Idaho Will Sue

[IntLibber]

So true. That is not what will happen. The first order of business is to put the insurance companies out of business by forcing them to pay for people who formerly didn't qualify for insurance and other similar mandates.

The immediate effect will be a steep rise in insurance rates or employers choosing to pay the opt out fine.

I love the mentality that if its good for capitalism, the hell with what it means for a human being .

Basically, if you are not lucky enough to work for a company that has health insurance, (or loose your job), you are okay with someone being F'd over just because they are diabetic? If you are healthy, your rates will go up. If you aren't, your rates will go down. Overall they won't change all that much (outside of partisan scare-tactics, can you point me to objective info saying they will?).

Please show me the amendment to the constitution that says you have a right to health care.... when you accomplish that, then I'll start to give a crap about anybody but my own health care, thanks.

[MSimon]

...
We have the cleverest government in the world. At least until November.

I'm not sure the outrage will be contained until then.

I hope not. I will do what I can to fan the flames.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Institute

The Institute was established as an independent organization in 1968 by the Lyndon B. Johnson administration to study the nation’s urban problems and evaluate the Great Society initiatives embodied in more than 400 laws passed in the prior four years. Gradually, its research and funding base broadened.

Today, federal government contracts provide about 62 % of the Institute’s operating funds, foundations another 26 %, and state and local governments and private individuals the rest.[2] Some of the Institute’s more than 100 private sponsors and funders include The Atlantic Philanthropies, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation.

We will fact check your arse.

So let me see: about 30% of government programs represent wate fraud and abuse. About 30% of the insurance take is gross profit. Some of which is returned to investors.

The trouble with government is - no alternative.

And Maui - there will be no reform. Only higher costs for less service. At least that has been my experience in my short life.

The US Gov thought it was being gouged by steel makers in WW1. So they built a plant for twice the estimated costs. Quality was lousy and not 1 ton was delivered in time for the war. It was quietly closed a few years after the war was over.

When I was young, optimistic, ignorant, and stupid, I used to believe in the promise of government. I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now. If the government says that with its program costs will not rise expect a 2X increase. If it says it will cut costs expect a 5X increase and a serious cut in service.

[IntLibber]

There was a really nice investigative tv news piece on prescription fraud in Florida. Evidently criminals of various sorts, including Pakistanis who may be funding al Qaeda, Mafia, Colombians, and, get this, ACORN... go around buying companies that have a federal license to fill medicare/medicaid prescriptions, then they spend a few months submitting fraudulent prescription bills under the names of all of that businesses prior clients, typically netting 1-5 million per business per month before they are detected and shut down, but by that time they've typically abandoned the business and bought another one. The feds estimate about $50 billion a year in prescription fraud via this scam, because the prescription payment system is not made to require authentication of the pharmacies and their owners for each prescription.

Nothing in the current health care bill will close this authentication loophole. The fraud will continue.

[MSimon]

(outside of partisan scare-tactics, can you point me to objective info saying they will?).

Medicare, Medicaid. Costs ballooned for both programs.

Now shouldn't we get those programs operating according to original estimates before adding new ones?

[Maui]

(outside of partisan scare-tactics, can you point me to objective info saying they will?).

Medicare, Medicaid. Costs ballooned for both programs.

So your sole source of data showing that private insurance premiums are going to go up under this plan is that medicare & medicaid costs have gone up? How does that relate?

Anyway, the cost of all medical care has gone up. In 1960 we spent around 5% of GDP on healthcare. We now spend well over 15% Of course medicare and medicaid costs have gone up.

Again, please show me a study or review pertaining to this bill that says it will cause premiums to rise a significant amount compared to if the bill wasn't passed.

[MSimon]

So your sole source of data showing that private insurance premiums are going to go up under this plan is that medicare & medicaid costs have gone up? How does that relate?

Government programs never deliver on their cost projections.

But if you want to trust them. Fine. I am not buying it.

Not exactly a shocker, but Dick Durbin gives the nuanced explanation that they’re looking to slow down the rate of increases, not stop increases altogether. Unfortunately, that misrepresents what the CBO has already said about premiums under ObamaCare — and ignores what has already happened to premiums without it:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc107 ... emiums.pdf

The truth is that premiums have gone up in part because of government intervention, not despite of it. Further government intervention will make the problem worse — and the CBO agreed in November. While some would see a price decrease, it would only be those who don’t currently have insurance:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/30/c ... ms-higher/

Hear Durbin speak:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/10/d ... obamacare/

Sen. Dick Durbin, March 10, 2010: “Anyone who would stand before you and say ‘well, if you pass health care reform next year’s health care premiums are going down,’ I don’t think is telling the truth. I think it is likely they would go up.”

Of course I understand why you believe in Government. It must be the success of the Drug War.

[Maui]

So true. That is not what will happen. The first order of business is to put the insurance companies out of business by forcing them to pay for people who formerly didn't qualify for insurance and other similar mandates.

The immediate effect will be a steep rise in insurance rates or employers choosing to pay the opt out fine.

I love the mentality that if its good for capitalism, the hell with what it means for a human being .

Basically, if you are not lucky enough to work for a company that has health insurance, (or loose your job), you are okay with someone being F'd over just because they are diabetic? If you are healthy, your rates will go up. If you aren't, your rates will go down. Overall they won't change all that much (outside of partisan scare-tactics, can you point me to objective info saying they will?).

Please show me the amendment to the constitution that says you have a right to health care.... when you accomplish that, then I'll start to give a crap about anybody but my own health care, thanks.

Please show me the amendment that says they must send firetrucks if your house catches on fire without first first checking to see how much income tax one pays. Please show me the amendment that says we must provide education to all children, not just the well-to-do children.

I'm sure you're also of the opinion that those that didn't (or weren't able) to save enough to live in retirement shouldn't be able to retire (ever) and that those who go blind and can't work should be condemned to die on the street because, after all, the constitution doesn't specify that those people be helped. Why worry about them over yourself? That's the American Spirit!

As it is a virtual guarantee that everyone will utilize the healthcare system (whether they want to or not), it just makes sense to ensure people are paying into it. Right now, a lot of people have no realistic option to do so despite the fact that they will end up accepting care one way or another that they rest of us pay for anyway. It seems to me its best to ensure people are paying in up-front, even if they are not paying as much as everyone else paying something is better than paying nothing.

[Maui]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Institute

We will fact check your arse.

It was quite unnecessary to fact check the Urban Institute. I was linking to an opinion (not fact) that I agreed with.

So let me see: about 30% of government programs represent wate fraud and abuse. About 30% of the insurance take is gross profit. Some of which is returned to investors.

The trouble with government is - no alternative.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but how does requiring people to buy private insurance make private insurance a government run business? Aside from the anti-waste measures being put in place for medicare (is there anyone that disagrees with them?) having more direct competition in the private industry will refocus the insurance industry on efficiency rather than methods to sift out healthy clients over unhealthy ones.

And Maui - there will be no reform. Only higher costs for less service. At least that has been my experience in my short life.

The US Gov thought it was being gouged by steel makers in WW1. So they built a plant for twice the estimated costs. Quality was lousy and not 1 ton was delivered in time for the war. It was quietly closed a few years after the war was over.

When I was young, optimistic, ignorant, and stupid, I used to believe in the promise of government. I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now. If the government says that with its program costs will not rise expect a 2X increase. If it says it will cut costs expect a 5X increase and a serious cut in service.

The proverbial "steel plant" was build long ago. The bill has measures to attempt to improve its efficiency, not to build new ones.

The status quo has been producing "higher costs for less service" at a dramatic rate for quite some time... and while I agree that there isn't nearly enough in this bill to change that trajectory, there is certainly nothing here that makes that situation worse that it otherwise would be. When the GOP takes over congress this fall, I'm all for Healthcare 2.0: Controlling costs (AKA, Tort Reform and Death Panels).

[MSimon]

I hate to beat a dead horse, but how does requiring people to buy private insurance make private insurance a government run business

Ah. Mr. Maui. I see your are unfamiliar with the theory and practice of the fascist form of socialism.

The short version: ownership does not change. Krupp still owns the Krupp Works. However, Mr. Krupp no longer controls the Krupp works. He takes his orders from the government.

The government will determine customers, services, and eventually prices. And bailouts.

There are some very smart people in government and every thing will be fine. Just you wait and see. It won't turn out anything like Greece. I promise. Or Italy. I promise. Or Ireland I promise. Or Portugal. I promise. Or Spain. I promise. Or TennCare. I promise. Or MassCare. I promise.

How can I make so many ironclad promises? Simple really. I'll get other people to pay for them. And what happens when the money runs out you ask? Simple enough. I'll print more. What could go wrong?

[MSimon]

The status quo has been producing "higher costs for less service" at a dramatic rate for quite some time...

Why yes it has Mr. Maui. You see the government does not pay the full cost of the service it mandates. Fortunately it has suckers - well scratch that - people who buy insurance to pay.

You see there are three kinds of people in the world. Free lunch providers, free lunch payers, and free lunch consumers. The wise choice is to avoid being among those who are allowed to pay for the free lunch.

Doctors, pharmacies, insurance companies and those who pay for insurance are allowed to pay for the free lunch. You don't want to be one of those.

It turns out the pharmacies don't want to be one of those either.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... iet/37764/

I wonder what will happen if doctors don't want to be one of those? Obviously wait times will be reduced.

[JLawson]

Being paid for?

Could you kindly tell me HOW?

I realize that I'm no mathmetician or scientist, but it seems pretty plain to me that if your income is $2 trillion, and your expenses are $4 trillion a year, you're NOT paying as you go.

I'm not sure how to explain your numbers because I'm not sure where you got them. $4 Trillion? Where is that from?

You're not aware that we're on course for expenditures of at minimum $3.6 trillion this year? (And that the estimated savings of about $130 billion over the next decade from this bill were well wiped out by the $220 billion deficit from February?)

Our debt's at $12.6 trillion. (See here.)

Tax receipts only run about $2 trillion a year.

The 2010 Budget... well,take a look. They're estimating $2.16 trillion in, $3.72 trillion out. And that's if the economy recovers.

All we need is another 'needed' stimulus package, and we'll be over the $4 trillion mark. But what the heck - it's not like it's THEIR money, after all...

All I can do is point you to the CBO analysis here

Most people are handling their own health care w/no problems. Government 'efficiency' being what it is, if the government takes over payment we're looking at probably 20% losses internally due to bureaucratic 'friction'. That leaves 80%, spread out over a larger number of people than before.

This is the original point I was railing against. The government is not taking over healthcare. They are mandating that people buy it, mandating that insurance cover pre-existings, and subsidizing the cost of *private* insurance for low income families or businesses who don't already have it, and creating direct competition between insurers that doesn't really exist right now. The parts that are government run (medicare and medicade) are already government run... its not adding anything government run that is not already.

Reread that, and think about what I've italicized. Do you really think, and I'm serious here, that throwing out a lot of mandates is going to be cost-neutral? That there's not going to have to be a bureaucracy set up to do it? That said bureaucracy is not going to need people, buildings, logistics? That the 16,000 new IRS workers to ensure compliance are going to work for free? That those subsidies are going to be without cost to you and I?

I will grant you that I'm leery about the bill mandating what insurance must cover (beyond pre-existings), but at the same time if it didn't the mandate to buy insurance would be pretty meaningless.

The devil is in the details. And the details are always subject to change. Even the CBO admits that - because they take as their starting point the thought that the bill will be as it is when submitted, that income will grow at x% per year, that nothing will come along to change any aspects of the bill - and they were shoving changes into it as late as Thursday evening in order to game the system.

But what the heck - I'm going to hope you're right, and that somehow this isn't going to be the gigantic millstone around our economy's neck I think it's going to be. But it would be wise to remember that the majority of people in Congress any more are lawyers, who have mastered the art of telling people anything they must in order to get their fees.

And what happens after the judge bangs the gavel is of no concern to them.

You may trust them - I do not.

[Diogenes]

I love the mentality that if its good for capitalism, the hell with what it means for a human being .

Basically, if you are not lucky enough to work for a company that has health insurance, (or loose your job), you are okay with someone being F'd over just because they are diabetic? If you are healthy, your rates will go up. If you aren't, your rates will go down. Overall they won't change all that much (outside of partisan scare-tactics, can you point me to objective info saying they will?).

Please show me the amendment to the constitution that says you have a right to health care.... when you accomplish that, then I'll start to give a crap about anybody but my own health care, thanks.

Please show me the amendment that says they must send firetrucks if your house catches on fire without first first checking to see how much income tax one pays. Please show me the amendment that says we must provide education to all children, not just the well-to-do children.

Dude, stop it. You are embarrassing yourself. You are showing a profound lack of understanding of the difference between the Mandate of the Federal Government, and the Mandates of the State and Local Governments. Didn't you ever learn about Federalism and the separation of Powers?

In any case, that Amendment you ask for is the Tenth Amendment. It says :

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


What that means is that it is NOT the duty of the Federal Government to send Fire Trucks or educate children.

I'm sure you're also of the opinion that those that didn't (or weren't able) to save enough to live in retirement shouldn't be able to retire (ever) and that those who go blind and can't work should be condemned to die on the street because, after all, the constitution doesn't specify that those people be helped. Why worry about them over yourself? That's the American Spirit!

It is not within the Mandate of the Federal government to concern itself with such issues. To illustrate what I am trying to convey let us momentarily discuss Prostitution.

Prostitution is a Morality issue. It is illegal in most states, but it is not illegal in some counties in the state of Nevada. The Federal Government has no authority to regulate it, and doesn't even try.

Likewise, all those other moral issues which you are bringing up, (Fire Trucks, Educating Children, Looking out for the poor, etc.) are None of the Federal Governments business. If they are anyone's business, it is the business of State and Local Governments.

If you don't or cannot understand this, there is no common ground with which we can start or continue a discussion with you.

As it is a virtual guarantee that everyone will utilize the healthcare system (whether they want to or not), it just makes sense to ensure people are paying into it. Right now, a lot of people have no realistic option to do so despite the fact that they will end up accepting care one way or another that they rest of us pay for anyway. It seems to me its best to ensure people are paying in up-front, even if they are not paying as much as everyone else paying something is better than paying nothing.

Apart from the fact that it is completely Unconstitutional for the Federal Government to do ANYTHING except defend the Nation and Mediate between states,(Regulate Interstate Commerce) it is completely Unnatural for people to want to pay someone else's bills, especially if their ill health is the result of their own foolish behavior such as promiscuous sex, Smoking, Indolence, Gluttony, reckless behavior, etc. (AIDS, Lung Cancer, Diabetes, etc.)

This article sums up this line of thought pretty well.

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/03/ ... al-reason/

[Diogenes]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_Institute

We will fact check your arse.

It was quite unnecessary to fact check the Urban Institute. I was linking to an opinion (not fact) that I agreed with.

So let me see: about 30% of government programs represent wate fraud and abuse. About 30% of the insurance take is gross profit. Some of which is returned to investors.

The trouble with government is - no alternative.

I hate to beat a dead horse, but how does requiring people to buy private insurance make private insurance a government run business? Aside from the anti-waste measures being put in place for medicare (is there anyone that disagrees with them?) having more direct competition in the private industry will refocus the insurance industry on efficiency rather than methods to sift out healthy clients over unhealthy ones.

It will do no such thing. It is contrary to good sense to think that it will. Why on earth would any insurance company WANT unhealthy clients? It's like selling a fire Insurance policy to someone who's house is already on fire.

Apart from that, it is my opinion that Insurance IS the problem. If people paid their own bills instead of using insurance, they simply wouldn't tolerate outrageous bills. I have personally been in the position of Paying my own (and those of my loved ones) medical bills, and I assure you, it is a completely different way of doing business. First of all, I received a 50% discount for cash payment. Second of all, I made D@mn sure to price shop. One procedure which I paid for my girlfriend went from $13,000.00 to $3,200.00 ! (She needed a Cyst removed from her neck.) The Hospital that I originally contacted wanted $11,000.00 for the Operating room just for this one procedure!

INSURANCE IS the problem!

And Maui - there will be no reform. Only higher costs for less service. At least that has been my experience in my short life.

The US Gov thought it was being gouged by steel makers in WW1. So they built a plant for twice the estimated costs. Quality was lousy and not 1 ton was delivered in time for the war. It was quietly closed a few years after the war was over.

When I was young, optimistic, ignorant, and stupid, I used to believe in the promise of government. I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now. If the government says that with its program costs will not rise expect a 2X increase. If it says it will cut costs expect a 5X increase and a serious cut in service.

The proverbial "steel plant" was build long ago. The bill has measures to attempt to improve its efficiency, not to build new ones.

For the life of me, I cannot recall anything in history that the Government has improved the "Efficiency" of other than spending other people's money. Adding to that the fact that THIS government is run by the stupidest fools that ever existed in history, and I'd say the chances for improvement are impossible.

The status quo has been producing "higher costs for less service" at a dramatic rate for quite some time... and while I agree that there isn't nearly enough in this bill to change that trajectory, there is certainly nothing here that makes that situation worse that it otherwise would be. When the GOP takes over congress this fall, I'm all for Healthcare 2.0: Controlling costs (AKA, Tort Reform and Death Panels).

The status quo has been producing higher costs because it has been driven by the government, and the notion that people don't pay their own bills.

Let me give you another Anecdotal story about "government Health care."

My brother is married to a Comanche woman. (Comanche Indian tribe.) She has a daughter from a Previous marriage who has been having Migraine headaches for a year or so. She gets "free" care at the Indian Hospital, and so she goes there from time to time. Well, apparently her Doctor decided that her Migraines were being caused by one of her eyes, and it needed to be cut out.

I told her mother repeatedly that I thought that diagnosis was complete bullshit. I urged her to get another opinion several times. Well they didn't listen to me, and Feliciana (Her name) had one of her eye's removed. At a little powwow a couple of months ago, Feliciana told me she would soon get her new glass eye. I asked her if her headaches were gone and she told me "not yet."

Well guess what? Two months later, they found a tumor inside her brain. I guess that eyeball wasn't causing those headaches after all!


This is a perfect analogy for what the Democrats have proposed to do. The Current healthcare headache is to be fixed by casting out the offending eye ! (Uninsured people and forcing people to buy insurance.)

It will later be discovered that the REAL problem with healthcare is a Tumor called Government.

[BSPhysics]

Not just Idaho...

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/stat ... /id/353220

Obamacare is Tea Party fertilizer. I've never seen a more divisive issue in my lifetime, not even the Iraq War. The rumor is that comprehensive immigration reform and Cap & Trade are next. Will the Dems continue going the lengths as HC for future legislation? Rising inflation, interest rates, gas prices, it's gonna get ugly, folks.

BS

[Diogenes]

Not just Idaho...

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/stat ... /id/353220

Obamacare is Tea Party fertilizer. I've never seen a more divisive issue in my lifetime, not even the Iraq War. The rumor is that comprehensive immigration reform and Cap & Trade is next. Will the Dems continue going the lengths as HC for future legislation? Rising inflation, interest rates, gas prices, it's gonna get ugly, folks.

BS

Brick thrown through window in Slaughter's Falls office
Updated: March 19, 2010, 3:56 pm / 212 comments
Published: March 19, 2010, 3:56 pm
Story tools:

NIAGARA FALLS — The "Slaughter Solution" on health care isn't the only thing that has come under attack in U.S. Rep. Louise M. Slaughter's world this week. Sometime early this morning, someone threw a brick through the front window of her Pine Avenue office.

The damage was discovered about 12:30 a.m., city police said.

http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/03/19/9 ... ow-in.html