Tom Blumer from BizzyBlog has updated his map of the ObamaCare/PelosiCare behemoth and what it creates. Namely 111 agencies, regulators, committees, boards and offices: (click on picture to enlarge)
Meanwhile Senator Gregg reacts to the new CBO estimate:
Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee today commented on the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) more detailed cost estimate of the manager’s amendment to the House health reform bill.
Senator Gregg stated, “The CBO estimate released last night finally sheds light on the smoke and mirrors game the majority has been playing with the cost of their health care reform proposal. Over the first 10 years, this legislation builds in gross new spending of $1.7 trillion – and most of the new spending doesn’t even start until 2014. Once that spending is fully phased in, the House Democratic bill rings up at more than $3 trillion over ten years.
“Additionally, this bill cuts critical Medicare and Medicaid funding by $628 billion, accounts for nearly $1.2 trillion in tax and fee increases and will explode the scope of government by putting the nation’s health care system in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. The $3 trillion price tag defies common sense – we simply cannot add all this new spending to the government rolls and claim to control the deficit.
“If we continue to pile more and more debt on the next generation, they will never be able to get out from under it. The health care system needs reform, but this massive expansion of government, financed by our children and grandchildren, is the wrong way to proceed.”
And listen…this is what our government believes will be the cost. But look at programs our government has run historically and you find decades of added costs and overruns that our forced onto the taxpayer.
Insanity
See author page
Wrong perspective. One would hope that the GOP is not out to compromise bad legislation with a single concession.
The bill needs to be killed not for political reasons. But because it’s legislation that will fiscally destroy this nation as we know it forever, and accomplish nothing but provide equally mediocre care for all citizens. Period. There is NO COMPROMISE for that, and for American excellence in volume of state of the art facilities and quality care.
And if the GOP attempts to “compromise” on pithy and pitiful orts merely for political points, they have lost whatever sliver of appeal they have over Dems eternally. That is a promise from me…. a voter until the day I die.
The Catholic Bishops may have won a battle, but not the war. As long as tax dollars are going to Planned Parenthood, we are paying for abortion in spite of the Hyde Amendment. Passing the abortion amendment in the health care bill will not prevent our tax dollars from being thrown in Planned Parenthood’s pot from another part of our budget.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/07/u-s-house-votes-to-continue-taxpayer-funding-for-planned-parenthood/
We’ve had denials all the way up to the president that abortion funding was in the health care bill, funny how it took arm twisting and finally relenting to an amendment to ban something not in the bill. Funnier is how angry that amendment made a sizeable chunk of the House democrats, they may be the ones that scuttle this whole fiasco over something that wasn’t in the bill.
After watching the spat between Rangel and Boehner, that non existant funding might be put right back in the bill during the reconciliation process, which would lose the votes of the dem pro-lifers that just got what wasn’t in the bill, out of the bill. Oh what fun democrats can be, wonder which wall they will eventually decide to slam into, sigh.
This has even got the high trafficked abortion rights supporting, lefty blogs in a fightin’ mood. They’ve already got the list of those pro-life traitors and are going to get rid of them. Twill be interesting to see how they manage to challenge primaries in blue dog districts by funding liberal candidates to replace them. The little foot stompers are soooo cute when they are mad. Their common sense must have escaped from that hole the anger burned in the top of their pointy little heads. I’m thinking the “American people” aren’t really in the mood for these characters anymore.
@Mata
Regarding “single payer:”
To quote you:
Please read what you wrote. These are your words. You are absolutely, 100% correct. Which is precisely why all your talk of “single payer” is simply fanciful scaremongering. Not one bit different from the hysterical scaremongering of “death panels” and “rationing.”
You scolded me earlier for putting words into your mouth when I stated that it is your position that, under the Dem plan, private insurance would be “outlawed.” Well, unless private insurance is “outlawed,” we don’t have “single payer,” do we? So you are making the ridiculous claim that passage of any of the health care reform laws being offered would lead to a situation where private insurance was outlawed. This is hysterical scaremongering. Obama the legislator was a liberal, with no power. Obama the President has the power to wage war, but no power to legislate, and he is a pragmatist, whom the likes of David Brooks describes as governing from the broad center, even though virtually all of the FA commenters liken his executive governance to Marxism.
You keep referring to my opting out of Medicare. As I keep saying, but which you keep ignoring, I did this because Medicare wouldn’t pay me enough — HOWEVER –this was at a time when a number of the private insurance companies (Blue Cross, Aetna, United Healthcare) wouldn’t pay anything, requiring their own clients (my patients) to pay 100% out of pocket. Except in the 16 of 16 cases where my patients took them to court and won their cases. Medicare meets the definition of a “single payer” system (a wildly popular one at that; the termination of which would be a genuine political third rail). Yet I was able to opt out. Choice and diversity.
The Pelosi bill isn’t anything at all like either the Canadian (single payer, which, in your words, would have been “shot on sight” and “DOA”) or British (doctors as government employees; hospitals owned by the government) systems. Hence, WTF. Hysterical scaremongering. Exaggeration and distortion, entirely reminiscent of an Al Gore PowerPoint presentation.
Here’s a very nice description of the philosophy behind the American health care system, from a 1994 paper, written at the time of the collapse of Hillarycare, written from the perspective of a writer who favored the German health care system:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/13/4/22.pdf
This is precisely why hysterical cries of “single payer” “single payer” “single payer” are just hysterical scaremongering.
Obama may — on a theoretical level — admire the concept of “single payer,” and so may some other Democrats, but that means outlawing private insurance, and there’s no chance of that happening in the real world.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Missy:
You said:
Now this is interesting. The main concept introducing this thread was that the health care bill was too complicated and tried to do too much. So you find fault with winning a battle, because it didn’t win a broader war.
It’s a HUGE battle that they won. I should also add, it’s the only important battle which anti-abortion forces have won, since … ? Since a whole long time ago. Tell me a bigger battle they’ve won since Roe v Wade.
What you’ve got is outlawing public funds for funding abortion in both (1) the “public option” and (2) publicly-subsidized private insurance. Let’s say that Mata is correct. In her world of hysterical, scaremongering fantasy, we have a “single payer” system, where private insurance in outlawed. In today’s real world, most private insurance pays for abortions and most abortions are paid for by private insurance. So, in a “single payer” system, because of the Catholic Bishops, we’d go from a system of private insurance paying for abortions to public insurance not paying for abortions. This would — beyond the shadow of a doubt — reduce the number of abortions — actually save lives, if you view it is these terms.
Even without a “single payer” system, abortions will go down. Conservatives have been arguing that millions of people will end up with the “public option.” There is no doubt that millions of people will get subsidized private insurance — moved from private plans which pay for abortion to private plans which don’t pay for abortion.
Of course, liberals are screaming. While conservatives continue to scream. What the Catholic Bishops did was to engage in effective politicking. They actually got something done which was very important.
Health care reform is going to pass. Everyone knows this. The Democrats would give their eye teeth to get GOP support. Such support would be important enough that they’d make concessions. I think that malpractice tort reform could be written into the bill, in exchange for GOP support. Or else the GOP could take a “principled” stand against the entire thing and get nothing.
The Bishops worked with the Democrats and achieved a great deal. Vastly more to reduce abortion than anything the GOP was able to do, during their 6 years of power in the Bush years.
The House bill would, I think, be the greatest anti-abortion achievement, dating to Roe v Wade, perhaps. I’m curious: can anyone think of any legislation which came close to achieving what Pelosicare would achieve, if actually signed into law?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I just sent the following emails to both of my state senators (Boxer and Feinstein):
>>>>
I am a pro-choice Democrat and a California-licensed physician (medical oncologist), who is in favor of health care/health insurance reform along the lines of the bills currently under consideration by the US Senate.
Although pro-choice, I believe that health care plans subsidized by public funds should exclude services relating to abortions unrelated to rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother.
Furthermore, I believe that there is an obvious political advantage to Democrats in passing such legislation, which, I believe, would be supported by a large majority of the electorate.
I believe that abortion should be available and safe, to those who choose it. I do not believe that the government, through the use of tax dollars, should be funding these procedures, however.
– Larry Weisenthal MD
Huntington Beach, CA
I only mentioned the bishops because that was part of the present conversation, in here. I should have added…..some think. I personally don’t think the bishops carried as much weight behind this amendment as the people from the congressional districts of Stupak and the people’s reps that voted for the amendment.
I also think this issue could possibly be the end of the road for this health care bill. It appears that the democrats have both strong opposition and strong support of abortion within their party. That opposition to abortion within the dem party, btw, would be something I would consider a battle won since Roe v Wade. For too long pro-choice party members have dominated on the abortion issue, another reason why I left that party.
If you think the Catholic Bishops are going to be able to go up against NARAL, NOW, Emily’s List, Planned Parenthood, etc. and win, I think you would be wrong. If Rangel and pro-choice dem conferees get the amendment removed at reconciliation, pro-life democrats reject the bill, if it remains, pro-choice members stand down, result… stalemate and a divided democratic party. I repeat, battle won since Roe v. Wade, the nerve of those pro-life dems, don’t they realize the money these groups have invested to get that party to where it is today! They are now refocusing, energized and mad as hell, pro-life member’s races are going to be challenged, no more of this nonsense.
Maybe you might want to spend some time reading some of the hostile comments pro-choice democratic reps have been making since the amendment passed, the reps that have been continuously funded by the above groups. It’s getting ugly.
I’ve also noticed democrats still have all their teeth, a similar amendment was put forth by Pence, R-IN last summer, overwhelmingly voted down on a party line vote. Same with tort reform, no budging, I don’t see them going to the GOP during the midnight hour reaching out so they can get this thing passed. They have made it clear from the beginning it was to be partisan. Baucus was the only member of Congress that reached out to a handful of Republicans, certainly not enough from the other side of the aisle to ever honestly be able to classify this as bipartison.
Larry W:
Ok Larry, in less than a few months, we will know who is right on this. The Bishops of course had a right and obligation to defend the unborn, but politically it will mean nothing. Where is your evidence that the Bishops “worked” with the Dems? I think you are confusing their obligation to protect the unborm with some heroic negotiations which simply didn’t happen. They were played, and I suspect they know it.
Really? What I DO understand is the coldblooded Pelosi who, still calling herself a ‘catholic’, knowingly bamboozled her own Bishops so she could have a political football to kick a bill on life support into the Senate, only to await more thug tactics.
Oh Larry, I hate to burst your bubble over your new found comrades, the Catholic Bishops, but they didn’t endorse anything except doing what they should have done and speak out for the unborn. It was a FRAUD by Pelosi Larry, and totally meaningless. How many ways can I say it that NO FINAL ‘HEALTHCARE’ BILL will ever be passed under Obama without the sanctification of abortion.
Furthermore, we’ve had similar discussions in the past re: the church’s teaching on social issues which, if cherry picked, as you and most libs always want to do, are meaningless. For the sake of refreshing your memory with what you will most likely ignore AGAIN, I refer you back to one of my previous FA posts, especially the links at the bottom of this response, which spell out “The Bishops” real goal, according to the teachings of the CC, in fairly simple terms.
@Per Larry’s comments #55, and @ that I live in a hysterical, scaremongering fantasy world.
Didn’t watch the videos, eh Larry? Rather difficult to put words into the mouths of Obama, Barney Frank, Sebelius, Rahm’bo when you can listen to them state their quest from the Dem donkey’s mouth. But I’m a “scaremonger” living in a “fantasy”??”
Well, the hysterical part might be appropriate as that charge sent me into peals of hysterical laughter! But while we’re all playing amateur mental health doctors, let me return the psychoanalysis, Larry. You’re an intelligent man who is dangerous in your complacency… i.e. refusing to acknowledge what you hear (assuming you actually watched the videos to hear their quest for single payer) and placing blind faith in the lying powerhouses (both parties) that we continually elect to Congress. It is those like you who will join happily with Obama to “remake” America into what you believe is a more just nation. And you and others will do this with nary a care as to the fiscal repercussions of this massive government program. Obviously your education focused more on the anatomy, and considerably less on economic world history.
You say:
Since you insist not on reading links, let me put this where you can’t miss it.. the definition of single payer:
Here’s another from a group with whom you’ll feel comfortable… Physicians For a National Health Plan.
Unless you again wish to morph real definitions, this is all about creating a massive public option SINGLE PAYER financial system. It is nothing short of tunnel vision and, if I may add, “fantasy” on your part to redefine the medical dictionary’s meaning of “single payer” to fit your political schpiel, Larry. You pronounce this whole O’healthcare plan hunky dory because you rest easy that there is no overt “outlawing” of private insurance and I guess are okay with the creation of a huge single payer system.
Then you insist it’s perfectly fine because no where does the huge *single payer* system “outlaw” (YOUR words, not mine) private insurance.
Well one doesn’t have to ban SUVs to drive them out of business either, Larry. Have a look around…. Congress steadily creates regulations and standards that are impossible for a vehicle of that size and power to meet with any profit structure, and voila… we’ll wake up one morning and no more SUVs. They slowly slip from sight… almost indiscerable to the prozac-laden public eyes. Just less and less of them every year.
Yet prior to their demise (and they are on the demise…) did you see a law that “banned” or “outlawed” SUVs?
So it goes with the public option single payer system, overtaking the private free market system.
When you pit one business… with the ability to print (apparently) unlimited money and raise taxes to operate… against a free market business who depends upon a profit and no access to currency printing presses and the taxpayers’ wallets, the free market model will simply die off. Even if there are a few around to create umbrella health policies, there will be fewer choices for competitive pricing, and only the wealthy who can afford the penalties of “cadillac” plans will be able to afford them.
What you, in your stubborn tunnel vision, fails to comprehend is the economic domino effect of government controlled health insurance on other businesses. It is similar to real estate in that when the housing market is down, it affects the financial health of industry related businesses such as home improvement manufacturers and supplies, jobs for contractors/construction… which then affects retail spending power spilling over to other businesses.
Medical is no different. When medical providers… from physicians to facilities… are forced to depend upon the bulk of their payment from lowball government reimbursement rates, cutting overhead in anyway possible will commence in order to make ends meet. This means equipment that will not be purchased (and therefore not manufactured… at least here), salaries that will be reduced (affecting consumer spending), and perhaps using cheaper overseas manufactured products (outsourcing will increase).
Nothing about this Frankenstein health care utopia will benefit this nation fiscally, and in fact will drive it into the ground. Witness Canada, France, England etal…. all in big trouble with their health care. Yes yes… you’re going to say “but it’s because of the rising costs”. Well, Larry… moving to increased single payer systems does NOT reduce costs. Speaking of fantasies, adding 111 bureacratic departments to administer this behemoth will reduce costs about the same time I’m crowned Miss America.
Yet you want to take the leap of O’faith and embark, expecting a different outcome from a model proven time and time again to fail in history. That, Larry, is what I mean when I say you are dangerous. Were you a radical (I guess like me? LOL), uneducated and unable to deliver a smooth debate, you’d merely be written off as a disruptive loon and your dissertations ignored.
But you are well-spoken, educated. Therefore you carry with you a measure of credibility for those who are unaware of all the details, and of the ultimate quest as imparted to the nation from the POTUS lips and supporters themselves. But no… you choose not to hear that. You merely change the definition of “single payer” is order to muddy the debate waters and label historical facts and trends as “scaremongering”.
Would it not be easier for the nation to make a decision if we genuinely acknowledge the words of POTUS and company, telling us exactly what they foresee with this legislation? Instead we can’t have that debate. Why? Because you and too many others ignore the gorilla standing before your nose in the room when you assert there is no “single payer” quest.
Dang… forgive me if I believe the lips of the Eunuch in Chief instead of your “fantasy” interpretations.
I will also suggest you pull out your medical terms dictionary for a reality check. Even some of us less educated dumb dumbs know the meaning of single payer. Hardly a foreign concept since a combo of single payer/private options is our current Medicare/VA system.
Didn’t watch the videos, eh Larry? Rather difficult to put words into the mouths of Obama, Barney Frank, Sebelius, Rahm’bo when you can listen to them state their quest from the Dem donkey’s mouth. But I’m a “scaremonger” living in a “fantasy”??”
>>> this is what I find hysterical…. A guy like Matthews does an “interview” (term used loosely) and even when the “guest” states “he’s going west” Matthews will get arguementative as to why the man is going EAST!! HE DON”T LISTEN to the FACTS if they don’t fit his agenda!!! anyone watching with an IQ above 5 should see this!!
Now what REALLY gets me to laugh Hysterically is those who beat up on, say, Glenn Beck and the like…. Glenn will say something that will just set a Lib OFF…. BUT THEN he’ll run the VIDEO BACKING IT UP!!!!! And they’ll say he’s LYING!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! they will IGNORE EVIDENCE if it is counter to thier “dreamed up fantasy beliefs”……. we want FACTS.. they live in B.S. land….
@Mata:
Regarding “single payer:”
To quote you:
Please read what you wrote. These are your words. You are absolutely, 100% correct. Which is precisely why all your talk of “single payer” is simply fanciful scaremongering. Not one bit different from the hysterical scaremongering of “death panels” and “rationing.” No one is going to outlaw private insurance plans for the general population until a solid majority of Americans is in favor of doing this, which won’t be until long after Obama, Frank, Emmanuel, Sibelius, et al have left the scene.
What I care about is providing health care for all Americans, or as many as possible. I agree 100% with the Catholics Bishops on this. I care about ending lifetime benefit limitations. I care about improving health care insurance portability, so that job decisions are made for economic reasons and not for retention of health care benefits reasons. I care about reducing medical bankruptcies.
I look around the industrialized world and I can’t find a worse health care system than that which exists in the USA, save for the sector of the population which is 65 or older, which has the best health care system in the world. Even if it is a bogeyman “single payer” system. Which a GOP lawmaker would try to kill at his own political peril, as it is the health care plan which has the highest consumer satisfaction ratings of all major health care plans.
Your priorities are different than my priorities. We have an honest difference of opinion which isn’t going away. This is the reason, why, as George Will said recently, we have two major political parties.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Mike, thanks for the response and sorry for the delay. I think you may be reading into my post sentiments which I did not express and do not hold. Hopefully I can clarify things a bit.
I don’t recall claiming, or even implying, that people on the right want to see anybody die in a ditch. I do believe, however, that people on the right would like some say in whether, and how much, of their income should be used to assist people in a predicament where they need or want more health care than they can afford.
I’d like to see a system wherein that flexibility extends up to, but not beyond, the freedom to deny palliative care. In fact, by fully reimbursing all such palliative care (including fixed fares for hospital beds and strict regulations for “sufficient care”), and criminalizing any withholding of such care, the government sees that there’s no pressure on health care providers to kick anyone, poor or wealthy, citizen or alien, child or centurian, saint or serial rapist, out into a ditch to die.
Do bear in mind, as good as our modern medicine has gotten, our mortality rate is still holding steady at 100% – we are all going to die, and our nation will quickly go bankrupt if we spare no expense trying to keep everyone alive indefinitely. As such, when it comes to diagnostic and curative treatements, I feel people must take responsibility for their own health (out-of-pocket costs and insurance), or rely on the charitable contributions of the community. In other words, the money spent on *any* individual’s health care must be discretionary, allowing free market forces to flourish. In my proposal, *I* would ensure that my family had sufficient insurance to cover any major medical expenses we might encounter. But for anyone unable to afford or unwilling to pay for the health care they desire, they would need to appeal to the larger community for assistance – and this larger community would have the discretion to invest, say $50,000 to treat a child with leukemia yet withhold $50,000 from treating a 75-year-old smoker dying of lung cancer (along with the discretion to contribute or withhold $2000 for an abortion procedure for a 13-year-old rape victim).
It is my contention that if
1) the governement saw to minimal merciful treatment of everybody,
2) the free market allowed me to supplement this with whatever coverage I desired for myself and my loved one, and
3) charitable structures were in place which had sufficient transparancy (allowing donors to see which cases their contributions were applied toward and withheld from),
the result would be a society which hit the right balance of offering “fair and just” health care to all of its members without bankrupting itself.
I guess I didn’t spell it out… I am certainly *not* a fan of the Dem proposal, largely for all the reasons you cite here.
Likewise, I’d like to know where you got the idea that I got that idea. Anyway, hopefully this response clarifies that I do *not* see members of the GOP in this light.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim said: ” No one is going to outlaw private insurance plans for the general population “
They won’t need to Larry. It’s abundantly clear that the Dems plan is to drive private insurers out of business or to make their plans so ridiculously expensive that only the super rich will be able to afford them.
Most readers here will recall what Obama said about building new coal plants. It was fine with him if they built new coal plants, but his goal was to bankrupt them.
How many Obamatons do we need coming out of the woodwork who have admitted that their goal is to destroy the private insurance market?
@Mike:
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. There is no doubt that SOME Democrats want to drive private insurers out of business. For the sake of argument, let me agree with Mata that this is the secret wet dream of Obama and colleagues. So, how do they drive private insurance out of business? They make the “public option” cheaper. But everyone is on to this. The public plan can only negotiate; it can’t mandate. The public plan has to be run as a business and pay for itself. The public plan will certainly be administered and run by private insurance company contractors. This is the way that Medicare does it. In other parts of the world, “public” and “private” plans manage to co-exist. I have more confidence in the resilience of the American insurance industry than Mata seems to have. Americans will have needs. Private insurers will continue to meet those needs. Until the American people themselves find that the “public” plans serve their needs better than do the private plans. Which won’t be until long after Obama has finished out his second term and the nation is again ready to have a Republican in the oval office.
MY dream scenario is this: The Dems pass health care and then they pass some form of an energy plan which discourages carbon and encourages green energy. Then the Dems get their butts kicked in the Fall (I’ll certainly, yet again, be voting for Rohrabacher, as I generally do), just as what happened in ’94. And then I sit back and enjoy the same golden era of governance which existed circa 1995-1998 (pre-impeachment).
Ah, them’s were the days.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Not much of a secret when it’s on videotape for all who choose to view it…
BTW, you’re repeating yourself on the retort to my comment about them dodging the words “single payer”.
This might be why Pelosi – like you – contributes to the disinformation campaign when she stripped an amendment to the House bill last Thursday that allowed states to pursue single payer systems without insurance industry lawsuits. Why? She said “…it would break President Obama’s commitment to people keeping their current insurance plan if they like it.”
Well ain’t that a smooth move. The feds can put in a single payer public option…. which as all of us except Larry know means it’s administered by the government… but the states can’t because it would eliminate private insurance choice.
Anybody besides Larry *not* getting this forked tongue language?
ummmm… yeah, right. What government “public plan” has paid for itself, Larry? The only one that was even somewhat self-sustaining *used* to be the USPO. Not any more.
And I have to love that “pay for itself”. You mean, of course, must be paid for by the taxpayers. Government isn’t some corporation that functions on profits. They exist only by the taxpayers’ dime.
And what’s this horse manure that “…. the public plan will certainly be administered and run by private insurance company contractors” stuff? Did you not read the bill like you didn’t listen to the words “single payer” from Obama’s lips?
Five words for you, Larry. HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE TRUST FUND – created in the Treasury Dept and who’s operation and administration duties fall under the jurisdiction and control of a new bureaucrat appointed by the POTUS called the Health Choice Commissioner. Even the CO-OPs are quasi-member run as these non-profits provide health insurance thru the government controlled HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE. All roads lead back to the feds unless they (the feds) approve an application for a state-based health insurance exchange.
Oh, BTW, that “public option” that you don’t want to acknowledge is single payer in structure? Only offered thru the HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE… back to the feds control again.
The “public option” has premiums determined by the HHS Secy and newly created Commissioner, adjusted for geographics and constantly morphing to insure funding. Can you say rising premiums? The very same problem we are going thru this nonsense for now?
Also, there’s yet another little fed money stash for operations of the public option within the Treasury. I had to laugh when the House bozos wrote in there that, under no circumstances, would it be eligible for TARP funds bailouts. Wow…. not even implemented yet and they’re already discussing what funds can be used for a bailout. Not that it matters. All bailouts – and public option funds – originate with the tax payer’s wallet.
All providers are part of the “public option” network unless they opt out. Got your application ready for that, Larry? May as well make your opt outs across the board, yes?
Therefore your idea of a “private contractor” administered system for this public option is really, at best, a potpourri of subcontracted non-profit operations who do the government’s bidding on reimbursements, accounting etal.
In short, if you bother to read, you’ll find the House “public option” is fully administered and controlled by the government entities already in existance, and the new ones created. It is, by all medical definitions, a *single payer* financing system. Period. You can spin it all you want, but I’m afraid you have grasped onto a sinking twig of debate.
Your wet dream is exactly the plan, Larry. Apparently you and Obama haunt the same ethereal strip bars. Cap and Trade is simmering on the back burner and the quest is to get it thru prior to the December conference. All eyes are turned to O’bamanation for legislation to help legitimize the UN demands for int’l control of emissions and finances.
Yes, it’s entirely possible you may get your way. Neither of these high dollar packages are reversible unless they are done before implemented. We’ve as much chance of that happening within the time frame as we do getting the unspent stimulus monies back in the coffers for Obama’s economics 101 first failed test. So I wouldn’t get too comfortable on your porch stoop or rocking chair, enjoying the retro-circa era you envision. In fact any joy at the passage of both hese heinous laws may be even more short lived that Clinton’s first term.
I repeat, Larry. You are dangerous. I don’t want to live in your and Obama’s idea of the United States. I prefer the one the Founding Fathers created. The legacy of you and your hero President will be the demise of the US as founded. And that’s certainly not a legacy I’d covet.
@mata:
I’ve travelled extensively, to much of the European and much of the Asian world, and I have very good, close friends (mostly people in my own profession) in each place. The USA is never going to be nearly as “socialized” as Europe, Japan, Korea, and even Thailand. Even in Turkey, the lives of educated people are little different from my own. I found nothing to fear, lifestyle and personal freedom wise, in any of these countries, including Turkey.
I don’t fear for our future, Mata. You speak in apocalyptic terms. I suggest that you just buy another gun, lock and load, and hunker down.
Rather than looking for enemies in the White House and halls of Congress, you’re paranoia would be better directed toward our real enemies. Here’s an interesting email I just now received (one of those mass mailing, pass it alongs). Quite thought provoking:
LW/HB
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Many a beautiful theory has been ruined by an ugly fact.
The Stupak amendment does not change the status quo:
View at EasyCaptures.com
Dayum!
I hate it when that happens.
@mata:
I just re-read your last post.
I’m “dangerous” – because I — along with a healthy majority of my medical colleagues, are in favor of a health care financing overhaul with a public option and, in fact, would like to see single payer Medicare extended down to age 55?
And because I — like many economists — including conservative economists — see the virtues of taxing carbon, to stimulate alternative energy development, reduce pollution, reduce dependence on foreign oil, preserve some of our oil reserves for those who follow us?
I read your messages on this thread, once again. They are filled with hysterical scaremongering and topped off with a lavish dose of paranoia. You envision the mother of all conspiracy theories. One involving not only the West Wing but extending throughout the mainstream media, the medical profession, the Catholic Bishops, and America’s universities. The only people who have not been hoodwinked by this conspiracy are the only people left in this country who are “true Americans,” a descriptor which does not apply to anyone who wants to provide decent health care to all Americans and who wants to leave our children with a little bit of oil to make their own petrochemicals.
America has survived a great many trials and tribulations, since its founding. It will survive Barack Obama just fine, thank you.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/juvalaviv.asp
@Aye (#69):
Beautiful, just beautiful. A perfect example of trying to have it both ways. Did you even read what you linked?
On one hand, MataHarley claims that we are all going to be forced into a public option — which explicitly bars abortion payments. On the other hand, your linked article makes the same claims that the Democrats have been making — that pretty much everyone who has totally private (non-subsidized) insurance will keep that insurance. For these people, the status quo will be maintained — that would be the same status quo which Aye is fighting so hard to maintain.
This would seem to be a win-win situation for conservatives.
Either people keep their existing plans, and the abortion status quo is maintained and there is no creeping socialism.
Or else people move to a public plan or, if they make less than (I think) $80,000 (or whatever — someone can correct me), then they qualify for publicly subsidized private insurance — and these plans also prohibit funding for abortion.
The Catholic Bishops aren’t dumb. In fact, they are political card sharks. The liberals who have just been gored by the Bishops are also not dumb. They know that they’ve taken a huge loss.
My challenge is still up there:
Name a single piece of legislation (or cumulative achievement of the Bush administration) which had a greater impact on reducing abortion than the Pelosi health car bill would have, if enacted and signed.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@Curt:
Sweet!
We all know Larry luvs some Snopes sourcing.
I’m surprised he didn’t check that legend out for himself prior to posting it.
Heh.
@Curt (#71)
Thanks for correcting that. Should have looked to Snopes it, before posting.
But the terrorism scenario does seem plausible, does it not?
– LW/HB
That’s a hoot, Larry. Getting a lecture about focusing on our real enemies from those that characterize me, or others that think like me, as paranoid Glenn Beck hate speech types. Perhaps you’d do well to consider your own advice.
Anyone – citizen to POTUS – that undermines the Constitution of the US most certainly is my enemy, and is attacking the foundations of this nation. And the 2nd Amendment is there for citizens to hold our freedom. Your flippant dissing of both makes me look at you with increased light… and I’m afraid that light is not very flattering. I’m sure you’re crushed….
Oddly enough, in a pathetic and desperate attempt to paint *me* as a panicked chicken little militia member, you turn to another of Obama’s major failings… national security and the now un-PC war on terror.
Laughable, if not so tragically transparent in light of current events… from Iran to Ft. Hood. From AfPAK to Israel. From Russia to Britain.
I might remind you that it is this admin, that you so admire, who has downgraded these enemies you now emphasize and focused on the crazy soldiers the real enemy. … and in fact, I am quite capable of politically multitasking on both domestic and foreign issues. However our current admin and Congress considers these animals merely another victim class with which to negotiate, and to grant Constitutional Rights while on foreign soil.
I might also remind you that our second 911 attack happened last week, with ample notice, complaints and overt signs to Obama’s military. Yet Obama’s intel mouthpieces immediately jump on air to insist this isn’t “terrorism”. Why so quick to rule out a jihad motive? Because a “terror attack” that was easily preventable on our military bases happened under the Eunuch in Chief’s watch?
Well hey… I guess “da Won” won’t look so bad if we just label it a “horrific act” by an out of control military soldier with PTSD… even tho the guy’s never been to the mid-East theatres. And I’m darn sure that ChrisG, who took only is own life and not that of others under the guise of PTSD, wasn’t screaming Allah is Great at that moment.
To make it worse, Obama’s token RINO appointee – Army Chief of Staff Gen. Casey – says our “diversity” is far more important than risking offending a crazy Muslim walking around in a US military uniform, saying Muslim jihad was just. PC appearances trump logical intel. Brilliant line of national defense. Just ask the Ft. Hood widows and families how much they admire that high moral ground of manure.
But heaven forbid we call a spade a spade because it may reflect badly on the Eunuch in Chief. Your Dem Congress and your Dem POTUS are veritable geniuses at health care compared to their grasp of this enemy and foreign policy. You’d do well to confine your praise for them to other fields. Because there are plenty of body bags in Ft. Hood and Afghanistan to prove the inadequacy of this pretend Commander in Chief.
So you.. the man who is paranoid about a nuke device going off in your affluent Orange County backyard on a defunct ammo depot… has nothing to fear about your future? Yet you pass this little ditty on. You really should make up your mind. Or perhaps you are now relieved that your own back yard isn’t among the proposed targets mentioned by Aviv.
Larry, I have not once addressed the public option and abortion. Please keep your enemies list straight. LOL
Nor did I say we were “forced into a public option”. What I said was that the public option SINGLE PAYER system is designed to eliminate private insurers. We will not be “forced”. We will simply no longer have a choice. That is two very different methods of accomplishing the desired end goal.
@mata: Just to clarify one thing:
I did no such thing (diss 2nd Amendment rights). I’m a very strong supporter of second amendment rights. It was a little bit of a dig. Lighten up.
And, pray tell, when did I “flippantly diss” the US Constitution? I’ll take the responsibility (including blame) for statements I made, but not for those that I never made and never for an instant believed.
With regard to trying to hang Ft Hood on POTUS:
I never blamed President Bush for 9/11, and it’s beyond unfair to blame Ft Hood on Obama.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I never said that you did address the public option and abortion. But you have argued that we are to be herded into the public option (single payer). “Forced” by not having a choice. It’s semantics. You are claiming that Pelosi care means inevitable single payer public option. The Democrats claim that the public option will affect very few.
Aye agrees with the Democrats, not with you.
I was simply bemused by this.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
I will again remind you, Larry… I have not once mentioned or involved myself with the Catholics, the universities nor the mainstream media. Maybe you better re’read MY comments only.
Hysterical? Only my laughter at you.
Scaremongering? History evidently still not your forte, I see. My “scaremongering” is based on historical trends in other countries who’ve tried the same experiment. Yours are based on love-the-one-you’re-with hopes and dreams. I’ll take the facts and history any day.
Paranoid? That would evoke the notion of fear. I don’t have fear of you, or your choice of leaders, Larry. I have disdain. And that disdain is growing in the nation around you. As I’ve often told you, you don’t predict well, and time will be the ultimate proof in the pudding for you.
I defy anyone here to read my posts and point out my “hysteria” and “paranoia” for arguments against this remaking of America’s health care system. That is shared by many economists, medical professionals and just plain American citizens. And in case you haven’t checked out any of your beloved poll numbers lately, the American public ain’t with you on this one. Get used to it, because bucking the spending and control is only going to increase with time.
Again I will warn you that 1241 responders agreeing with you does not constitute anything close to a “healthy majority” of anything. You want to make that claim? You’d better come up with something that doesn’t exist… like a 100% response of every medical professional in the nation. Other than that, you rest your laurels on a poll… a single poll, I might add. Think that number has any change of being exactly the same from week to week or with a different set of responders? ’tis the nature of polls.
Speaking of hysterical and paranoid, I specifically said you were dangerous because you are intelligent and well spoken, yet you deliberately ignore spoken words and deeds in front of your face to “believe in hope and change”. This habit you have of glossing over details in order to advance your theory works with many because of a credibility issue. When you are so completely in error, and seriously devoid of the specifics of the legislation (vs the talking points you parrot), yes… you are dangerous.
If you wish to expand “dangerous” comment to something issue specific, as you did in your blockquoted comment above, that’s your perogative. But I suggest that comparing your comments to mine indicates you’re spinning your paranoia and naivety dial in the wrong direction, guy.
I’ll accept the explanation of the 2nd amendment “dig”, LW. Thanks for clarifying that point.
Oi Vey! Larry is spinning so furiously I GOT DIZZY and had to sit down before I fell down!
Allow me to add just another tid bit of historical reality to this rabid discussion before I go through myself in the Ocean from frustration:
Here’s Larry’s reality:
This is what will happen if he gets his way: another monstrosity of a government program that eats all the financial resources of the nation out of line with all projections of cost.
That isn’t “scaremongering” that is fact.
Give it up Larry… the game is up and your spin is making you look more and more ridiculous.
Tho this is a subject for another thread, I’ll just say this…. there is no similarity between 911 and Ft. Hood for the looming danger that was specific to the event. With 911, there was a vague memo that mentioned planes as weapons. Hardly a new concept since the Japanese perfected kamakazi attacks in WWII. Yet I did blame legislative walls on sharing intel between CIA, FBI and local law enforcement. That has, in theory, been somewhat corrected if not perfected.
Ft. Hood is a wholly different matter. We had an Army Major with formal complaints, a history, and being watched by the FBI for six months with his contacts with AQ. He was not only given his automatic promotion, but the complaints about him were dismissed as a politically incorrect bombshell in Muslim relations.
Heads should roll INRE Ft. Hood, Larry. This was too obvious, and the man’s position in the military to risky to allow him to continue to serve. With his outspoken actions against the US INRE the ME conflicts, he should have been dischanged (IMHO, *dishonorable dischage to boot) and sent on his merry way. And whatever PC measures that were in place that disallowed defusing this scum of a human should be removed immediately.
As for the Eunuch in Chief…. my comments were less about his personal involvement on a single man’s intel, and more about the lengths that were gone to by the media and his appointees to avoid calling this a terrorist incident. Seriously premature, disingenuous, and apparently very wrong. There is something distinctly unhealthy about this nation’s nanny protective coat around a POTUS. Any cry of disagreement brings the full power of the WH down on the dissenters.
Mata criticizes the New England Journal of Medicine article documenting that a healthy majority of America’s physicians favor overhauling the current health care system with one which includes both a public option and the extension of Medicare to cover down to age 55.
Actually, it was 2130 respondents, which is twice the size of an average Rasmussen poll and which the authors took pains to show was an entirely representative sampling of physicians and surgeons, on a national basis. This wasn’t the first time you misquoted this study; earlier, in more than one post, you emphasized that the “public option” was referring only to the extension of Medicare down to age 55.
Look, we disagree, but I am NOT out of the mainstream of my own profession, which understands the current health care system vastly better than virtually anyone, because we work in the system and see its failings and inadequacies.
It is a certainty that the program will, like Medicare, be delivered through private sector insurance contractors. My statements regarding this were not incorrect. Of course the “health insurance exchange fund” will be run under federal guidelines. Among other reasons, to ensure that these funds are not used to pay for abortions, if the Pelosi bill passes the tests to come.
You talk about the President of the United States subverting the Constitution. Well, if that’s the case, get your congressman to impeach him. Don’t have the evidence for that? Didn’t think so. Hysterical scaremongering, writ large. You accuse me of “dissing” the Constitution (where did I ever do that, I ask you again? You made the accusation; now give me the chance to defend myself. Where did I do that? When did I do that?).
You find sinister plots and motives everywhere you look — rather than simply the efforts of honest, patriotic Americans who have different political viewpoints than yours. This is, indeed, paranoia. Yes, I know, there were plenty of Democrats who spewed the same sort of venom during the Bush Presidency. But two wrongs don’t make a right — even coming from the Right.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Larry, it was 2130 responders, of which only 1241 agreed with you. And I didn’t say the public option was *only* changing the age threshhold of Medicare, lowering to 55. That was, per Panel B, their preferred method of handling the existing public option. They did not advocate it become blanket coverage for the nation.
Nor did I say that the POTUS was subverting the Constitution with health care. Again, that’s your hysteria speaking. I might also add that’s an argument you were having with someone *else*. I question Congressional authority to do this, however the Constitutionality of their actions can only be taken to the SCOTUS after the law is enacted and it’s challenged in a court of law. I can’t go there yet, and do not confuse me with anyone who chose that route at this point in time. You may retract your constant “hysterical” accusations, which appear to be addressing things I did not say, at any time.
We were not discussing Medicare’s administration. We were discussing the new public option’s administration. So perhaps your argument got lost in the keyboard translation. Medicare, as of this bill’s legislation, remains somewhat the same but the control over the specifics of reimbursement and coverage may be transferred to Obama’s precious IMAC health panel he’s got stealth legislation for.
I see “sinister plots”? ROTFLMAO…. ah yes, isolate and demean the “enemy”, then lecture me on focusing on our real enemies. Nice one, LW. No, Larry. I don’t see “sinister plots”. I see a POTUS who campaigned on REMAKING America into a nation country to our founding principles. Therefore, his actions have been no surprise to me in the past 10 months. It must, however, be a surprise to people like you who believed him to be centrist.
Our nation gives us ways to combat this, from peaceful redressing of grievances to outright revolution. I see no “sinister plots”. I see a POTUS and Congress determined to rule the nation in a way that will bankrupt us. I will use every Constitutional avenue to prevent the destruction of our nation’s economy. That’s the way we were founded, and that’s the methods I’ll use.
You, however, are welcome to stick to your Alinksy tactics of debate. Just be aware they are wearing thin on the nation, and the only “transparency” that’s coming about is most of the nation seeing thru the current fiscally crazy leadership and their devoted, deaf, dumb and blind followers.
@Mike (#81):
You and Aye never cease to get try and get mileage out of that misleading table (which Aye shows as a chart).
The implication is that the out of control spending is because of government inefficiency, waste, fraud, etc. In point of fact, it’s because of coronary artery angiograms and bypass surgery; it’s because of CT scans, and PET-CT scans, and MRI scans; it’s because of upper and lower GI endoscopy; it’s because of DaVinci robotic surgery machines; it’s because of $10,000 a month cancer drugs, and on and on.
Absent Medicare, we’d have all gone broke, trying to take care of our parents. Medicare has not cost the nation trillions of dollars; it’s saved the nation hundreds of billions of dollars, while providing health care unsurpassed in quality and patient satisfaction.
Item: The cost of private health insurance for small businesses is going up by 15% in this year alone, after doubling during the 8 years of the Bush administration. Why is Medicare borderline insolvent? Because it is politically impossible to double Medicare taxes every 8 years, as the private health insurers increase their premiums.
Just more “spinning,” from the token liberal (who’d be considered a conservative on The Daily Kos).
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
reply to Mike (#81) went to spam.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Despite your clear recognition that the only way to control costs is to ration care and limit procedures it is an undeniable FACT that nearly every government program exceeds it’s cost projection by many factors of magnitude.
Are you also here to defend hammers that the Dept. of Defense bought for $600?
Give it a rest Larry. You’re fighting a losing battle. I doubt there is a majority in the U.S. Senate that agrees with you much less 60 votes.
What a shame you and Obama didn’t endorse the truly bipartisan solutions to this problem that our side has repeatedly brought to the table.
You made your bed, now lie in it!
@mata (quoting you from #86):
I was quoting you from memory, from your #75:
So (again, from memory) I used the word “subvert,” where you had used the word “undermine”
From dictionary.com
un⋅der⋅mine
–verb (used with object), -mined, -min⋅ing.
1. to injure or destroy by insidious activity or imperceptible stages, sometimes tending toward a sudden dramatic effect.
2. to attack by indirect, secret, or underhand means; attempt to subvert by stealth.
Again, Obama swore to uphold the Constitution. If he’s subverting or undermining the Constitution, then impeach the SOB. If he’s merely offering legislation which you oppose, then criticize the legislation.
With regard to the differences in numbers in the New England Journal of Medicine paper, I see. It’s the difference between the sample size and the number in the sample who agreed with my position (a large majority, as I claimed). You don’t seem to understand the principles of statistical sampling, in stating that only 1241 physicians agreed with me. The total sample size was 2130 physicians, randomly selected to represent the nation’s physicians. This contrasts with the typical sample size of 1,000 or so, in a Rasmussen or Gallup poll, to represent all the voters in the USA. Also, the response rate (43% of those attempted to be polled) compares very favorably with the results of any large national survey of anyone.
Regarding the issue of what the public option was referring to (in the NEJM article), it’s clear from your posts that you were scolding me for ostensibly not realizing that the “public option” referred to lowering the age of Medicare eligibility to 55, as opposed to a public option for all citizens. I was correct in stating it as I did, and you were incorrect in scolding me for this.
@Mike: You’ve got the last word, this time, buddy (reaction: horrors, guilt by association, get him off of me, he’s not my buddy, cooties).
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: STILL citing that phony survey where the respondents were PAID?
Give it a rest!
For every one of your phony surveys I can cite TWO real ones!
This was a survey of doctors. A detailed survey. Doctors typically are paid for their time in participating in such surveys. It was a very large survey, with a good response rate, which was stringently peer reviewed. I’m familiar with a prior survey which you cited. It was anything but a scientific study (“replies are still coming in”). It wouldn’t have passed peer review in any scientific journal. The Robert Wood Johnson foundation sponsored studies are very rigorous. I’ve participated in them before (though I was not surveyed in the NEJM study I cited).
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
The latest on the abortion issue in health care reform legislation:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/10/abortion-haggling-looms-health-care-debate-senate/
This is consistent with my hope (and belief) that the Stupak amendment WILL remain in the final bill signed into law by the President. If so, this will constitute the most tangible success with regard to reducing abortions of any legislation passed since Roe v Wade.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
@mata, regarding insurance industry profits. I continue to research this, but, to date, here’s the most relevant thing I can find, which concerns California Blue Cross, which consistently denies my claims, necessitating patients paying out of pocket, and in which 16 times my patients took them to court, winning 16 consecutive times, including one appeal to Superior Court, which was also upheld, with the result that Wellpoint Blue Cross has never since appealed an adverse verdict, because they want to avoid a large bad faith lawsuit (Superior Court being precedent setting):
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2003/april/blue_cross_of_califo.php
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Just responded to Mata’s #31, where she said:
However, my reply went to spam. Hint: Lies, damn lies, and statistics
Another thought (in addition to what I wrote), any idea what 2% of 16% of the gross domestic product represents?
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
YAWN!
Haven’t we heard all these leftie talking points about two dozen times already Larry?
You really do need to come up with some new material.
Here’s something you can wrap your head around, it’s from a REAL survey, the Gallup Poll, in which recipients were NOT Paid and the survey was not funded by a group looking to push a left wing political agenda:
@Mike:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124202/No-Clear-Mandate-Americans-Healthcare-Reform.aspx
Given all the Tea Parties, Town Meeting scream fests, demonstrations on the Mall, talk radio screeds, cable news kvetching, and blogosphere umbrage, I’ll take it.
The people who understand the health care system best (i.e. the non-elective surgery doctors) are with me on this. And it’s going to happen.
Take it to the bank.
If the GOP really cared about the issues, rather than scoring political points, they’d do what the Catholic Bishops are doing, which is working with the party in power, as opposed to doing the same thing they did 45 years ago, when Medicare was being invented, and they belatedly came up with an alternative option, known as “Eldercare,” and otherwise threw a temper tantrum.
As the Bible says, there’s nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Or, as Santayana said: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
Back in those days, there was a very good political vocal music group, called the Chad Mitchell Trio. I was in high school, and Barry Goldwater had just run for President. They had two very funny songs which poked fun at conservatives: “Barry’s Boys” and “The John Birch Society.” Last year, these now old geezers got together and did an homage to themselves. If you’ve got a sense of humor, maybe you can have a laugh at your own expense:
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Let’s get this out of the way first, Larry.
You wrote:
You really must slow down on your reading, Larry.
On the heels of your snopes faux pas, in which you were accusing me of considering the progressive agenda more of an enemy than the global Islamic jihad movements, I responded… in full context:
Now, if you read very carefully, you will note that I say *anyone… citizen to POTUS*. I was not specifically talking just about Obama, nor was I talking about health care. Who I was very specifically talking about was you. gasp…. Yes you, attempting to quash legitimate debate and free speech by characterizing me as a hysterical scaremongering militia type. You, however, are not alone in this Alinsky tactic… so I included all your cohorts in your progressive agenda. You may be a moderate in some issues, but when it comes to health care and cap and trade, you are most definitely a progressive.
So it’s interesting you chose to assume I was speaking of Obama when technically I was speaking of you and those like you who choose to debate the way you do. i.e., I give you reasons for why I liken the Pelosi/Obama creation more to England and Canada. I give you excerpts from the legislation. I give you definitions of single payer that you insist upon abusing
What do I get back? The same old tired NEJM poll where you tout how wonderful a 43% response rate is…. and that’s even when they’re paid, fer heavens sake. Then you try to claim every last 2130 participant as agreeing with you.
When I point out that the single payer option in the Pelosi bill is indeed SINGLE PAYER, you say it’s going to be administrated like Medicare. When I point out your error, you then assume I’m all of the sudden talking about Medicare when I’m talking about the single payer public option.
Then you drag me into the abortion/catholic church issue which interests me not one iota. Then there’s some out of the blue accusation about the media and universities, and I haven’t a clue who said anything about them. I’d have to start reading this thread from top to bottom to figure that out. But I assure you, it wasn’t me.
I swear… it’s a bit difficult to carry on a cyber debate with you over the hours, with both of us multitasking work… as I have come to the conclusion neither of us has a clue as to what you are talking about.
But hey, if I’m your favorite target for this thread, have at it. I’m up to it.
Now I find it very interesting that you blindly accept a demonstrably false assertion that administration costs for Medicare is cheaper than private insurance when even the AMA says that’s not true… and that the costs of Medicare admin are cheated by leaving out the other agencies’ costs involved in that administration… such as SS, IRS, etc.
That statistic you accept. But then you really have to dig to find out whether the insurance companies are making 2% profit, or 7.3% profit. If you want to get technical, Larry, some may make 7%, some may lose their shirts, others may eke by and together they average about 2% profit. So telling me the stories of the California specific company, and their particulars doesn’t mean much in the scheme of things. However the telling statement in your cited article is that the other insurance companies were so impressed with a 7.3% profit structure (a sad statement in itself for an private business to hope to grow on so little) that they looked to “emulate” their performance.
Then the author comes up with a new 52% profit structure, but for only 1/3 of their total revenue. WTF?
Let’s pose a few realities for you to consider… even if we can’t get thru to the bozo reporter on the article. Let’s take everyone’s favorite demon, the oil industry. Our US oil companies are small peanuts in the oil world, predominately owned by States. As a matter of fact, even with overseas holdings, they can’t pump enough oil to fill our refineries for gas consumption. So the oil companies are not only pumping oil, they are also purchasers of oil on the world market to satisfy their petroleum contacts. Fact is, they lose their shirts on this venture. That constitutes and x percentage of their overall revenue.
Where they make up for the revenue is via P&E (production and exploration). However since the US doesn’t allow any P&E on our holy grounds, they make their money doing P&E for the other countries not busy being politically correct. They make grand cash doing that, which helps make up for the windfall losses they take supplying the US gas stations.
This same theory for business holds true for just about any corporation…. take a grocery store. They make lose their proverbial butts in the small automotive sections, flowers, etc. But they make up for it perhaps with their fresh vegetables and meat departments. The deli’s are probably there not for profit, but to minimize loss for fresh foods that did not sell.
Back to your cited article with a speculative (gasp) 52% profit for admin revenues which account for 1/3 of their income. Pray tell, what makes you think that the other 2/3rds of that business are so all fired profitable?
The insurance business is a business of risk. When Katrina rolled around, as with other hurricanes in the past, she did her fair share of wiping out the smaller insurance industries because the roll of that die was against them. It takes only one event such as a plague or natural disaster to place an insurance company on the brink of extinction. They may be high on the hog one year, and out of business the next.
As far as you “hint: lies” BS, I posted on the insurance profits back in late October. So danged busy my posts have been few of late, but I surely remember most of what I wrote. And you’ll find that the outfit doing the “fact checking” on the “evil insurance companies” was none other than the AP… no enemy of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid three stooges show.
My suggestion is if you think you have enough research from your lone little CA companies to debunk Calvin Woodard’s AP article on insurance profits nationwide statistics, you take it up with him. Other than that, my statement has far more to back up the cited profits than the reporter’s pitiful attempt to speculate what were a company’s profits without ever seeing their books. Chutzpah, when you think of it.
Folks, larry isn’t trying to convince you he’s right as much as he’s trying to convince himself he’s right. He desperately needs to believe he’s the great, wonderful, super intelligent, super compasionate elite he believes himself to be. Others who don’t agree with him are a threat to the fantasy he’s constructed. This is why he is so insistent to the point of repeating things long disproven.
While I don’t think he’s a bad guy, he’s suffering from severe patholigical denial.
@mata:
Number 1: Read back through your posts on this thread. It’s a lot of ragging on Obama. So you say “POTUS” and you claim that you were talking only of a generic POTUS and not THE POTUS?
Hard to believe, given your reference to said POTUS in #60, among other places:
.
You are too subtle for my poor simple brain, Mata. Sublimely subtle, it would seem.
Number two: I never said you were talking about health care. I was simply making a point to Aye. You claim that Pelosicare will lead to a public option taking over everything. Aye cited an article agreeing with the Democratic position that the public option would be an inconsequential part of the total. I was just enjoying the irony of the two of you promoting polar opposite points of view.
With regard to the insurance company analysis, it’s as I wrote: lies, damn lies, and statistics. You judge the insurance industry by the standards of a service industry or a manufacturing industry, profits seem reasonable. But those businesses are different from insurance businesses. My own business is a service business. I’ve got a profit margin of about 20%, but the other 80% is my own money. It’s money that I, myself, have to put into my business. I’ve got to pay the mortgage on my building, pay my employees, buy my lab equipment, buy my drugs, pay my medical couriers, pay my liability insurance, pay for my laboratory supplies. This is not the way the insurance business works. Their only costs are their administrative costs for managing OTHER PEOPLE’S money. When you look at their profits, relative to their own out of pocket costs, they are obscene. As I said, do the math on 2% of 16% of the gross domestic product.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Let me finish this sentence for you:
“f the GOP really cared about the issues, rather than scoring political points, they’d “propose a series of alternative solutions like lifting the ban on interstate competition, malpractice lawsuit reform while protecting Medicare!
Which is exactly what they have done:
http://republicanleader.house.gov/UploadedFiles/11-06-09_10_Reasons_to_Support_the_GOP_Health_Care_Bill.pdf
The problem is that the assholes who run your party are such arrogant pricks that they simply refuse to consider any alternative which might upset their contributors.
Democrats are not acting in the best interest of the American people, but in their own selfish political interest.
And no amount of spin on your part Larry is going to convince anyone otherwise.
Every day that goes by your side loses more and more people once they find out what you are really up to.
We could have REAL health care reform with broad bipartisan consensus but your side is the one who is blocking it.
@Mike:
I personally believe that if Mitch O’Connell went to Harry Reid and said, “I’ll deliver the votes of Republicans to support your health care bill if you agree to include malpractice reform,” Reid would conference with Obama and they’d accept the offer.
Portability across state lines is something which will be rendered moot by the insurance exchanges and the public option.
But the GOP won’t do this. They are under the delusion that they won the last election. it’s up to them to wrangle the best deal they can out of the bill that the party in power is going to ram through, with them or without them. The Bishops leveraged their power to gain a huge concession. The GOP could do the same, or they can throw a temper tantrum and get nothing.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, are you this hard to converse with in person? What I mean is I’m rather a linear conversationalist. When I make my comments, they are generally addressed to the last comments or to those that I specifically blockquote.
What I find hard to believe is that you can take that comment, directed mostly at you personally, and dig back multiple previous comments for the context. Huh?
So we’ll leave it at this… my comment about subverting the Constitution was in reference to your “subliminal” suggestion that we just stop considering our extreme opposing views as worthwhile, and I confine my militant, hysterical, conspiratorial self to focusing on the true enemies… jihadists. I consider that an assault on my 1st Amendment.
Your second remark was about the RKBA… which you later explained was a friendly “dig”. I acknowledged that.
As for Obama… I retract nothing of my “ragging”, as you call it. I merely keep trying to point out to you that Obama has stated – in no uncertain terms – that he is a proponent of single payer systems and that it will take multiple steps and decades to achieve that. You, apparently, feel that’s information worth ignoring and has no relevance in the issue at hand.
Quite simply, you’re wrong, you’re naive, and you’re dangerous.
As to your responses to Mike… can’t help but weigh in.
Let me put it this way. You may be able to box up a load of cow manure, but putting a pretty bow and a nice card on it isn’t going to change the fact that it’s a box of cow manure. If Mitch O’Connell caved over a small pittance of genuine cost cutting with malpractice, he deserves to be ousted right along with Specter and Reid in the next midterms. If he’s going to whore out the GOP, he had better be asking a better price than that.
But then, as I said, you’re not very good at predictions, nor sizing up those you politically do not understand.
So again I say, you’re wrong, you’re naive, and you’re dangerous.
Possibly. However even more likely is that there will be a pile of 10th Amendment lawsuits for the feds infringing on state’s rights. The fact that most companies cannot sell across state lines comes not from monopoly accusations, as your side likes to spin. It’s because of the State’s and their individual mandates on health insurance. Now you think that the feds will be able to step in and usurp their rights to control health care regulations in their States, and that they will go down that Constitutionally shaky road quietly?
I hope not. I do want cross-state competition. But not at the expense of a precedent that erodes the 10th Amendment.
I can see you really need a copy of the Constitution in your office…..
Mata, you are an editor and I’m just a guest; so you deserve the last word. I’ve made the points I wanted to make. As always, I thank you for the time you put into these discussions with me.
– Larry W/HB
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: You’re welcome. Hang, the time I took here, I coulda done a post! But then, it was broken up by many other working events inbetween.