Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: samhill On: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:15 pm

If the party of no was totally kept out of the HCB how did they manage to put in all the republican pork that was included? Someone isn`t being completely up front.
samhill
 
Hot Air Coal Stoker Furnace: keystoker 160
Hand Fed Coal Stove: hitzer 75 in garage
Stove/Furnace Make: keystoker/hitzer
Stove/Furnace Model: koker 160/ hitzer 75

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: stockingfull On: Fri Jan 22, 2010 4:39 pm

Mike, there's a short answer to your points:

Everything -- EVERY SINGLE THING -- government does "limits liberty."

Here's the longer version:
When the TSA scans you beneath your underwear in the name of safety, your liberty has been limited. When your neighbor's kid goes off to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan, that person's liberty has been completely taken away, ostensibly in your name. When you get on the interstate and see the speed limit, your liberty has been limited. Hell, when your money is taken away to fund the elementary school down the street, or to pay the police in your town, your liberty has been limited.

In fact, insurance companies, by their very nature, take from all and pay to a few, thus "limiting the liberty" of those who paid premiums and didn't have a claim. On top of that, we accord to the health insurers the only anti-trust exemption -- that is, the gov't-sanctioned right to "limit your liberty" in a much more pervasive way -- other than that granted to Major League Baseball. How is it that we haven't been reading your objections to those gross infringements of your "liberty?" How about when they "limit your liberty" by denying your treatment as "experimental," or rescinding your contract because you got sick and started costing them "too much"?

So Mike, your "liberty" argument always sounds good but it's old, and tired. It's been settled for a long time that gov't intervenes when there's a demonstrable collective need, which I outlined in detail in my post above. The New Deal arguably saved us from a workers' revolution during the Depression. Know any elderly folks who want to give up their Medicare?

Now, I know there's a fundamental disconnect between our views of the world in this general area. But please don't insult my, or our, intelligence by pretending that this is the first time this has happened. There is an economic crisis directly traceable to our healthcare system, and it's self-evident that the "free market" not only has failed to correct it -- it is manifestly making it far worse.

So we're back to my question: how do we fix it?
stockingfull
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Yellow Flame
Stove/Furnace Model: W.A. 150 Stoker Furnace

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: jpete On: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:32 pm

stockingfull wrote:
So we're back to my question: how do we fix it?


Reverse everything you think government is for. Basically, if YOU think it's a good idea, we should run screaming in the opposite direction.
jpete
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman Mk II
Coal Size/Type: Stove, Nut, Pea
Other Heating: Dino juice


Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: jpete On: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:46 pm

stockingfull wrote:Let's take this one step at a time.

1. There's no gun at anybody's head now, right? Yet costs are skyrocketing. Why? IMO, there are several major reasons. Big pharma and Hartford have a virtual monopoly, state-by-state. That monopoly is allowed to cherry pick the healthiest insureds, to deny coverage to anybody with a PEC, and to cancel people who have the temerity to get sick. Meanwhile, the problem is magnified as the population ages and requires/demands more and more expensive health care.


Yes, let's take this one at a time. IF Big Pharma and Hartford have a monopoly, and I agree with you that they do, then we MUST ask how that happened. The answer lies in the 1945 McCarran Ferguson Act, which Harry Reid threatened to repeal if the insurance companies didn't stand down.

stockingfull wrote:As it stands now, if you contract an illness which requires ongoing treatment, you simply cannot change jobs. You become indentured to your employer. (Why? Because healthcare as an employee benefit was thought to be a good thing once upon a time, and this tether happens to attach to that concept.) If you're lucky, your insurer won't find some "benefit cap" or "program limitation" or ancient unrelated undisclosed PEC, or other horsecrap on the basis of which to rescind your coverage.


If portability of health care is a desirable thing, and again, I agree that it is, then why would the current HC proposal seek to eliminate health savings accounts which are in fact portable?

stockingfull wrote:Plus costs simply are out of control because it's all become a tech-heavy, on-demand system, where gigantic amounts are spent for end-of-life treatments, many of which do virtually nothing but burn money. Medical advances in the last generation have been so rapid that people in this country have come to believe that they never have to face death. And insurers have stopped fighting and become content to just pay, keep score, charge higher premiums and take their profit, which is what insurers do best. If your health insurance costs haven't risen much faster than your income, that says a lot for your income. But anybody who doesn't think that the cost of the end of life in this country has become a significant problem is already under some strong medication. Finding a way to deal gracefully with death is a challenge we must confront, without resorting to the irresponsible and inflammatory "death panel" lingo of the Betsy McCaugheys and Sarah Palins of the world.


All that end of life care is heavily subsidized by Medicare. What incentive is there to lower costs when the government is picking up a minimum cost? Why do the costs of non subsidized procedures like elective surgeries fall every year?

stockingfull wrote:2. Apart from the niceties outlined above for people who actually have insurance, the growing uninsured population is going without sometimes inexpensive early detection and treatment, which results in (1) them becoming acutely sick, and (2) getting treatment for their sickness in ER's, (3) at the highest possible cost for that treatment (even ignoring that it might have been completely avoided with cheap preventative care), (4) which stratospheric costs either bankrupt them or us, or BOTH them and us.


Why not repeal McCarran Ferguson and allow people to buy insurance across state lines like every other form of insurance? There is a company in Washington state that offers plans from $49 to $89/month. Even someone working at Wal Mart part time can swing that. Except by Federal law, everyone in 49 other states are specifically excluded from buying it.

3. The above risk and cost structure isn't really much different in character from that which required Social Security, or Medicare, or even carrying insurance on your car when you drive. When a problem reaches a breadth and/or scale which significantly affects the taxpayer, then it's the function of government to intervene in some way. We're by far the most expensive healthcare system in the world, yet we're 37th in outcomes. It's not just a matter of national embarrassment, it's sealing our economic fate in the world marketplace. If we don't reform, we'll never compete again; it's that simple.


Total dollars spent doesn't have any bearing on outcomes. Maybe other countries don't eat the poison the Federal government allows into our food supply? And whom are we competing with and for what? That seems like a separate argument.

stockingfull wrote:4. So the question becomes how best to do it. It's clearly a national problem, so it's not something which can be "optional." That said, there still is a wide range of possible solutions, from minimum guidelines for state programs, to universal Medicare, and lots of possibilities in between. Scott Brown participated in doing it in MA; let's see what he thinks about how it should be started in DC. As I said yesterday, I think it can be started with a list of simple minimum standards, which few in either party would want to answer for voting against.


The problem is the Federal government thinks it can fix problems and create wealth when in reality it causes problems and destroys wealth.

Stocking, your side has had it's chance from the New Deal to the Great Society and beyond. When will you realize you can't multiply wealth by dividing it?

You are killing this country and you're too ignorant or stubborn to see it and admit it.
jpete
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman Mk II
Coal Size/Type: Stove, Nut, Pea
Other Heating: Dino juice

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: Richard S. On: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:49 pm

mikeandgerry wrote:Clarifications of your words, by my summary, are in bold, one step at a time.
.


I fixed that post. pleas don't put your own words in quotes. There's a very easy way to do multiple quotes from the posting panel:

Using the Quote Botton, Special Tip

In short, don't use the quote button on the post. Hit Reply first. Highlight the text in the preview panel on the bottom you want to quote and hit the quote button on it.
Richard S.
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: mikeandgerry On: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:53 pm

stockingfull wrote:Mike, there's a short answer to your points:

Everything -- EVERY SINGLE THING -- government does "limits liberty."

Here's the longer version:
When the TSA scans you beneath your underwear in the name of safety, your liberty has been limited. When your neighbor's kid goes off to serve in Iraq or Afghanistan, that person's liberty has been completely taken away, ostensibly in your name. When you get on the interstate and see the speed limit, your liberty has been limited. Hell, when your money is taken away to fund the elementary school down the street, or to pay the police in your town, your liberty has been limited.

In fact, insurance companies, by their very nature, take from all and pay to a few, thus "limiting the liberty" of those who paid premiums and didn't have a claim. On top of that, we accord to the health insurers the only anti-trust exemption -- that is, the gov't-sanctioned right to "limit your liberty" in a much more pervasive way -- other than that granted to Major League Baseball. How is it that we haven't been reading your objections to those gross infringements of your "liberty?" How about when they "limit your liberty" by denying your treatment as "experimental," or rescinding your contract because you got sick and started costing them "too much"?

So Mike, your "liberty" argument always sounds good but it's old, and tired. It's been settled for a long time that gov't intervenes when there's a demonstrable collective need, which I outlined in detail in my post above. The New Deal arguably saved us from a workers' revolution during the Depression. Know any elderly folks who want to give up their Medicare?

Now, I know there's a fundamental disconnect between our views of the world in this general area. But please don't insult my, or our, intelligence by pretending that this is the first time this has happened. There is an economic crisis directly traceable to our healthcare system, and it's self-evident that the "free market" not only has failed to correct it -- it is manifestly making it far worse.

So we're back to my question: how do we fix it?


News flash: Stockingfull says "Personal liberty is old and tired".

Apparently you missed my point about extremes: Medicare and temporary relief are not the issue. That can be done. What cannot and should not be done is socialize health care.

Back to my question: Why does the left object to limitations on liberty for security (the general welfare) but want to entirely destroy personal liberty in the name of health care reform (individual welfare)?

To answer your question> The system really isn't broken. There is no demonstrable collective need. The left has made a bleeding heart issue of health care. Now you say it is a case of how much liberty do you want to give up and how much do you want to contribute to charity and your own health care.

I say: Ask the people. They will tell you the answer. They will tell you what they want. If their answer is "have someone else pay for it" -- well, that is total BS. At that point "the party of no" becomes "the party of hell no".

You are bringing up the same old arguments. Didn't you get the memo? HCR as you want it, is dead.
mikeandgerry
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman-Anderson Anthratube 130-M

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: mikeandgerry On: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:00 pm

Richard S. wrote:I fixed that post. pleas don't put your own words in quotes. There's a very easy way to do multiple quotes from the posting panel:



Sorry to cause you so much work, Mayor. I'll get it right next time.
mikeandgerry
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman-Anderson Anthratube 130-M

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: stockingfull On: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:06 pm

Jeff, I take it you like de-regulation in all its forms. Which is what we had before the Great Depression....

And how's all that free-market "globalization" working out?

The fact is, the biggest problem with health insurance is that the insurers have had too free a hand. The notion that our "world's worst" bang-for-the-buck in healthcare has no relation to the fact that we're the ONLY industrialized nation without a universal healthcare system is pure fantasy on your part.

Our healthcare system is badly broken, and getting worse by the day. That's simply a fact.

If you think less regulation is what it needs to improve, you won't find much company -- even in the GOP.
Last edited by stockingfull on Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
stockingfull
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Yellow Flame
Stove/Furnace Model: W.A. 150 Stoker Furnace

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: stockingfull On: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:14 pm

Mike, the polling showed that the people wanted a healthcare bill. Even a healthcare bill with a public option.

Until it got fouled by the Senate sausage-factory. That's when Scott Brown's numbers took off.

So I consider it a form of justice that neither Lieberman nor Nelson likely will get what the benefit of their sleazy bargains to be #60. And I sure don't agree that the public either was, or even now is, against universal healthcare.

What the public wants is a clean bill.
stockingfull
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Yellow Flame
Stove/Furnace Model: W.A. 150 Stoker Furnace

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: SMITTY On: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:23 pm

Simple solution: MAKE HEALTHCARE AFFORDABLE TO PEOPLE MAKING LESS THAN 1,000,000 PER YEAR!! That's the only reform needed. The system is fine - it just cost too damn much!!

Greedy doctors? Greedy insurance co's? I don't have the answer. But what I do know is that Obama's plan is a huge steamy pile of dung & does nothing to solve the problems I just outlined. Only makes it worse.
SMITTY
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Patriot Coal - custom built by Jim Dorsey
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman Mark III (not currently in use)
Coal Size/Type: Rice / Blaschak anthracite
Other Heating: Oil fired Burnham boiler

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: jpete On: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:36 pm

stockingfull wrote:Jeff, I take it you like de-regulation in all its forms. Which is what we had before the Great Depression....

And how's all that free-market "globalization" working out?

The fact is, the biggest problem with health insurance is that the insurers have had too free a hand. The notion that our "world's worst" bang-for-the-buck in healthcare has no relation to the fact that we're the ONLY industrialized nation without a universal healthcare system is pure fantasy on your part.

Our healthcare system is badly broken, and getting worse by the day. That's simply a fact.

If you think less regulation is what it needs to improve, you won't find much company -- even in the GOP.


What we had before the Great Depression was the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 followed by a decade of Keynesian monetary policy. What do you think made the "Roaring Twenties" roar? Everybody and his brother was a paper millionaire. And when the Fed turned off the tap, the bubble popped.

Globalization is your parties creation. Who signed NAFTA into law?

Our health care system ISN'T broken. It's all the BS regulation the government puts on it that gums up the works. Every state has an insurance commissioner. Plus some Federal regs thrown in on top. ALL our businesses are HIGHLY regulated. You claim to be a lawyer, how many volumes of Federal regulations do you have?

There are other factors involved in patient outcomes. Money is only a part. The poison the government feeds us has NOTHING to do with it?

As finding company amongst the R's and D's, I'll leave you with a line from the Stealers Wheels hit...."Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right,
Here I am, stuck in the middle with you." 8-)
jpete
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman Mk II
Coal Size/Type: Stove, Nut, Pea
Other Heating: Dino juice

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: jpete On: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:37 pm

SMITTY wrote:Simple solution: MAKE HEALTHCARE AFFORDABLE TO PEOPLE MAKING LESS THAN 1,000,000 PER YEAR!! That's the only reform needed. The system is fine - it just cost too damn much!!

Greedy doctors? Greedy insurance co's? I don't have the answer. But what I do know is that Obama's plan is a huge steamy pile of dung & does nothing to solve the problems I just outlined. Only makes it worse.


Calm down Smitty, you'll have a stroke, end up in a hospital and then a heart attack when you see the bill. :lol:
jpete
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman Mk II
Coal Size/Type: Stove, Nut, Pea
Other Heating: Dino juice

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: SMITTY On: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:43 pm

:lol:

Oh I know ... I'm still paying for the motorcycle accident I had on Hwy.9 in CA in 2001 in the form of ruined credit.
SMITTY
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Patriot Coal - custom built by Jim Dorsey
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman Mark III (not currently in use)
Coal Size/Type: Rice / Blaschak anthracite
Other Heating: Oil fired Burnham boiler

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: stockingfull On: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:50 pm

Jeff, show us how "the poison the Gov't feeds us" is what's causing our healthcare system to be approximately twice as expensive as the second most expensive in the world, while coming in 37th in outcomes, and you'll jump to the head of the line for at least a couple of Nobel Prizes.

I'm rooting for ya, bud. :punk:
stockingfull
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Yellow Flame
Stove/Furnace Model: W.A. 150 Stoker Furnace

Re: Obama blames Bush for Massachusetts

PostBy: jpete On: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:10 pm

stockingfull wrote:Jeff, show us how "the poison the Gov't feeds us" is what's causing our healthcare system to be approximately twice as expensive as the second most expensive in the world, while coming in 37th in outcomes, and you'll jump to the head of the line for at least a couple of Nobel Prizes.

I'm rooting for ya, bud. :punk:


Why would I need to do that? I can just talk about WANTING to do it.

What the hell, it worked for Obama! 8-)
jpete
 
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Harman Mk II
Coal Size/Type: Stove, Nut, Pea
Other Heating: Dino juice