Health Insurance is Not an Ipod
The Wall Street Journal offers this typically inane criticism of the public option:
The 1,500 or so private plans don't produce enough competition? Making it 1,501 will do the trick? But then why stop there? Eating is even more important than health care, so shouldn't we have government-run supermarkets "to keep the private ones honest"? After all, supermarkets clearly put profits ahead of feeding people. And we can't run around naked, so we should have government-run clothing stores to keep the private ones honest. And shelter is just as important, so we should start public housing to keep private builders honest. Oops, we already have that. And that is exactly the point. Think of everything you know about public housing, the image the term conjures up in your mind. If you like public housing you will love public health care.The are about a million things wrong with this "analysis." For starters, while there are lots of private health plans, most are regionally concentrated and don't compete with one another. In much of the country private plans enjoy near monopoly status. Second, if the difference in quality between a private and public plan is really as stark as the difference between public and private housing, then the private insurers really have nothing to worry about. As with public housing, only those who can't afford the private option will utilize the public one. Third, as Jamison Foser explains (h/t Steve Benen):
Supermarkets make money by selling people food. Clothing stores make money by selling people clothes. If they don't give people food/clothing, they don't get money.This is an excellent point, of course, but I'd go a step farther. Insurance just isn't like other products. It's not a tangible thing like a pair of jeans or an Ipod. It's not a service like house cleaning or hair styling. An insurance policy is not a product in any traditional sense. It's merely a promise to pay future bills, should they come due. To quote Chris Rock:
Insurance companies, on the other hand, make money by selling people insurance -- and they make even more money by selling insurance, and then denying claims.
They shouldn't even call it insurance. They should just call it ''in case shit.'' I give a company some money in case shit happens.Put bluntly, there is absolutely no reason to believe the government can't make this particular "product" just as well, if not better, than the private sector. Insurance policies aren't like consumer goods. People don't care who pays the bills as long as they get paid. Money is money. Private insurance isn't going to sound better, taste better, look better, or work better than public insurance. Indeed, as the saying goes, the insurance business is all about trust. What you're buying is a promise. And while the government may not be good at making stuff, it is pretty darn reliable. Bonds always get paid back. Social security checks arrive on time. And, importantly in this context, the government isn't going to drop you or rescind your policy at the time you most need it because you failed to disclose something in your application. This may actually be what scares private insurers the most. They've been hosing people over for so long that they've lost the public's trust. Many people would choose the public option simply because they believe the government will treat them more fairly than a private insurer, that the government will actually come through when needed. That's exactly the kind of competition the health insurance industry needs.
posted by A.L. at 10:06 PM
64 Comments:
And govt. checks are considered valid. There's no making sure your account covers the amount before they can be cashed.
This is just about the only thing that is correct with the whole post:
For starters, while there are lots of private health plans, most are regionally concentrated and don't compete with one another. In much of the country private plans enjoy near monopoly status.
And what is the left's solution? To further expand that monopoly by having only one plan, the public plan. The left will say otherwise by using outright lies:
...only those who can't afford the private option will utilize the public one.
As with S-CHIP, government will expand the parameters of who can be covered, because they can. It's already being seen in Massachusetts, where their Romney-care is bankrupting the state. We saw it in Hawaii when they set up a health plan to cover all children but didn't fund it properly; they ended up suspending it indefinitely because too many people would drop their private plans on their children to go to the public one, even if those people could afford their private plans.
Insurance policies aren't like consumer goods. People don't care who pays the bills as long as they get paid.
There's the rub. Who gets paid via these insurance policies? Doctors, nurses, hospitals, drug companies, etc. Thanks to the federal government and state governments, insurance companies are allowed to negotiate with all these health care providers how much the latter will be paid for their goods and services. The people don't. Thanks to the federal government, the government itself gets to do the same thing. The people don't. The health care providers make just enough from the insurance companies to support their practices and businesses, and usually lose money when the government is the payer. Those who have to pay out of pocket end up paying more because the government restricted competition already; we do not have a free market for health care, and haven't for decades.
So how does the left want to solve this problem? Reduce the number of payers to one, the federal government itself. Considering the horror stories of nationalized health care that I outlined here, the same thing will happen in this country. And unfortunately, as is just about always the case when the government is involved, any similar government scandals (because that's what those stories are about) will be buried, and the left will pooh-pooh those stories because all they care about is the appearance of health care, not actual health care.
Here's the other lie:
And, importantly in this context, the government isn't going to drop you or rescind your policy at the time you most need it because you failed to disclose something in your application.
It's not a matter of the government rescinding a policy, but whether or not they will be willing to pay for the services someone needs. To think they would be reliable in doing so is ridiculous. The only way they can guarantee making payments is by continually raising taxes (which hurts everybody), printing more money (which also hurts everybody by wrecking the economy), or rationing care. Of course, the left never worries about these "sundry items".
Returning to the subject of bipartisanship in health care reform, there is an article in Roll Call on the Wyden-Bennett bill. What do you think of that proposal?
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_153/news/36352-1.html
C2- please resend instructions on creating a link (preferably sans commentary pointing out what an idiot I am)
MLS,
For background, look here. Bookmark that page for future reference, until you get used to HTML.
Now, as requested, copy the following text into your comment: (a href="your comment goes here")link(/a)
Now, change the "(" characters to "<", the ")" characters to ">", and the words your comment goes here with the text of the link.
Hit "preview". You should see something like this: link.
The key to understanding this is that, although you appear to be typing ordinary text into the little comment box, you are actually typing bastardized HTML, a language which extends text in several ways, including the ability to create hyperlinks, bold text, or italicize text.
"...and they make even more money by selling insurance, and then denying claims."
I'd go a step further: Their underlying business model is based on denying claims. They are are in the health care business, and their core value is to not provide health care. What kind of screwed up system is that??
SteveAR: Please please please try having a glimmer of an idea about what "the left" wants before you build your opinions around some straw-man (and wrong) hallucination of it. Then perhaps your comments wouldn't be so embarrassingly painful to read.
C2- thanks
It's amusing to me that many critics like SteveAR like to poke holes in socialized health care by bashing the Canadian and British health systems. I'll stipulate that those systems aren't ideal if you stipulate that there are other systems in the world besides those two.
For instance the (god forbid) French system has few of problems the British system has. Of course it has its own problems, but why wouldn't we model a new system against the best available (French, German, Swiss, Australian) instead of the worst? Isn't bashing a public health system by examining the British system like bashing the automobile because the Yugo sucks?
Luke:
Please please please try having a glimmer of an idea about what "the left" wants before you build your opinions around some straw-man (and wrong) hallucination of it.
Don't embarrass yourself. Obama and leftist Democrats, those the left supports, have made plenty of claims that they want to move to a single-payer system, then hide their language in flowery language and outright lies. I quoted one of the latter from A.L. above:
...only those who can't afford the private option will utilize the public one.
There's no way the bureaucracy for a public plan meant for the general population won't seek to destroy the vast majority of private health care plans (except for those whose employees are heavy Democratic contributors) in order to maintain itself. Being the government, they can (and will) set the rules to do this. And it won't actually solve the problem of health care.
Just for the sake of argument, there are government run grocery shops that sell food items to clothes at subsidized rates in other parts of the world. So when things get rough for the poor, they have something to eat and wear. Why can't we have the same for the sake of those who can't afford it?
Quoting, "There's no way the bureaucracy for a public plan meant for the general population won't seek to destroy the vast majority of private health care plans (except for those whose employees are heavy Democratic contributors) in order to maintain itself."
Just as, for example, Social Security has destroyed the private pension businesses, and eliminated the sale of annuities, and eliminated all the IRA's and 401K plans. Just as, for example, the government-subsidized police have completely eliminated the private security firms.
To add to C2's comment:
-just as the USPS's package delivery service has led to the destruction of UPS and Fedex.
-just as the public school system has led to the destruction of private schooling.
-just as public broadcasting has led to the destruction of private TV and radio stations.
-just as public transit has led to the destruction of private transportation.
Many people would choose the public option simply because they believe the government will treat them more fairly than a private insurer, that the government will actually come through when needed.
And that's exactly why so many conservatives are against any public option -- can't have people believing that government will come through when needed.
-just as public transit has led to the destruction of private transportation.
Not to support the contrarian position, but my local public transit is so bad, that I have no effective choice but to use private transportation.
Now if all expressways were required to have a mass transit component in the Chicago region, so that you had cross town transit in addition to downtown, that would open up more options for drivers to become riders, cutting down on gas, waits, and opportunity to those who cannot afford their own transportation.
A.L.:
-just as the USPS's package delivery service has led to the destruction of UPS and Fedex.
The USPS is the only government entity I know of that is close to being run like a real business.
-just as public broadcasting has led to the destruction of private TV and radio stations.
Of course, it primarily puts out programming with a leftist agenda. That's especially true with their "news".
-just as the public school system has led to the destruction of private schooling.
[snip]
-just as public transit has led to the destruction of private transportation.
Public education is 90% of all education in this country. And the various levels of government are doing what they can to make sure only the wealthy and politically connected can afford private education.
As ineptly handled as public transportation is, we have been fortunate that it hasn't spread out any further than it has. Plus, I wonder how the Obama administration will run GM and Chrysler (and they will, despite their lies saying they won't).
C20H50H:
The police/private security analogy is apples and oranges. It can be discounted.
Just as, for example, Social Security has destroyed the private pension businesses, and eliminated the sale of annuities, and eliminated all the IRA's and 401K plans.
They haven't eliminated them. Yet. However, SocSec is an unfunded government liability that is running out of money. As with health care, the only way to fund it in the future is to reduce payouts, raise taxes (which will force less money into 401(k)s and pensions), or print money (which will be disastrous to the economy, along with raising taxes), the same problems we would have with nationalized health care.
Besides, it's still apples and oranges. Nationalized health care will have to be funded in order to pay out claims, something not needed for Social Security. As was the case with the S-CHIP expansion, funded by taxing a dwindling commodity (meaning some other form of theft...I mean revenue generator will be needed to fund it), the current crop of Democratic congresscritters will, I have no doubt, screw that up, and Obama will let them.
Did anybody see the latest unemployment numbers that came out today? How's Porkulus working out? Wasn't it supposed to stem unemployment at 8%? It's at 9.5%, which, the last I checked, is higher than 8%. Sure, you could agree with Obama that things were worse than they thought in order to cover his a$$. Of course, that's a lie based on the Obama administration's total INCOMPETENCE. And you "liberals" actually think the people trust the government more? You think the Democratic clowns in the administration and Congress could actually run health care? How much meth did you all take before those notions came into your heads? And before you start blaming Republicans (which you will do), Democrats have been in charge of Congress for two years and now are in the White House; they own all of this.
SteveAR,
You lie through your teeth again: "SocSec is an unfunded government liability that is running out of money"
1. SS is fully funded. In fact, it's run a surplus ever since, well, it was created, and a big surplus since 1982.
In about 10 years, unless the tax structure for SS is changed, say, by removing the regressive income cap, the revenue is projected to become less than the payout and we'll have to pay SS recipients out of the "trust fund", which holds all the money, in gov't bonds, us boomers have paid in excess of payouts, and which won't run out until 2035 -- and maybe not even then, as long-term economic predictions are, like you, not known for accuracy.
When you start spinning off-topic, it's a sign that you know you've lost the argument, as in your most recent comment.
Steve,
You're entirely missing the point, as always. And your arguments are self-contradictory.
My point in listing those examples was that public services can coexist with private services. You're response is, basically, that public services suck.
Not only is that a completely subjective assertion, but it completely undercuts your argument that a public option will kill private insurance. If it's bad, people won't want it. It's an "option." You don't have to choose it. There will continue to be private options for those who don't want the public one, just as those who don't want to use USPS to send packages can use UPS or Fedex.
Your insistence on blaming the state of the economy on the administration that took office AFTER it had been spiraling out of control for almost five months is also comical in its absurdity. The stimulus package was passed a few months ago. No one thinks stimulus works that fast. And the situation is really bad. I'm sure a Republican president would have waived his magic wand and fixed everything already, right?
AL,
I welcome you joining the crusade against our country's over-reliance on health insurance. The Chris Rock quote was quite apt -- insurance should be for the unforeseen. In health care this means heart attacks, cancer and the like. Too bad government policy continues to promote its uses through tax breaks for employers.
I also am glad to see that you welcome a more competitive environment in health care. Strangely you are on record as opposing allowing customers to buy insurance across state lines, which would give competitiveness a real boost, so I am not sure how genuine your interest here is.
This statement, however, is just silly:
Put bluntly, there is absolutely no reason to believe the government can't make this particular "product" just as well, if not better, than the private sector.
Actually, there is every reason to believe government would prove inferior. For starters, government has made a hash of every health care initiative it has made thus far, with Medicare projected to go bust (despite not fully compensating doctors for their services) and TennCare a mess. The track record is not impressive.
We can also look at other existing public options, some of which you have already cited.
The USPS loses billions of dollars and has taxpayers pick up the tab. It is so inept that it actually contracts out to Fedex to have some of its packages delivered. It is crying out for privatization (and a number of other countries -- those laboratories of democracy -- in Europe and Japan have actually done this).
Then there's public education. In K-12 education 11% of students attend private schools with an average tuition of $8K despite the public option being absolutely FREE. How many private schools would otherwise exist without the public schools giving away their product?
NPR meanwhile only receives 2% of its funding from the government, which is a significant decrease from 25 years ago.
Public transport has not led to the destruction of private transport companies, but plainly there would be more people taking private transportation if public transportation didn't exist.
And really, that's the whole point. No one thinks that a public option will put the private sector completely out of business. Rather I just think that -- Obama's professed desire for a level playing field notwithstanding -- that they will not compete fairly and will steal business away. Indeed, there is no example of a government service that competes on an even playing field with the private sector.
Public education gives away its product. The post office doesn't have to worry about breaking even.
There is no reason to believe that government can make a product that can compete with the private sector on even terms. It has literally never happened.
And please, no one cite alleged lower overhead by Medicare. Yes, they have less overhead but that's because they also have less oversight, which is why they are defrauded of billions (potentially hundreds of billions) every year:
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/news/testimonies/sparrow-senate-testimony
Colin,
You say Medicare is a failure, yet, for the piddling Medicare tax, it pays for care for those most needy in our society, and it does it for an overhead of a few percent. Private insurance overheads run 14-22 percent. I don't care if it underpays doctors, having taken a pay cut this year myself.
And I hate to tell you this, but all insurers lose money through fraud. Insurance fraud is everywhere, and has been a popular way to make money for decades. Spending twice as much money to root out every trace of fraud might sound good, but it's just not cost-effective.
You say, "The USPS loses billions of dollars"
This is false, and you know it to be false, because you've been told before, yet you continue to put forth this falsehood. The USPS has made billions each year for many, if not most of the last several years. That it stands to lose money this year hardly makes it unique, or even rare.
And, for several types of deliveries, certain delivery companies, to save money, get the packages to the destination city -- and then turn them over to the USPS for delivery to your house.
Again, if the government cannot compete, then surely a public option would fail, except for the consumers with nowhere else to turn.
Are you going to repeat each and every refuted argument you used in the previous thread here? Because, frankly, they weren't convincing there, and they won't be convincing here.
A.L.:
You're response is, basically, that public services suck.
They do. I see them in action. There's nothing to indicate that a public option will improve anything other than to further exacerbate the economic disaster the country is in.
Not only is that a completely subjective assertion, but it completely undercuts your argument that a public option will kill private insurance. If it's bad, people won't want it.
You're kidding, right? Almost all of the people who have health insurance get it through their employers. If I remember correctly, you do as well. If companies believe they can save money dropping their private insurance, they will. I don't doubt that except for a few select companies (based on campaign contributions to Democrats), most companies will find it profitable to do so. Then we are stuck with the public option. So the people aren't the ones with the choice, companies are. In this regard, all of your examples of public programs competing with the private sector are apples and oranges when compared with what the public health care option is.
What's worse, those who implement the public option will take decades before finally admitting any failure, like they do with every other failed policy; look how long it was before someone decided to reform welfare, after trillions were sucked down a rathole.
Look, I'm all for reforming how health care is paid for; the people are getting screwed in an unfair competition with health insurance companies when it comes to paying for health care. But what Obama and the Democrats are offering isn't reform, but a retread of past government failure. How about a reform where the people get to fairly compete, especially when it comes to routine care?
Your insistence on blaming the state of the economy on the administration that took office AFTER it had been spiraling out of control for almost five months is also comical in its absurdity.
Oh, really? Obama and the 111th Congress quadrupled the deficit since Obama got inaugurated. The Obama administration claimed unemployment would level off at 8% after Porkulus was enacted, yet it is careening out of control. That is utter incompetence. Obama has used lie after lie to get his agenda in place without doing a thing to improve the economy. He owns it now. That is all the health care boondoggle is.
I'm sure a Republican president would have waived his magic wand and fixed everything already, right?
Had Bush acted like a conservative and told Paulson to keep his big yap shut, we'd probably be coming out of this recession already without any of the damn bailouts or Porkulus. Obama went right along with what the Bush administration and added a whole lot of unnecessary crap. Like I said, he and the Democrats own this.
There is no reason to believe that government can make a product that can compete with the private sector on even terms. It has literally never happened.
Colin, this is just a totally absurd statement. You missed the entire point of this post, which is that health insurance isn't really a "product" at all. It's a promise to pay money. Governments can pay bills just as well as private insurers. So the analogies to other "products" are completely inapt.
In fact, since the government isn't out to make a profit, it can actually make a better "product" in this area. Private health insurance companies contribute absolutely nothing to the world. They're provide any service other than paying bills. They merely syphon money (profit) out of the system.
I completely agree that the private sector is much more responsive to consumer demands and can therefore generally make better products. But insurance just isn't like that. Money is money, and promises are promises.
Had Bush acted like a conservative and told Paulson to keep his big yap shut, we'd probably be coming out of this recession already without any of the damn bailouts or Porkulus.
Yeah, Steve. That would have worked out great. Just like it did for Hoover. You have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea how bad things were last September and how much worse things would have been had the government sat on its ass.
You also have no idea how to count, claiming that Obama quadrupled the deficit. There's been all kinds of reporting on this, and all of it shows that the vast majority of the current deficit is attributable to actions taken by Bush.
But this is all a tangent.
You say Medicare is a failure, yet, for the piddling Medicare tax, it pays for care for those most needy in our society, and it does it for an overhead of a few percent. Private insurance overheads run 14-22 percent. I don't care if it underpays doctors, having taken a pay cut this year myself.
Except, of course, for the unfortunate fact that it is headed for bankruptcy Medicare is doing great. Oh, and doctors hate it, because it forces them to give their product away or even take a loss. I like your glib response -- maybe the government can start forcing you to provide your services for free so you can share in the enjoyment.
USPS is not a falsehood. It is losing billions and facing $6billion in losses next year:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-03-25-postal-woes_N.htm
Meanwhile UPS and Fedex are profitable in the same business environment. Funny, that.
I would fully welcome public option competition if it were to truly operate on a level playing field. I know it would be absolutely be destroyed by its private competitors, and would serve as yet another rebuke to the advocates of more government.
But that would be naive, given that government has never operated on a level playing field.
SteveAR,
Please explain how "If companies believe they can save money dropping their private insurance, they will." -- is any different tomorrow than it was yesterday. I had health insurance through employers for thirty years. Every few years, the companies would change the plan, starting off by requiring the employee to pay a share (originally, the company paid the whole cost), then introducing co-pays, then going to a choice between an HMO (which sucked big-time) or a PPO (which mostly sucked, if your doctor wasn't "in"). Then they increased the employee share again, and repeated that for years, until, by the time I left my last corporate job, we were paying half or better of the cost of the plan, and getting no say in what plan the company chose.
Now, like more and more people, I work as an independent contractor. I could work through a contract house and get group insurance, which would suck unbelievably and for which I would pay most of the premiums, in addition to having the contract house take a third of my pay (in effect, I'd lose money.)
If there were a public plan, more people would be able to do what I've done, making the workplace far more flexible and lowering the cost of getting fired for the employee and hiring someone for the company.
Explain, please, how this would be a negative for either the businesses or individuals, please? Oh, and don't say "because Medicare sucks". I see the workings of Medicare on a daily basis, and, believe me, it doesn't suck.
Colin, this is just a totally absurd statement. You missed the entire point of this post, which is that health insurance isn't really a "product" at all. It's a promise to pay money. Governments can pay bills just as well as private insurers. So the analogies to other "products" are completely inapt.
No, THAT is an absurd statement. Insurance is a product. You pay money and in exchange receive a service, which is that when something goes wrong you won't have to worry about your ability to pay the bills. It's the very definition of a product.
For you to believe that the government can compete you also have to believe that it will be able to successfully calculate what premiums to charge people in order to at least break even. That's no easy task. You then have to believe that it will avoid fraud at the same or better rates than private insurers.
Our experience with Medicare -- which is after all, just paying bills -- should give us little confidence that it has any particular aptitude at this, particularly compared to the private sector.
Steve claims:
"Obama has used lie after lie to get his agenda in place without doing a thing to improve the economy. He owns it now."
-----
Lie after lie? Name one Obama lie, Mr Defender of Sarah Palin.
And funny you should claim Obama owns the economy. Funny in that the right insisted that Bush didn't "own" anything negative (the economy, national security or anything else) until about, well, never into his first term. For better or worse, Obama will own the economy leading into the 2012 election for sure. But he doesn't own it now.
Colin,
Let me try this one last time. In simple words. Insurance is a "product," but it's not a product that consumers differentiate by taste or appearance or functionality. It's just a promise to pay money. From a consumer perspective, all people care about is that the bills get paid. They don't care how. They don't need "brand name" insurance. They just want to be covered.
Your point about knowing what premiums to charge is totally irrelevant from a consumer perspective. What do they care other than that the premium affordable? If private insurance is cheaper, they'll buy that.
And I'll repeat the question I asked in the prior thread, do you really think that, absent Medicare, most elderly people in this country could afford medical care? Do you really think that private insurers would offer insurance policies to the elderly that any but the most wealthy could afford? The only way to cover the elderly is to have the rest of us pick up much of the tab through taxation. There's no other way to do. It's just too darn expensive.
One should also note that one of the main reasons the British system isn't as good as other public health systems is that the rabid conservatives who were in charge of the country for the entire 1980s and half of the 1990s starved the system of funding on ideological grounds, which meant that when a vaguely sane Labour government took office they had 20 years of underinvestment and cheapskating to undo. It's not as good as it could be because conservative ideologues fucked it up as much as was humanly possible during their tenure in office.
Colin,
Yes, it is a lie that USPS has always lost money. That it will lose money this year is true.
Revenue growth for UPS over the last year: -14 percent. For Fedex, thats -20 percent. Unlike USPS, both UPS and Fedex can raise rates whenever they think they can get away with it and can lay people off whenever they want. That, by the way, is what gives private industry an advantage in the parcel delivery business.
How that differs from the insurance delivery business should be obvious to anyone with half a brain.
As for Medicare facing bankruptcy, we'll see, now that there's a sufficient Democratic majority in Congress. I hope and expect to see a repeal of the insane give-away to the drug companies, for one thing.
Oh, and by the way, one of my customers is an arm of government -- and, to keep that customer, I've had to accept cuts. Too bad if the doctors have to as well.
Health care insurance is not like a can of peas.
-o- A can of peas is a standardized product.
-o- A can of peas comes from multiple suppliers.
-o- A can of peas is frequently bought and sold.
-o- A can of peas is not priced based on who you are.
-o- A can of peas comes closest to an ideal marketplace item.
Conservatives assert that since a can of peas demonstrates that the market can efficiently serve customers, that everything else is well served by the market (e.g. electricity and health care).
But it's not true.
Your point about knowing what premiums to charge is totally irrelevant from a consumer perspective. What do they care other than that the premium affordable? If private insurance is cheaper, they'll buy that.
No, it is completely relevant. If the public option doesn't know what to charge as premiums it could lose money and go out of business. After all, Obama said it would compete on a level playing field which means it will have to cover costs. While it may not be immediately relevant to the consumer, it is absolutely relevant to the public option entity's finances and will be relevant to the consumer if the public option ceases to exist because it runs out of money.
This is, of course, a bit ridiculous because government programs never go under from a lack of money, which belies Obama's statement about the level playing field.
Further, let's look at what the CBO has to say on the matter:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10431/HELPltr--July2.pdf
The new draft also includes provisions regarding a “public plan,” but those provisions did not have a substantial effect on the cost or enrollment projections, largely because the public plan would pay providers of health care at rates comparable to privately
negotiated rates—and thus was not projected to have premiums lower than those charged by private insurance plans in the exchanges.
And I'll repeat the question I asked in the prior thread, do you really think that, absent Medicare, most elderly people in this country could afford medical care? Do you really think that private insurers would offer insurance policies to the elderly that any but the most wealthy could afford? The only way to cover the elderly is to have the rest of us pick up much of the tab through taxation. There's no other way to do. It's just too darn expensive.
No, the answer is both for people to buy insurance when they are young to lock in low rates and for the use of market forces -- competition in health care -- to drive down prices and expand affordability.
And yes, this system will still leave some people high and dry. Not everyone will get all the care they want or need. But then again, that is true with every health care system in existence.
Colin,
Where is the health insurance plan that allows you to "lock in low rates" when you are young? Because, in this universe, not only do rates go up as you grow older -- in addition to going up as costs increase -- but, when you get sick, they drop you like a bad penny.
And, no, health care systems in France, Holland, and Germany are universal, meaning nobody is left out.
Yes, it is a lie that USPS has always lost money. That it will lose money this year is true.
Except I never said it always loses money, so there is no lie. I said that it loses billions. I am correct. It lost over a billion last year, is losing several billion this year and will lose billions more next year. While it may have enjoyed profitable years in the past structural problems guarantee that it will struggle in the future with 80% of its costs taking the form of compensation and benefits. You can't easily cut benefits, especially for retirees. This is why USPS asked Congress for an astonishing $25 billion for the next 8 years to help cover costs.
Revenue growth for UPS over the last year: -14 percent. For Fedex, thats -20 percent.
Were Fedex and UPS profitable? Yes. Was the USPS? No. Even if Fedex and UPS lost money would taxpayers be on the hook for those losses? No.
Unlike USPS, both UPS and Fedex can raise rates whenever they think they can get away with it and can lay people off whenever they want. That, by the way, is what gives private industry an advantage in the parcel delivery business.
Well, yes. Unions and government management ensure that private enterprise will always have an advantage. Which is, of course, my whole point and a good argument for keeping Uncle Sam out of the insurance business given that it has no special aptitude for the job.
Oh, and by the way, one of my customers is an arm of government -- and, to keep that customer, I've had to accept cuts. Too bad if the doctors have to as well.
I'm guessing you still at least break even in your dealings with the government, which is not the case for many doctors vis-a-vis Medicare.
Where is the health insurance plan that allows you to "lock in low rates" when you are young? Because, in this universe, not only do rates go up as you grow older -- in addition to going up as costs increase -- but, when you get sick, they drop you like a bad penny.
Sorry, I misspoke. While low rates aren't locked in, they are lower than if you start buying them later in life. I believe that health insurance enjoys guaranteed renewability.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00000300--gg042-.html
You need to get health insurance when you are health rather than waiting until you are more prone to health incidents.
And, no, health care systems in France, Holland, and Germany are universal, meaning nobody is left out.
Having insurance, of course, does not mean that you get all of the health care you need or want.
Colin,
When making an astonishing claim, like the one that USPS is asking for 25 billion dollars over the next 8 years, it would really be more convincing if there were a citation. For example, although my assertions aren't even close to surprising, I can cite this testimoney.
Which testimony shows nothing like the 25 billion that you claim. Oh, and if there's health care reform, the USPS costs will probably drop like a rock.
You still have never answered the question: if government cannot compete, where is the harm in letting them try?
As for doctors losing money on Medicare, bullshit. They simply don't make what they want to make. What they want is to have their cake and eat it too: they want Medicare to pay rates like individuals without insurance (which are much higher) -- but with the guarantee that the government will pay, which individuals often cannot, in a timely manner.
Colin,
Cripes, learn to create a link. If SteveAR can do it, you surely should be able to.
Oooh, except for just about every reason under the sun, a health insurance company can't simply terminate your coverage. Except that they can, and do, raise the rates whenever they want.
You can then, of course, shop for cheaper insurance. Of course, if they raised your rates because you developed a "condition", then you will now be shopping for insurance with a "pre-existing condition".
The only way you can then get insurance is ... wait for it ... through an employer and a group plan.
Which you are adamantly opposed to.
Since we've come full circle, and not once have you made a convincing argument -- and often didn't even make sense or remain factual -- I think I'll take my leave of this thread.
Look, I'll support a libertarian model for something, just as soon as you show me, anywhere in the world, where a libertarian model has worked for that thing. In health care, it simply doesn't work, as shown by hundreds of years of experience.
And yes, this system will still leave some people high and dry. Not everyone will get all the care they want or need. But then again, that is true with every health care system in existence.
This is a rather remarkable statement. First, it's just not true. In other coutries, everyone has guaranteed access to basic health care. Depending on the system, they may have to wait for certain specialized procedures, but they always have quick ready access to a doctor and to any medication or basic procedures they need.
In your hypothetical world, people would be completely SOL if they didn't have the foresight and the resources to secure and keep paying an insurance policy from a very early age. If they lose their job and miss a payment. Too bad. If they develop a condition from an early age (before they've had time to get a job and get insurance), too bad. If they're born with a congenital or genetical condition. Too bad. If your a child and your parents don't have insurance, too bad. If you insurer drops you, too bad.
Let's be honest, your hypothetical world is a deeply unjust and unforgiving world.
Your analogy to life insurance is also telling. You realize, don't you, that there are lots of people who simply cannot buy life insurance, right? Have a congenital heart condition? Good luck getting insurance. And the entire reason we have term life insurance is because, after a certain age, the risk becomes too great to make insurance affordable.
Finally, you do realize that we don't have to invision a hypothetical world to know what things would be like without Medicare, right? That's how things were until Medicare was passed. And in that world, most elderly people couldn't afford health care or health insurance. And even if most people could have afforded insurance if they had the foresight and planning to get and pay a policy their whole lives, the reality is that--for various reasons--most people didn't. It's remarkable to me that libertarians want to live in such an unforgiving world. Where a large percentage of the population is completely screwed because they didn't make the right call when they were 20.
C2H50H:
Oh, and by the way, one of my customers is an arm of government -- and, to keep that customer, I've had to accept cuts. Too bad if the doctors have to as well.
As for doctors losing money on Medicare, bullshit. They simply don't make what they want to make.
What a lousy and ignorant thing to say. I have no doubt that you don't know what a doctor has to put out in expenses both for education, maintaining a practice, and in being competitive. It isn't as if they've earned the pay they receive. Like anybody else, a cut in their pay may cause them to consider another line of work, thus reducing the number of doctors. And like everyone else, you're going to need one of those doctors one day, if you don't already.
Steve,
Spare us the sanctimony. A major part of the problem of rising health care costs in this country is the fact that doctors make much more money than they do in any other country. And I say that as someone who comes from a family of doctors. The reality is, we're never going to be able to contain health care costs--something Republicans and Democrats agree is necessary--if we don't rein in compensation. That's just an unavoidable reality.
SteveAR,
You say: "I have no doubt that you don't know what a doctor has to put out in expenses both for education, maintaining a practice, and in being competitive."
Your lack of doubt is merely the product of ignorance. Doctors in the USA take home about 125K (for primary care and pediatricians) to 400K (for specialists). If a person is unsatisfied with that take-home pay for a job whose primary goal is helping people, then perhaps society would be better off if they go into banking.
I have a feeling that, if the greedy people weren't filling up the medical schools, there would be plenty of people to take their place. Also, I suspect that tuitions would decline rather dramatically, placing less of a debt burden on graduates.
The idea that all job decisions should be driven by greed is among the more insane ones the conservative/libertarian folks have ever come up with.
Steve,
Still waiting for an example of an Obama lie. And given his "lie after lie...." you shouldn't have difficulty citing at least 1.
A.L.:
Spare us the sanctimony. A major part of the problem of rising health care costs in this country is the fact that doctors make much more money than they do in any other country.
Spare me the sanctimony. It's overpaid shysters in practice and in government who have done their part in raising the cost of health care. Yet these same shysters never do anything to cut their own pay.
C2H50H:
Your lack of doubt is merely the product of ignorance.
Re-read what I wrote. I have no doubt that you don't know what doctors have to go through for the things I listed, not a lack of doubt.
Doctors in the USA take home about 125K (for primary care and pediatricians) to 400K (for specialists).
So? What, are you jealous? Can't figure out how to make that kind of money? Or if you do make that kind of money (or more), it's probably because your overpaid, don't you think?
The idea that all job decisions should be driven by greed is among the more insane ones the conservative/libertarian folks have ever come up with.
Greed, huh? Don't you think people, like doctors, have earned the money they make? Let me ask you something; why did you go into business as an independent contractor? I'll bet you make more of a gross income than you did working for someone else, right? Are you able to now afford nicer things and provide better for your family? And if that's the case, is that really greed?
Frankie:
Still waiting for an example of an Obama lie. And given his "lie after lie...." you shouldn't have difficulty citing at least 1.
I'll give you several. He lied about he wasn't going to be like Bush on national security. Yet, his national security policy is exatly like Bush's (with the exception of closing Gitmo; he'll probably send the terrorists to Bagram anyway). He lied about being fiscally responsible. Yet, he and this Congress have managed to quadruple the deficit in 6 months, and is planning on crippling the economy for decades on programs the U.S. government doesn't have the money for. He said he wouldn't have lobbyists in his government. Yet, he's already issued quite a number of exceptions in order to hire lobbyists. He says he is about liberty and freedom. Yet, he initially took a cowardly tack on the recent Iran uprisings and is supporting a leftist pig-thug remaining as President of Honduras, even though their legislature, their judiciary, their army, and most importantly, the Honduran people, don't want the leftist pig-thug back.
Steve,
I'd be the last person to defend lawyers on most issues, but it's simply not true, as a matter of empirical fact, that lawyers are responsible for the rise in health care costs. Unlike some liberals, I actually favor tort reform, but you are absolutely fooling yourself if you think that is the cause of rise is health care costs. People have studied this extensively, and costs related to malpractice insurance/claims/defensive medicine account for only a small fraction of the rising costs. Even draconian tort reform would not solve the cost issue.
SteveAR,
"expenses both for education, maintaining a practice, and in being competitive" -- I'm wondering just part of "take home pay" you are finding difficulty in comprehending, because the things you mention are expenses removed before calculating profits, or, in the case of an employee-doctor, are either deductible expenses or paid by the employer, hence not paid out of take home pay.
Oooh, sorry, but -- I worked for more than a decade, all told, in corporate research labs developing products for radiology and cardiology. I've spent weeks, over the years, in the rooms behind the MRI, CT, and other machines, working on hardware and software. I know what goes on and who makes all the money.
Thanks to some mathematical and financial skills, and decades of hard work, I no longer need to put up with the corporate BS. I can take projects I enjoy, work pro bono, or not work at all. Envy isn't one of my failings.
The cost of health care is largely driven today by the fact that there are too many very expensive specialists. In the typical PPO or one-stop shop, these specialists still expect their 400K (or more), but the work isn't really there for them -- except that their colleagues, who get paid out of the same pot, throw extra tests and procedures on the bill to keep the pot healthy.
It's that old entrepreneurial spirit.
To cut the cost of health care, the extra tests and procedures are going to have to be stopped, and the extra specialists are going to have to take a cut in pay or get out of the business. Or the entire group will have to take pay cuts. It's as simple as that, and anything that is done that doesn't force that to happen isn't going to save money.
Steve,
Pretty pathetic. Someone needs to educate you on the difference between lying and being nuanced. In order to accept your thesis, you'd have to believe that Bush would have given the speech in Cairo, amongst other things. You'd have to believe there's no difference between wasteful spending and necessary spending. And to your dumbest example, you'd have to believe that Obama is actually AGAINST freedom and liberty. The lobbyist thing, maybe i'll grant ya.
If you think protecting your family means locking your doors and shooting everyone who walks by your house, it doesn't make me the same as you if my idea of protecting my family is locking my doors. If you do nothing with the vehicle but change the oil, it doesn't make me fiscally irresponsible if i need to spend $1200 to get the transmission fixed.
Your examples are the equivalent of my saying Bush lied when he claimed to be a compassionate conservative. In other words, they're stupid.
C2- I am curious. If the rise in health care costs is due to the fact that unnecessary tests and procedures are being performed, is Medicare better at stopping this than private insurers? And if so, why? One would think that the “greedy” insurance companies would have more incentive to stop unnecessary tests and procedures than a government bureaucracy.
More generally, it seems unlikely that Steve and Colin are going to convince AL/C2 that the free market is the solution to health care reform, or vice versa. So is there a health care reform that would give a fair test to both free-market and government-centered solutions? In other words, what would an “even playing field” look like?
And while we are at it, why not have a similar reform for education?
MLS,
Yes, although not as well as it could. It's the size of Medicare, and a more uniform set of standards.
The health care industry and the health insurance industry are enjoying excellent profitability as it is. Reduce the amount spent on health care, and the doctors take a hit, and the insurance companies also, who basically take a percentage, lose. Explain to me again why they would go for this. If your answer is, "for the good of society", we'll all have a good laugh.
What we have now is the predictable result of wedding "through an abundance of caution" with "all the market will bear".
I don't expect to convince Either Colin or SteveAR, merely to point out that they're full of it.
I'll leave the discussion of utopian solutions to health care and education to those who find that interesting. I'd like to see a study of education similar to what has been done for health care before proposing a solution. I already know for a fact that there isn't a single methodology for financial management that works for all enterprises, or even for one enterprise all the time.
I don't expect this round of the struggle to achieve much of anything, given the way this congress and the lobbyists are working together, but I'm hoping (perhaps foolishly optimistically) that it will be a start.
A.L.:
I actually favor tort reform, but you are absolutely fooling yourself if you think that is the cause of rise is health care costs.
And you are fooling yourself into thinking that is what I said, which was:
It's overpaid shysters in practice and in government who have done their part in raising the cost of health care.
I didn't say it was the cause, but part of the bigger problem. Besides, I included "shysters...in government" because shysters are usually the politicians and bureaucrats who set up the policies (like Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) and regulations driving up the costs of health care.
C2H50H:
Thanks to some mathematical and financial skills, and decades of hard work, I no longer need to put up with the corporate BS. I can take projects I enjoy, work pro bono, or not work at all. Envy isn't one of my failings.
So you were greedy and worked the system in order to enjoy some level of financial independence, correct? Yet you would deny this capability to others and castigate them for doing so. Not only that, you recognize the hard work that you believed earned you the right to this financial independence, yet denigrate the hard work that earned doctors the right to charge the fees they do and earn what they earn.
Oooh, sorry, but -- I worked for more than a decade, all told, in corporate research labs developing products for radiology and cardiology...I know what goes on and who makes all the money.
I'll bet that every so often you believed you earned a well-deserved increase in your pay, not just a cost of living increase, but an increase that befitted the type of work you did. For all I know, you very well did earn a raise for the work you did. More greed on your part, right?
Frankie:
Pretty pathetic. Someone needs to educate you on the difference between lying and being nuanced.
Talk about pathetic. You're going to use that lame argument about Obama being "nuanced"? Spare me.
You'd have to believe there's no difference between wasteful spending and necessary spending.
I understand there's a difference. Porkulus was entirely wasteful, Obama's takeover of GM and Chrysler was entirely wasteful, the omnibus spending bill was loaded with wasteful spending (which Obama lied again about not vetoing legislation if it had earmarks in it), the recent military spending bill was 40% wasteful spending, etc., etc., etc.
And to your dumbest example, you'd have to believe that Obama is actually AGAINST freedom and liberty.
He hasn't shown the American people that he's actually for these things. I take it back; he is for these things, for those who line his and Democratic campaign coffers, and those who believe in the same political agenda (Castro, Chavez, Morales, and now Zelaya).
SteveAR,
It's not greedy to want to be paid, even to want to be paid well. On the other hand, as is well documented, many, many doctors today do unnecessary procedures and order unnecessary tests to increase their take. I call that greed. What do you call it?
Perhaps, as a (fill in your profession here) you don't see the difference, but sane people do.
Steve,
There are probably as many people who are suggesting the stimulus wasn't large enough as there are who are saying it's wasteful.
So if you want to argue he's wrong, hey, have at it. But to argue he lied because your interpretation of his actions don't fit nice and neatly with your interpretation of what he said he'd do, frankly, that makes you more of a liar then him.
But i'll still be fair enough to give you a chance to prove yourself. To convince me he lied, you'll need to prove A)The stimulus is wasteful and B)He knew it would be wasteful when he proposed it. Good luck with that.
Geesh, you'd think someone who lied about Sarah Palin's record would have a better understanding of what a lie really is.
C2H50H:
On the other hand, as is well documented, many, many doctors today do unnecessary procedures and order unnecessary tests to increase their take. I call that greed. What do you call it?
I would call it greed if that is what they did. What is also well documented is that the vast majority of what you call unnecessary procedures and tests that are done by doctors are done to avoid being sued by greedy shysters. What the doctors are doing isn't being done out of greed, but for the survival of their practices.
You're an entrepreneur, an independent contractor. How much stuff do you have to do when working with clients that have nothing to do with what you are contracted to do? I would assume, because you would as part of doing business, you put in any fees related to this extraneous stuff (and don't tell me you wouldn't, because that isn't believable). So let me ask; do you do this extranous stuff to avoid being considered out of compliance, or because you are greedy? And if you aren't greedy, and doctors do what they do to remain in compliance, how are doctors doing what they do out of greed?
One other thing. How much of the cost of your work goes to what you think that work is worth, beyond the cost of doing business and maintaining your household? I could argue that whatever you charge above and beyond your costs, the value of your work, is no different than the value of work doctors factor into their fees. The difference is that you call the value of your work as something earned, and the value of the work done by doctors as something based on greed.
By the way, before you start telling me to provide evidence that doctors are charging for what you call unnecessary medical stuff out of necessity, don't bother. One, you didn't provide any "evidence" saying that doctors do this only in order to increase their take. Two, any evidence I do provide you will ignore, as you do every other time someone presents the facts to you.
Frankie:
There are probably as many people who are suggesting the stimulus wasn't large enough as there are who are saying it's wasteful.
Yes, there are many people who are suggesting Porkulus wasn't large enough. Two kinds of people say this: people who personally benefitted financially from Porkulus, and would further benefit financially from another Porkulus; and the morons.
But to argue he lied because your interpretation of his actions don't fit nice and neatly with your interpretation of what he said he'd do, frankly, that makes you more of a liar then him.
It was Obama that said unemployment wouldn't expand beyond 8% if Porkulus was passed. That is beyond "nuance"; it's outright lying.
To convince me he lied, you'll need to prove A)The stimulus is wasteful and B)He knew it would be wasteful when he proposed it.
The why it is wasteful was proven months ago. You probably didn't believe it then, and wouldn't believe it now.
SteveAR,
I don't know why you keep asking for evidence. I've provided it multiple times over the last several threads, but you seem never to read it. See, for example, this or this.
For a special bonus, that last one also knocks down your inane "shysters push up the cost!" baloney.
Hey, if being wrong, as Obama was about the estimate for unemployment, is lying, what does your egregious errors in this thread make you?
C20H50H,
That first linked article seems to deal only in dollars and cents, not health.
The second one, however, taught a lot. First off, it basically said that neither private insurance nor the government have a clue as to how to control medical care costs (which is my argument). Reform via cost control must come from doctors themselves, although even here, doctors still need to have an income. Second, it said that the training that many doctors receive corresponds to how they treat their patients, whether it's with a lot of experimentation (high-cost) or a lot of common sense approaches (low-cost). Third, it looked at the highest-priced area in the country, and several conclusions can be drawn. First, it looks like what the doctors in McAllen, Texas do is a huge scandal. Second, the government since the Clinton administration doesn't seem to care that it spends a fortune in McAllen and isn't interested in finding out why. Yet, you would still want the federal government to take over the role of health care payer. Lastly, you would damn a whole profession for what is being done by a bunch of seemingly crooked people (and there isn't any evidence that the doctors in McAllen are actually crooked).
For a special bonus, that last one also knocks down your inane "shysters push up the cost!" baloney.
It doesn't in Texas, where McAllen is. But there are a ton of states that don't have the kind of tort reform that Texas has, so my argument is still quite valid.
Hey, if being wrong, as Obama was about the estimate for unemployment, is lying, what does your egregious errors in this thread make you?
You're not getting it. By the standards of the left, your standards, being wrong is lying.
Obama knew that Porkulus wasn't going to do squat for the economy (there was enough information provided to him indicating that), yet he went ahead with Porkulus, saying it would stem unemployment at 8%, and that it had saved or created something like 150,000 jobs (which was a ridiculous assertion, a lie, based on nothing).
You know what one of the hardest hit sectors has been? Construction. Not only in lost employees, but also in the lack of sales by American construction machine manufacturers. Remember how Obama went to Caterpillar trying to sell Porkulus, saying jobs would be saved by Porkulus? The company laid off an additional 2200 employees after Porkulus was passed. Those "shovel-ready" projects, and Porkulus itself, were nothing but snake oil. Sold by a liar.
SteveAR,
You say: "That first linked article seems to deal only in dollars and cents." Yes, when economists talk about the cost of health care, money frequently comes into the discussion. Odd how that happens.
You say: "Reform via cost control must come from doctors themselves, although even here, doctors still need to have an income." Yup, let's put the fox in charge of the hen-house. And nobody here is saying doctors should work for free -- and yet, they'll have to take a cut in pay to cut health care.
You say: "what the doctors in McAllen, Texas do is a huge scandal." You missed the point completely. What the doctors in McAllen do is exactly what you get when doctors get the entrepreneurial spirit, and it's more and more the rule across the country.
You say: "Lastly, you would damn a whole profession" Um, actually, no, it's perfectly understandable that, in for-profit health care, every effort will be made to maximize the profit. That's the problem, which you are apparently unable to see.
Actually, the available evidence all across the country is that malpractice suits do not drive up the cost.
You say: "By the standards of the left, your standards, being wrong is lying." Really? I'm going to need some evidence for this, because it looks like projection to me.
You say: "Obama knew ..." -- and so, simultaneously you claim Obama is superhuman, able to predict the future with better accuracy than even Nobelist economists (even Krugman wasn't willing to state, unequivocally, that the stimulus bill wouldn't work, although he doubted it would be enough), and, yet, somehow with this ability, he's not willing to come up with something that will work.
You say: "laid off an additional 2200 employees after Porkulus was passed." So now you are claiming clairvoyance, in being able to know, somehow, that, had the stimulus not been passed, no more employees would have been laid off?
You've contradicted yourself, you've claimed superhuman predictive abilities for both yourself and Obama, and you've completely mis-read or misunderstood the links I gave you.
All in all, a pretty dismal showing.
Now, you have a good weekend.
Steve,
Obama knew that Porkulus wasn't going to do squat for the economy
Citation?
there was enough information provided to him indicating that
Citation?
saying...that it had saved or created something like 150,000 jobs (which was a ridiculous assertion, a lie, based on nothing).
Citation?
Two kinds of people say this: people who personally benefitted financially from Porkulus, and would further benefit financially from another Porkulus
Citation?
Steve, i wouldn't be so stubborn about insisting you back up your claims, if not for 2 reasons. 1) You yourself seem rather stubborn in asking others to corroborate what they say...but more importantly, 2)you seem to be getting your information from the same imaginary friend who fed you the crap on Sarah Palin. You know, where you seemed to get about 5 different facts wrong in the matter of 1 post.
Face it, you make stuff up. You get called on it and your response is simply to reassert your imaginary ramblings. In other words, you're a 2 bit troll. No more, no less.
ok, colin and stevear, how about a realworld scenerios, huh? imagine a relatively young man of 26 gets insurance and pays for it it on time (autodebit actually) year after year. this person never makes a claim, only uses it for regular check ups, doesnt not smoke, drink, or use drugs.
this guy (ok, its me) starts gettting sleepy in the middle of the day, and having rapid weight gain. i go to the doc and find out i probably have sleep apnea. my insurance dicides it doesnt want to pay the 3 grand it costs to be properly diagnosed. they are saying its a "pre-existing condition" because it should have been diagnosed prior to my being added. i have no recourse. now they want to drop me because i have a host of issues because i cant get proper care for this one issue. if i had the study, got a cpap machine i wouldnt have so much weight gain, be so tired all the time, have to take stimulants to remain productive. i could sure use a "public option".
But anon, the problem is that the public option would be cheaper....and....and....we can't have the government standing between you and your doctor....and.....and.. and...since it'll cost 55% of what Bush's tax cuts cost, we can't afford it...and...and...
Oh, skip it!
C2H50H:
Yup, let's put the fox in charge of the hen-house.
Who is going to watch over them, lawyers? Who is going to watch the lawyers, other lawyers (talk about the fox in charge of the hen-house)? How about economists, who only know about the costs of health care?
You missed the point completely. What the doctors in McAllen do is exactly what you get when doctors get the entrepreneurial spirit, and it's more and more the rule across the country.
No, I got the point. What you are doing is reaching a wild conclusion, and blaming capitalism.
Um, actually, no, it's perfectly understandable that, in for-profit health care, every effort will be made to maximize the profit. That's the problem, which you are apparently unable to see.
Excuse me but the problem has nothing to do with the maximization of profits. That is a ridiculous argument.
And none of this answers the bigger question. The government pays more out to McAllen doctors than anywhere else, and has for nearly 30 years. Yet, the government doesn't do anything to remedy the problem. In your opinion, it's the fault of the profit motive. In my opinion, it's a problem of government not interested in how much it is paying out.
Really? I'm going to need some evidence for this, because it looks like projection to me.
Oh, really? How about Iraq? For six years, the left has been squealing like stuck pigs that Bush lied about Iraq. It was bullshit then, it's bullshit now. The "evidence" I've seen from the left isn't evidence at all, but something akin to all the "evidence" that said JFK was shot by someone on the grassy knoll (that is, no evidence at all).
...simultaneously you claim Obama is superhuman,...and, yet, somehow with this ability, he's not willing to come up with something that will work.
I don't believe he's superhuman. I'm saying he knew Porkulus wouldn't work, and is doing nothing to solve the economic problems in this country. All he did was pass a 30-year wishlist of leftist crap and put the word "stimulus" on it.
So now you are claiming clairvoyance, in being able to know, somehow, that, had the stimulus not been passed, no more employees would have been laid off?
I'm not claiming any clairvoyance. I'm using Obama's words:
The world's largest maker of mining and construction machinery announced more than 22,000 job cuts last month amid waning demand for its products.
But Obama said the company told him Wednesday it would hire back some of those workers if the legislation passes.
A month later, 2200 more employees were to be laid off. Some stimulus package that Porkulus was, eh?
Oh, really? How about Iraq? For six years, the left has been squealing like stuck pigs that Bush lied about Iraq. It was bullshit then, it's bullshit now. The "evidence" I've seen from the left isn't evidence at all, but something akin to all the "evidence" that said JFK was shot by someone on the grassy knoll (that is, no evidence at all).
LOL. So your evidence that Obama lied is that there's no video of Bush and company stating they are lying about Iraq.
Ok, i think i understand now.
SteveAR,
Let's just start with the last point: from MSNBC, we get "President Barack Obama's stimulus plan may be good for Caterpillar Inc., but the company's chief executive says the equipment maker will probably have to lay off more staff before it starts thinking about rehiring any of the more than 22,000 employees it already plans to cut. ..." Did anybody promise instantaneous results? No? So do you foresee the future as well as alternate realities?
Also, that's the way private companies work. When they don't have business, they lay people off. When they get business, they rehire them. It's all to maintain the profitability of the company.
Next, if you believe, as many of us do, that Bush and Cheney knew that Iraq was totally unconnected with 9/11, and if you believe that Bush knew that there was no real evidence to support the "WMD in Iraq" story, then their statements and, even more, their actions, were lies. Lies which have cost this country thousands of lives so far, and untold billions of dollars.
The key is that they knew what they were saying was untrue. Now, you may disagree that they knew -- but with every new revelation it becomes clearer that they did, in fact, know that what they were saying was false.
Knowingly stating something false is a lie. Unlike Obama's statement that the stimulus would save jobs. It has, just in my state, saved thousands of jobs, which would have been eliminated had the stimulus money not been there.
About the health care story, it wasn't my conclusion, it was the conclusion reached by the author of the piece, on the basis of his investigation. Don't blame me if reality is biased against your beliefs.
As to who is going to watch over the doctors, it will be other doctors, as well as economists, lawyers, and accountants, all working for agencies of the state and federal government. That's how regulation works. And Congress will watch the regulators. And we'll watch Congress. That's how democracy works.
When it becomes necessary to describe for you what a lie is, and how democracy works, we have reached the point where further discussion is as pointless as to administer medicine to the dead. Unless you actually have some new insight, or some evidence to back up something you say, I may no longer respond -- but keep amusing us anyway, if you like.
Me:
To convince me he lied, you'll need to prove A)The stimulus is wasteful and B)He knew it would be wasteful when he proposed it.
Steve:
The why it is wasteful was proven months ago. You probably didn't believe it then, and wouldn't believe it now.
Shorter Steve:
I can't
C2H50H:
Let's just start with the last point: from MSNBC, we get "President Barack Obama's stimulus plan may be good for Caterpillar Inc., but the company's chief executive says the equipment maker will probably have to lay off more staff before it starts thinking about rehiring any of the more than 22,000 employees it already plans to cut. ..." Did anybody promise instantaneous results?
Excuse me but Porkulus was enacted to create and/or save jobs. So the Caterpillar CEO kissed Obama's ass so that Obama could exploit the company to sell a lie, and you're OK with it.
Here's what you're not getting. I was against bank bailouts from the beginning when the Bush administration began doing it last year. I was for TARP when I thought Paulson was going to use it as he advertised. Unfortunately, the Bush administration, and Paulson in particular, lied as to how they were going to use TARP. And Obama has expanded that lie, and added one whopper of his own, Porkulus.
Next, if you believe, as many of us do, that Bush and Cheney knew that Iraq was totally unconnected with 9/11...
Talk about projection. There may have been some private indications early on that the Bush administration might have wondered if Iraq was involved in 9/11, but publicly that was never the case. In fact, it was never stated as a reason for going after Hussein. The only people who say the Bush administration tied 9/11 to Hussein are those who are lying about it.
...if you believe that Bush knew that there was no real evidence to support the "WMD in Iraq" story...
All they had was intelligence information, because to get the actual evidence would have required Hussein allowing an investigation into his government's actions. This he didn't do for four years, and when he finally did, he did everything he could to hamstring the investigation, just as he had done prior to 1998. The only liar about WMDs was Saddam Hussein himself, as he admitted while in custody. Saying Bush lied because Hussein lied is the ultimate projection by the left.
Unlike Obama's statement that the stimulus would save jobs. It has, just in my state, saved thousands of jobs, which would have been eliminated had the stimulus money not been there.
Is that what the Obama propagandists said? How do you know? Here in Arkansas, they've been working on widening a 30-mile stretch of U.S. 65 from the Missouri border down to Harrison, AR, and it's been going on for years. Now they've slapped an ARRA sign as you head south from Missouri, even though work on the road was still continuing even without Porkulus. They didn't save any jobs; they just put a sign up. I'll bet that's what they did in your state.
About the health care story, it wasn't my conclusion, it was the conclusion reached by the author of the piece, on the basis of his investigation. Don't blame me if reality is biased against your beliefs.
I'm assuming you mean the New Yorker piece. The author wasn't blaming capitalism. That is the reality. You blamed capitalism.
As to who is going to watch over the doctors, it will be other doctors, as well as economists, lawyers, and accountants, all working for agencies of the state and federal government.
We already have agencies of the state and federal governments watching over the medical community. That's the problem, lousy regulators, which includes Congress.
And Congress will watch the regulators. And we'll watch Congress.
That's a joke, right? I'll believe it when I see Pelosi and Reid and Murtha and Conyers and Young and Leahy and Mollohan and Rockefeller and Specter and Ensign unemployed.
It's like this: any for-profit business is in the business of providing profit. Period. That's their fiduciary duty to their stockholders.
Whether they produce the profit by selling widgets or by selling (false) promises of payment for future health care bills, they aren't in the widget-production or bill-payment business. They are in the business of producing profit.
Insurance companies don't make their money by providing health care. They make their money by denying health care.
Sane people know this. Republicans know it too, but lie about it. The private health care system has had over a hundred years to perfect itself, and it hasn't.
So, just as Senator Chuck Grassley (R) prefers a government plan for his family, I'd prefer one for mine, thank you.
Fact is business doesn't want to pay for health insurance any more. Most plans require employees to pay a significant (and increasing) portion of the cost.
Surely pro-capitalist wingnuts don't wish to force businesses to provide insurance. So what then?
Steve, whom I remember from other sites as someone who enjoys fanning the flames without anything substantial to back up his claims, said: "What's worse, those who implement the public option will take decades before finally admitting any failure, like they do with every other failed policy; look how long it was before someone decided to reform welfare, after trillions were sucked down a rathole."
Steve loves projecting the shortcomings in his ideology on others. What Steve meant to say with the above statement was:
What's worse, those who implemented the trickle-down-economics and tax-cuts-raise-revenues fantasy will take decades before finally admitting any failure, like they do with every other failed conservative policy; look how long it was before someone (as in Republicans) decided to look into Financial Industry's malfeasance, after trillions were sucked down a rathole (aka the top 0.5% income earners who benefited the most of the Bush tax giveaway).
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home