadillac plans and a crack down on fraud and abuse in Medicare, etc. Anyway, that is currently the path of least resistance for Congress to satisfy Obama’s promise to we the people. Then again, stranger things have happened.

• Link
• Report this comment

There are not a lot of Democrats in the Senate opposing the bill or the public option. The Blue Dog Democrats are in not the largest Democratic Caucus in Congress. The majority of the Blue Dogs are in the House and they don’t have the votes there to block the legislation. It breezes though the House

The Liberal Caucus is the largest and 57 of them have said they will vote against any legislation that does not have a public option. The public option will end up in the bill, or there is no bill and neither Kent Conrad or Harry Reid will actually eventually end up putting forth a bill that faces that sort of opposition. Oops that just increased. Today the count is 60 members of the Democratic Liberal Caucus who will vote against a bill that does not have a public option

The House is easy. They have 75 more solid votes than they need to pass HR3200

While Republicans are making public noises about bipartisanship, when this bill passes through the House with a solid majority of votes, it is really irrelevant whether the Senate Bill passes with 51 or 60 Votes. And since it appears that the Republicans in the House are going to vote 100 percent against ANY reform, as well as those in the Senate, bipartisanship is really irrelevant.

The opinion of the most observant pundits is that health reform is coming, like it or not. The basic stuff in the news today is that health reform is now totally in the hand of the Progressive Democratic Caucus, the most left leaning caucus in Congress. “The Hill” has reported that the Senate Democrats have a deal on the 60 votes they need to pass a bill in the Senate, and the House Democrats have more than enough to pass any of the bills they are considering, and all the House Bills are far more liberal leaning than any of the Senate versions. Word is that legislation will be passed before the Gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia in six weeks.

There are also several pieces of legislation that have been passed by the House unrelated to any of the Health reform bills but are on the Senate Calendar. The most important one is HR1586, passed by the House which is designed to add an extra tax onto the bonuses taken by recipients of TARP funds. The Senate Health Reform Bill will be added as an amendment to the Senate vote on HR 1586.

What HR1586 does is:

H.R. 1586 would impose a new 90% tax on bonuses received by employees of certain companies that received funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The tax would apply to any bonus given after December 31, 2008.

The legislation would apply the 90% tax to only the portion of a bonus that, in combination with other income, increases an employee’s adjusted gross income to a level above $250,000 ($125,000 for married couples filing individually) in the taxable year when the bonus was received. Therefore, employees with adjusted gross incomes of less than $250,000 (including bonuses) would not be impacted.

The tax would apply to any retention payment, incentive payment, or any other payment made to an employee above their regular pay for their regular service. However, any commissions, fringe
benefits, or expense reimbursements would be exempt from the taxation.

http://www.gop.gov/bill/111/1/hr1586

Very popular bill especially among the constituents of the Blue Dog Democrats who were not happy with executives who took TARP money then going on to give themselves nice big fat bonuses again.

Democrats get 60 votes on their legislation, even if it has a public option tagged onto it, because polls show that people are more pissed off about executive compensation than they are concerned about a public option

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, if possible, please respond to my earlier post. Thanks

• Link
• Report this comment

The last time that the Congress was allowed to pass a law mandating insurance was March 1789 when it became law and was ratified by enough states, and Article 1 Section 1 gives them that power. If you plan to change it you have an uphill battle, because an amendment is going to take ratification by 2/3 of the states. Better get started.

• Link
• Report this comment

So when I bring up that it is democrats who are truely holding up Health Care reform, then it no longer matters what the republians are doing and that the bill will pass anyway.

So then why all the postings and talk of rep. don’t worry about other people?

Are we also positive that there is only 9 Blue dog democrats?

If there are any more seems it may fail, if it still passes guess that means a republican had to vote for it.

Again Bookman when can we expect that list of Dems who voted against the measures you mentioned in your opening piece? I mean we would want them out of office right, unless you figure a democrat who is bad for the country is better than a republican who is good for the country?

• Link
• Report this comment

Public Option’s Doing Swell …. Overheard in the senate cloakroom:

What more do you want? I’m trying to get rid of the public option, like the health care lobbists paid us to do…………..

And the beat goes on!

• Link
• Report this comment

“Would it not make sense to cut out the fraud and abuse months ago and invest the savings until needed?”

md–A full 55% of the money spent on health care is wasted. Rather than addressing the true culprit behind the astronomical costs, the Democrat plan strictly seeks to spread the costs over a larger pool of people–i.e. the young and healthy who need very little medical care.

• Link
• Report this comment

“It is linked to the healthcare reform that Dems are working on, md, and it will be dealt with in whatever bill passes.”

Total BS. The waste and fraud exist primarily because a majority of people stopped paying for their health care directly many years ago. Once that happened, people stopped questioning the costs of whatever their doctor was recommending.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay’s weakness is that he believes politicians. The income tax was temporary. Social Security would pay for itself.

• Link
• Report this comment

Who commits most of the fraud and abuse. The most recent studies show that it is the insurance industry itself. Doctors, pharmacists and hospitals rarely do. Patients almost never do. Most of the fraud and waste results from insurance companies doctoring the statistics that determine how much they pay doctors and hospitals. As a result doctors and hospitals have to raise the amounts they bill in order to end up making enough money to operate on what they end up being paid by the insurers

A SINGLE example of this was:

AMA Wins Victory With Record-Breaking Settlement in Case Against Insurer

Settlement reimburses patients and physicians who have been shortchanged

For immediate release
Jan. 15, 2009

CHICAGO – The American Medical Association (AMA), along with the Medical Society of the State of New York and the Missouri State Medical Association, claims victory with the settlement agreement reached today in the lawsuit against United Health Group. The $350 million settlement marks the largest monetary settlement of a class action lawsuit against a single health insurer in the U.S.

“By using a flawed database to determine reimbursement rates for out-of-network care, insurers have increased profits at the expense of patients and physicians,” said AMA President, Nancy H. Nielsen, M.D. “By agreeing to the settlement, United Health Group has recognized the importance of restoring its relationship with patients and physicians by ending use of a rigged database.”

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/no-index/news/20374.shtml

The case has been pending since 2000 (the Bush Administration stalled such cases) and the fraud being committed by United Health was documented back into the 1970’s

And that is ONE company. Odds are good that they all do this to one degree or other.

But not to worry. This will not hurt United Heath at all. They will make up the loss by raising premiums and denying coverage.

• Link
• Report this comment

PODS/N.J. is getting so old and tired.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The waste and fraud exist because we let it. Once we crack down on it, it will be reduced.”

Don’t know about you, but I didn’t send my reps to washington to “let it”.

• Link
• Report this comment

I see on the AJC site that Sarah Palin has her memoirs ready in only four months of work. That’s impressive. Never knew she could draw that many pictures in such a short period of time.

Badump, bump ….

• Link
• Report this comment

Taxpayer

September 29th, 2009
10:35 pm

And we commit it! Where is our integrity?

• Link
• Report this comment

“the public option is the ONLY way to cut costs…….”

I’m in favor of getting something done to correct the current flaws in the “system”, but don’t think for a minute that costs will be cut anywhere. Shifted would be more like it, and that opens another whole can of worms.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The waste and fraud exist because we let it.”

Which is exactly what I said. It’s called indifference. When people don’t pay for their own care directly out-of-pocket, then doctors are free to order any and all tests and charge whatever fees they want. Mandating that everyone purchase insurance will only exacerbate the situation.

• Link
• Report this comment

Mark in mid-town

September 29th, 2009
10:33 pm

The Social Security tax had little to do with it. In order to give the most wealthy among us a tax break the Democrats insisted it be across the board. But I agree with you; too many have been dropped from the requirement, myself included. The increase in the tax in 1983 was probably the worst thing Reagan agreed to. What a hare-brained idea. And of course Greenspan was involved.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Thomas can you email me some of what you’re on? Was it expensive?

In 1789 Congress was given the power to pass laws, and they’ve passed a helluva lot of them on things that weren’t around in 1789. They have the power to mandate insurance, and they can pass a lot of laws on wiretapping-there are hearings going on right now Senate Judciary, and the internet wasn’t around in 1789.

They regulate Cable TV and the internet, and I’ve read enough history to figure they weren’t aorund in 1789. They regulate nuclear energy, and their weren’t a lot of nukes I know about on Washington’s boats.

Unless your mom has restricted your surfing what’s stopping you from going to a Senate site and seeing who voted on what. You want Jay to spoonfeed you? The votes are in hundreds of newspapers.

Rockefeller’s Amendment failed 8-15. Democrats Baucus, Carper, Conrad Lincoln, and Nelson voted no. With Schumer’s amendment 3 Blue Dogs voted against it.

I don’t understand your reference to 9 Blue Dogs. There are a lot of Blue Dogs in the House.

What’s interesting is that Schumer suggesated tonight since there are only 51 votes needed for a public option via Reconciliation is that some Blue Dogs would vote procedurably for a filibuster. This would be serious. It never happens from a party when a President supports a bill. Schumer and Baucus should name them but it’s not hard to guess–

Nelson said stupidly that 65 votes would be needed for credibility. 77% of Americans support public option in the largest poll so far.

How the hookers on the take vote never was needed for credibility for me.

Nelson is claiming that he is worried about bipartisan support. Actually he’s worried about his hooker money.

http://blog.healthcareforamericanow.org/2009/05/01/ben-nelson-bows-to-the-insurance-industry/

Rahm Emanuel the leaker to the press, and No Drama Obama couldn’t have screwed up any more. Obama is a lot more popular than Clinton was, and he should have laid down parameters for what he wanted in a bill months ago.

• Link
• Report this comment

Social Security is designed to be solvent as long as the poor working schlubs paying into it now aren’t vastly outnumbered by the deadbeat old coots taking out of it. Danger, Will Robinson. That’s gonna be the case in a few years. Back in the 1930s when FDR cooked up these scheme, most people worked with their hands on farms or factories, retired and lived a few years. Now they can conceivably work years past 65 and they do, and they live forever. And they still get a check from Uncle Sam just for the special accomplishment of exchanging oxygen past age 65. It’s an archaic plan for a senior population that no longer exists, yet on it persists. Nonsensical shell game. I’d rather put my money on 21 black than count on the gubbiment to hang onto it for me until I need it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Brush up on your card counting.

• Link
• Report this comment

Which is exactly what I said. It’s called indifference. When people don’t pay for their own care directly out-of-pocket, then doctors are free to order any and all tests and charge whatever fees they want. Mandating that everyone purchase insurance will only exacerbate the situation.

That reads to me as though the doctors are the sole source of waste and fraud. They are a part of it. Further, mandating coverage is not the only option being kicked around and it certainly is not a guaranteed outcome at this point.

• Link
• Report this comment

And then dammit, a tree fell on my house, so I lost count of what god I was supposed to pray to.

• Link
• Report this comment

How many “casualties?”

“Military to get mandatory swine flu shots soon”

By LOLITA C. BALDOR (AP) – 5 hours ago

WASHINGTON — A top U.S. military commander says troops will begin getting required swine flu shots in the next week to 10 days. Active duty forces deploying to war zones and other critical areas are at the front of the vaccine line.

Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart also told The Associated Press that as many as 400 troops are ready to go to five regional headquarters around the country to assist federal health and emergency management officials if needed as the flu season heats up.

The Pentagon has bought 2.7 million vaccines, and 1.4 million of those will go to active duty military. National Guard troops on active duty are also required to receive the vaccine, as are civilian Defense Department employees who are in critical jobs.

• Link
• Report this comment

So…..isn’t that the crux of the problem – Americans are convinced we are all gonna die at any one given time – think about it.

Or, that we are not going to die as long as we maintain coverage or that a death panel will come into the operating room while we are under anesthesia and decide for us and our body will float above the table and we will hear them making the decision to call the time and we cannot do anything to get through to them and we get angry and scream and someone feels a wisp and says let’s try one more time becuase I had a feeling. Hey, it made many a good movie. And, besides, it’s a better outcome than being hit by a toilet seat from an orbiting space station that came crashing down to earth. That never would have happened either if they had just bought a cheap toilet seat from home depot. But NOOOO! They had to have gold plated for space because it’s the final frontier.

• Link
• Report this comment

Sure seems a lot of those tbaggeres who don’t want govmunt in their health care sure want govmunt ta fix their houses and give them a place to stay because they were too cheap to buy a few hundred bucks worth of flood insurance.

Why can’t they be consistent about govmunt stayin’ outta their lives?

• Link
• Report this comment

The practical side of ole yinyang Bruno is that doctors don’t have time to run or order that many “extra” tests, and they have to argue to get a lot of them paid for.

It doesn’t take “every test known to mankind” to make any diagnosis, or that many actually.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tn

“The law exists, it just doesn’t have a high priority.”

Not the same. If those thugs in congress had their heads on straight, it would be “the” priority. Why talk about a new bill that will be paid for by cutting out fraud/abuse when it should already be cut out.

Its all BS. They could care less about savings, they are all on an ego driven shopping trip with our credit card.

• Link
• Report this comment

Public Option’s Doing Swell

September 29th, 2009
11:05 pm

Would you say “defensive medicine” is a red herring?

• Link
• Report this comment

Taxpayer

September 29th, 2009
11:11 pm

We’re already insurance poor.

• Link
• Report this comment

Exactly Bruno………by whom. I’ll take my doctor and skip the insurance guys – and luckily I don’t have cancer – not yet anyway. And then there’s those damn trees that could get you at anytime!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Trees – they….are….scary……….

Guten nicht!

• Link
• Report this comment

Nope not a “red herring”; defensive medicine exists, but not to the extent it’s painted. And the vast majority of Medicare fraud isn’t doctor launched, but some to be sure is.

And the same doctor orders more tests on a similar patient in his residency training than he orders years later–partly because of more experience, and sometimes because of more sophisticated testing.

• Link
• Report this comment

Public Option’s Doing Swell

September 29th, 2009
11:19 pm

Thanks, night all. Tomorrow is another day.

• Link
• Report this comment

“So why do Republicans claim it would run private companies out of business?”

1. Automobiles
2. Mortgages
3. Banks
4. Student Loans

One of two things must be the case: Either you’re stupid or think we are.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay,

I truly hope that you are just being a devils advocate and egging people on with regards to this debate. If not, I hope you have an editor that has an ability to make a cognitivie thought.

The fear of the public option lies in the fact that the public option will be less expensive to an employer than what they already pay. Or, even worse, that a fine will be imposed on an employer for failure to provide health care. The dollar figure I have heard in regards to the fine is around $3,800. This is substantially less than what my employer currently has to pay for my health care benefits for my family and I. It is actually a pretty simple calculation. If a company can save on average $10,000 by eliminating coverage and paying a penalty they are going to do it. The purpose of a business entity is to make money, not provide health care.

So, that is the fear. Our private health care will be eliminated and we will be forced on to the government roles. And, government does nothing efficiently or cost effectively. Profit is not an incentive. Customer service does not matter.

I spent the day today renewing the tags on my vehicles. I left my house at 10 this morning and returned at 3 this afternoon. Five hours of standing in lines to present my documented information to someone to verify how much money I OWED THEM. My thoughts the whole time was “what is a doctor going to have to do/spend to document what the government owes them?”

Have you applied for a passport recently? Gotten a drivers license? Had to deal with FEMA for a grant/loan? SBA?

Government does nothing efficient (regardless of who is in control of the white house, house or senate). How do we expect them to take on 1/6 of our economy? How can we expect them to take on 47 million (has to be some illegals in that figure) new policyholders and actually reduce the cost of health care? How? Please explain that to me? You have laid out some expectations in this blog which you refuse to accept, but the bottom line is how can we “insure” 47 million people that aren’t currently insure but actually reduce the cost of health care? You don’t have to be taking Singapore math to figure out that doesn’t add up.

We hear incessantly about insurance executives and how high their pay is. But, what about trial lawyers? What about malpractice insurance and defensive medicine? There are much easier answers to the health care problems than a “public option.” Things that would actually reduce the cost of health care for all Americans, regardless of who their insurer is.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Not always that simple, “doc”, since many presenting complaints like abdominal pain or a headache could be caused by a myriad of conditions, some extremely rare. The young lady who passed away in Ohio recently is a prime example. Obviously her viral pneumonia wasn’t detected at the urgent care facility she first visited or she wouldn’t have been sent home with pain meds.”

You are telling a doctor that there is a such thing as a differential diagnosis? Lol what do you think gets learned in 4 years of med school; 6 years of residency which includes tons of mooonlighting in ERs and doc offices, and several years of seeing patients every day peppered with a library of a few thousand medical books?

And for a number of years there have been infinite places to learn medicine on the web and infinite numbers of software to give you differential Dx.

You sure about that abdominal pain/headache differential? LOL ReallY? Yes Virginia differential Dx exists says Bruno’s Principles of Internal Medicine soon to outsell Harrison and Cecil right?

How about my favorite? Differential Diagnosis by Jerimiah Barondness–far and away the best.

Ya think many of them don’t have differential Dx of “abd pain” or “headache”–you must have a low opinion of doctors and training and clinical experience.

I’ve tried to explain a dozen times the other day that we really don’t know anything at all about the clinical course or the timing of what happened to the girl who was working in Oxford Ohio named Young until the information comes out.

You don’t really know what was done at the urgent care center Bruno, and don’t be so naive that you believe a one sentence statement from a newspaper. They don’t know what happened without a chart–and that they don’t have.

Symptom time lines vary for viral pneumonia and bacterial pneumonia and the dozens of rarer pneumonias although some of them have common characteristics.

What seems to come across from the couple paper articles which is all I have or you have to go on is that she began to have symptoms–we’d be guessing as to which but I can make an educated one. She wanted to see a doctor but her best friend says she says she didn’t have the money. She worked 3 jobs after graduating majoring in something from a pretty decent school or at least it was regarded so when I was doing some residency at UC.

People who preached she could have borrowed the care or bargained it were wrong, and if she wasn’t that sick she might not have been seen free at a teaching hospital–then again she may have qualified for a card for treatment but was probably unfamiliar with the bureaucracy in getting one somewhere. She would have probably had to travel out of Oxford Ohio and maybe she didn’t have a car–or maybe didn’t feel like driving or at any rate didn’t get a friend to help and she didn’t ask her parents for money either.

She may have tried to shake things off. We don’t know what happened at the urgent care center at all because newspaper articles aren’t reliable reporting things that they have only heresay for as data. We don’t know what she told them and what they ordered or did lab wise. Most quick tests btw for H1N1 have a high rate of false negatives.

I suspect that whatever she had turned bad or she went into septic shock either a week or 2 weeks after onset of symptoms–and that was probably several ddays after an incubation period for whatever it was she had.

I haven’t seen more details as to information on her when I last checked the Dayton and Cincy papers.

• Link
• Report this comment

@ RB–

When in your life have people you called fools done anything but taken a whizz in your face? It isn’t changing now. Who the hell do you think you are?

And the post office and Medicare were crippled by the same two fools, Repubozos Tom Davis and Chuck Grassley in 2006 and 2003 respectively. Look up the legislation yourself.

• Link
• Report this comment

If you haven’t ‘been walked through the process’, you are not listening. The government does not have to make a profit to operate. That in itself is an competitive advantage. Next, as others have said, employers can drop the private insurance and force employees to the public option. Also, does anyone trust the government not to subsidize the program with taxes if it has financial trouble later? It will be an entitlement program and people will depend on it. Of course, they will subsidize.

• Link
• Report this comment

WASHINGTON (AP) — To prevent inflation from taking off, the Federal Reserve will need to start boosting interest rates quickly and aggressively once the economy is back on firmer footing, Fed officials warned Tuesday.

Warned who? The fed warning the fed? wth is this, the idiot.gov is sending out pie in the sky warnings to itself?

Like the economy is anywhere near better?

• Link
• Report this comment

KABUL, Afghanistan — A crowded Afghan passenger bus struck a roadside bomb Tuesday in the violent southern province of Kandahar, killing 30 people and injuring more than three dozen others, Afghan officials said. As many as 10 children were reported to be among the dead.-Urinal

Tell me again why the Afghani are “not on our side?”

• Link
• Report this comment

“Tell me again why the Afghani are “not on our side?””

many of them are and want the Taliban out of their country … however, when things like this happen, it doesn’t help relations:

A young Afghan girl suffered fatal injuries after a box of public information leaflets, dropped from an RAF transport aircraft over Helmand province, landed on top of her.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6854513.ece

• Link
• Report this comment

Lifestyle decisions certainly impact health and diseases, but they are hardly the only etiology of them.

Fixing insurance is a large part of improving access to health care, as well as fixing pharmaceutical costs, and establishing best practice outcomes. There are also research aspects to all the health care bills.

Fixing insurance correctly also goes a long way at stopping the economy tsunami with runaway costs now at 16% GDP, and health care growing costs growing at 300% of the economy, but of course reading is hard for Repubozos and they refuse to recognize any of this.

Medicare was crippled by the Repubozos in 2003 led by Bill Frist, and the Donut is a Repubozo creation as is the phenomenon of seniors unable to afford their meds.

If it’s a screwup, there’s a Repubozo etiology you can rest assured.

• Link
• Report this comment

Richard

September 30th, 2009
3:02 am

Of course you are right. Why doesn’t anyone have the guts to tell these folks to shape up or expect to pay for their own self-induced afflictions? Insurance companies won’t take many of them and if they do charge them higher rates.

• Link
• Report this comment

RGB

September 29th, 2009
11:36 pm

Except for the student loans it was the economic crisis that triggered it. And shouldn’t students be able to attend school for free as long as they can make the grades?

• Link
• Report this comment

At this time, the only updated article on the web is an indication of how erratic and inadequate newspapers can be in reporting disease courses when they have no medical charts to interpret.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090926/NEWS16/909269995

All this article says, is that the ” tests on a Butler County woman in her 20s who died this week were not positive for H1N1, according to the Ohio Department of Health, which could not identify the woman for privacy reasons.”

It gives no information about the time line and treatment of Kimi Young, and right now, the press doesn’t have any– which hasn’t stopped the Bookman wingnuts from clucking about it anyway as if they had said charts and the ability to interpret them.

See @ Bruno who also had a free update on differential diagnosis for physicians last night, as I suppose part of a monologue for late night TV.

• Link
• Report this comment

Also, since it was addressed above..

Most of you wingnuts here wouldn’ know it, because you spend all your time in the basement pounding out nutbag missives and half baked conspiracy theories about “death panels”, but the economy IS getting better. I know this because I have a small business. The amount of “chatter” about new work has been on the rise for 2-3 months, and now the “chatter” is turning into work. Some of this work is looking pretty darn profitable so far.

None of you wingnuts would know this because you all obviously don’t get out much, and because your masters Limbaugh, Beck, and Boortz won’t tell you this, and your wingnut rags (that you cut-n-paste your “facts” from) sure ain’t gonna report it, since they’ve all been trying to make anything and everything Obama proposes be a failure, no… make that a SPECTACULAR FAILURE…

Why do wingnuts hate America???

• Link
• Report this comment

What the hell man. This can’t be right ’bout mah Sarallllllll. And it turns out Lynn Vincent wrote her book. Maybe Vincent wrote her WSJ editotrial as well, because it’s doubtful that ole Sarah can write any better than the wingnut commenters here.

How can she be a blithering idiot if all them JawJaws and Sonnah and Saxbuh think she done hung da moon? Why wouldn’t it be a privilege to pay 100 grand to hear the blithering idiot?

• Link
• Report this comment

The ‘public option’ is dead, just as are Obowo’s thoughts of a second term. Likewise, the fleeting power of the Democrats is dying on the vine.

Oh, such hope, such change, dead now as Jimmy Hoffa. No assisted suicide here. That idiot in the WH, his advisers, staff, and political party have all drunk their own speaial batch of Kool Aide.

Investor Business Daily poll shows that @45% of all doctors (Chad not included) have said that they would seriously consider their own options: retirement, or not taking Medicare patients at all. Another poll shows now 55% of ALL Americans oppose Obowo’s moronic health care plan, 41% in favor (that would be the ones with the outstretched hands), and a whopping 66% of ALL senior citizens oppose it.

When are midterm elections again? Even some of Obowo’s party affiliates are struggling now to untie themselves from the anchor the uppity muslim is becoming.

• Link
• Report this comment

All together now. IBD is the poll for me. hehehe

• Link
• Report this comment

The IBD poll has been trashed by every poll analyst who makes real money and is respected in this country including Nate Silver. It is widely touted by fools as we can see above who are Repubozos. It refuses to reveal it’s real sourcing, or where or how it exclusively conducted its poll by emailing it’s alleged physicians.

The physician poll most highly regarded was the New England Journal of Medicine Poll. NEJM is at the top of physician journals read by physicians world wide.

And there is not one imbecile here that will take me on medically or legally. Not one in months. Still waiting for that to happen.

63% of MDs polled statistically in a poll that has been accepted by every profesional polling analyst who also rejected the idiotic IBD poll wanted the choice of a public option.

All you catheter bound unemployed Repubozo yokels keep posting crap that you are the only one struggling to read. Gotta go work in the real world.

• Link
• Report this comment

Investor Business Daily poll shows that @45% of all doctors

ha ha ha.

Bud is quite the poll smoker, isn’t he?

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay;
If you are interested posted a response on Cal Thomas at 7:25.

• Link
• Report this comment

Let the fear set you free.

• Link
• Report this comment

My comment from 6:30 last night still awaits moderation. No profanity, no links. Wassup?

• Link
• Report this comment

Rachel Maddow: Public Option Is Dead – Long Live Public Option!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385×380176

Engage!

• Link
• Report this comment

Do not kid yourselves. The conned do not want ANY changes, whatsoever.

They didn’t in 1994. They don’t now. And they won’t ever. They never do.

These antisocial ascetics and misanthropes LOVE the status quo.

They love seeing fascists and corporatists being exempted from the rule of law.

They love seeing 20,000+ Americans die NEEDLESSLY every year because they are not profitable enough to the giant HMOs and Aetna.

They love seeing innumerable tens of thousands of American’s lives ruined as they file for bankruptcy because of unconscionable medical bills.

They love waste, fraud and ineptitude, as long as it occurs in the private sector only.

They hate their children and grandchildren.

I presume the feeling is mutual…

• Link
• Report this comment

The public is not as dumb as it’s made out to be, and Mr. Obama’s public option died a bipartisan death yesterday in the Senate Finance Committee. What’s left is a package of “reforms” that are mere trite extensions of what we’ve been doing for decades. That is, piling up mandates on private insurers and then lying that this somehow isn’t driving up the cost of health insurance; piling up subsidies for health consumption and then lying that this somehow isn’t responsible for runaway health-care spending.-WallStreetJournal

See that word “lie?”

It’s impossible to debate socialism honestly, for if you did, everybody would go ewwwww.

• Link
• Report this comment

By the way, if all insurance companies reserved for unexpected losses, would any of them ever not have enough money to pay off every conceivable claim or would insurance companies exist or would we the people own AIG. So many questions.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, would you consider doing a column on corporate crime?

The topic that seemingly no one, not the mainstream media, not the politicians, not the conned dare broach.

I’d love to get the “input” from these gangster capitalist supporters on how the private sector can do no wrong…

• Link
• Report this comment

ANdy/Palin 2012 ???

• Link
• Report this comment

this isn’t an instance of politicians bowing to popular passions. As the liberal watchdog Media Matters pointed out, more Americans believe in the existence of UFOs (34 percent, according to a 2007 Associated Press poll) than oppose the public option (26 percent, according to a recent New York Times poll). Even among Republicans, opposition to the public option (42 percent) is outweighed by support (47 percent). Polls consistently find that the public option is more popular than health reform itself.

http://www.slate.com/id/2230938/

• Link
• Report this comment

I don’t know how many of the posters in here are in business, but if they are, they know that no private enterprise can compete with a government give-a-way program.

• Link
• Report this comment

Finnius…shouldnt you be helping the homeless/bums? Colder temperatures approach and they gonna need a place to keep warm.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay, would you consider doing a column on corporate crime?

Betsy McCaughey’s role in this HCR debate and her recently revealed connections to tobacco lobbiests would be worthwhile as well.

As would be a brighter spotlight on what certainly appears to be outright fraudulent polling sponsored by IBD via the shady Strategic Vision outfit.

Alas, I imagine the media’s interest in these two related stories will continue to receive approximately .0001% the attention paid to a Candid Camera video moment over at ACORN some weeks back.

• Link
• Report this comment

Mrs. Godzilla

September 30th, 2009
8:18 am
ANdy/Palin 2012 ???

Why of course. It’s so obvious now that someone has suggested it. Why didn’t someone think of this before. They have my vote in the primaries.

• Link
• Report this comment

If it wasn’t for NASA “competing” with private space flight, none of us would have personal space craft.

No, wait…….

• Link
• Report this comment

I see that the left wing idiots are still raging against the dying of the light.

Your anger obviously is fueled by the realization that you have been duped and dumped on by your Messiah, who is conveniently out of the country with his simplistic alcoholic wife and The Bloated One, Oprah, trying to get Olympic games in Chicago? Oh yes, you socialist pubs like the NYT and Daily POS have equally railed against the polls, because they are obviously fueled by racism……isn’t that the code word for the left anyway, your penultimate last stand when you have nothing left to support your ignorance?

You might as well try to have the Games, by the way, at Vostok Station (you egg heads look it up, I know you’re too stupid to know intuitively where it is)

• Link
• Report this comment

wow … looks like Bud is off his meds again …

• Link
• Report this comment

Jay;
If you do as dB suggest be sure to select Republican Party activist and supporters for your expose.

• Link
• Report this comment

Nay-sayers, you do understand that single-payor does not equate to “free”, right?

• Link
• Report this comment

Gale: Good point.
What does single-payer mean or equate to?

• Link
• Report this comment

They need the healthcare industry to make as much $$$$$$$$$$ as possible so they can fund their political campaigns.

• Link
• Report this comment

USinUK-

“try again, bubba … if it wasn’t for NASA, most telecom companies couldn’t afford to launch their own satellites into space”

With all due respect, you do not know this and can not prove it. Furthermore, space/satylite launching is big business now, with the majority of the launching taking place as far away from NASA as possible on this earth.

Another great government success story.

• Link
• Report this comment

Mrs. G –

I mean ’script meds … not the ones he gets from the shady guy on the corner …

anyhoo … upstairs …

• Link
• Report this comment

“Furthermore, space/satylite launching is big business now, with the majority of the launching taking place as far away from NASA as possible on this earth”

And thereby proving that private industry can compete successfully with a government run agency.

• Link
• Report this comment

Taxpayer

And where in the Constitution does it say the government must provide healthcare to its citizens and illegal aliens?

By the way, the moon landing was filmed in Arizona, not California. Geeeeeez.

• Link
• Report this comment

I Report/ Vast White Wing Conspirator (-: You Whine )-:

September 30th, 2009
5:35 am

The economy is growing. Is that better in your book? The fed has inflation under control and is able to make any needed adjustments. Deal with it.

You’re outnumbered:

Survey: Optimism about global economy is growing

• Link
• Report this comment

TnGelding

Questions:

If the economy is growing, then why is unemployment also growing?

If conservatives are “outnumbered” then why can’t you pass your socialized medicine bill?

Where did you get your “optimism” survey, the Daily Kos?

• Link
• Report this comment

Jack

September 30th, 2009
9:16 am

In 2002 70% of businesses had no employees and only make up 5% of receipts.

• Link
• Report this comment

A 5% return on sales ain’t bad. But it’ll be a lot less if business owners are forced to pay employee insurance. Of course, we all remember that Hillary said that if employers could not afford to pay health insurance for their employees, they shouldn’t be in business.

• Link
• Report this comment

Jack

September 30th, 2009
9:42 am

Hillary’s plan is looking better and better. It, like the current plans, sought to expand our current system to cover more people and let government cover the remainder.

• Link
• Report this comment

Say What??

September 30th, 2009
10:02 am

“Productivity increased 6.5 percent in the business sector in the second
quarter of 2009.”

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod2.nr0.htm

The point is, things are getting better and the economy will show small growth in GDP in the current qtr which ends tomorrow. Job growth is still at least a year away, unless government offers some kind of incentives to start hiring and stop outsourcing.

Our dominance of the world economy appears to be over. This could be the new reality, but I hope not. Certainly our young people are going to haveto be better educated and prepared for the workforce.

• Link
• Report this comment

TnGelding

September 30th, 2009
10:12 am

Okay, so here’s a few tidbits about that robust productivity gain.

1. “U.S. non-farm productivity in the second quarter rose at its fastest pace in six years as companies slashed costs to protect profits, government data showed on Tuesday.”

Yes, there were gains, however it was because companies slashed costs.

2. “On the other hand it means you can do more with fewer people,” he said.

This is the end result of companies showing gains by “slashing costs” (i.e. cutting jobs).

So in other words, the cost to prepare you family’s meals has been reduced (increased productivity) because you kicked one of your children out of the house.

• Link
• Report this comment

TnGelding

One final thing:

“Finally, it is important to remember that while productivity is on the rise, Americans’ actual working hours continue to shrink. “If not for the last two miserable quarters, this quarter’s drop in hours would be the steepest in the [Bureau of Labor Statistics] data — back to 1947,” NPR.org makes clear.”

The steepest sinct 1947? Yeah, great economic news.

• Link
• Report this comment

Say What??

September 30th, 2009
10:34 am

Nobody said it was great, just improving from what it was. Inventories are also declining so production will have to be increased soon. Some of the jobs will never come back, that’s why there’s an emphasis on creating new industries, which will take time. Our piece of the global economic pie is shrinking. We’d better get used to it and make the necessary adjustments. Priority number one would be to stop our lavish, wasteful lifestyles, which will undoubtedly slow the recovery.

• Link
• Report this comment

Say What??

September 30th, 2009
10:34 am

I’m certainly no expert, but it seems to me we’ve come a long way in a short period of time. And most of the stimulus package is still in the pipeline. Granted, the debt is regrettable, but manageable as long as we address it seriously next year.

• Link
• Report this comment

National debt is not a problem as long as there is a model for replacing the revenues and paying down the debt that actually works. Democrats, have historically, a very good record of paying down the deficits and debt their initial spending creates but Republicans have a very poor record. They have been selling “supply side economics” for three decades, but they have not managed to pay down the deficit or the debt by doing so. They make claims to increasing revenues that are at best specious, but still the debt they create is never reduced, nor are the deficits they run up.

Most Democratic spending ends up being spent not by the government and in government agencies, but directly by the taxpaying public.

Basically Democrats do budgeting in ways that goes directly into the market from the bottom. Republicans have this “trickle down” method that results in money having to pass through many layers of both public and private bureaucracies before it has any effect on the economy or government revenues at all.

By almost every economic measure Democrats are much better for the economy than Republican:.

Politicians Lie, Numbers Don’t
And the numbers show that Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans.

The Economy 1959-2007

% Change in GDP

R Avg 2.94

D Avg 4.09

Inflation

R Presidents 4.5%

D Presidents 3.81%

Unemployment

R Presidents 6.21%

D Presidents 5.33%

Avg Fed Taxes

R Presidents 17.97%

D Presidents 18.4%

Federal Spending % GDP

R Presidents 20.67%

D. Presidents 19.6%

Defense Spending

R Presidents 5.71%

D Presidents 5.83%

SPENDING MINUS DEFENSE

R Presidents 14.94%

D Presidents 13.77%

Federal Deficit Surplus

R Presidents

-2.7%

D Presidents

-1.21%

http://www.slate.com/id/2199810/

Republicans increase spending, increase deficits and lower taxes. Thats about it.

• Link
• Report this comment

And of course an interesting commentary I read about the reasons that Republicans and Conservatives prefer charitable programs to social programs was so simple it stunned me. Social government programs in the U.S. are democratic. Republican charitable theory allows those who give the charity to control the behavior of those getting the charity. In Ireland during the potato famine this was obvious. Convert from Catholicism to Protestantism and get the bowl of soup.

In America this has morphed to “Listen to the sermon, come to our religious service, and then you get the soup”

• Link
• Report this comment

N.J.

I’ll try to sneak one in here between your varied thesis papers.

Interesting numbers you posted about the different impacts of Republican and Democrat Presidents. Care to illustrate, during the same period of time, the impact based on which party controlled the legislative branch of government? Just sayin…

• Link
• Report this comment

Telling it like it is?

http://www.ajc.com/video?bcpid=1659825399&bclid=1716449804&bctid=42827347001

• Link
• Report this comment

The simple chain of events is this. Public health care option is created and loses money or barely breaks even on care. Private insurance companies must match this, which is naturally impossible because they dont have a nearly limitless supply of tax dollars to spend and borrow against. So they sell out and go under.

• Link
• Report this comment