House Health-Care Proposal Adds $600 Billion in Taxes

[Parkbandit]

June 12 (Bloomberg) -- Health-care overhaul legislation being drafted by House Democrats will include $600 billion in tax increases and $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel said.

Democrats will work on the bill’s details next week as they struggle through “what kind of heartburn” it will cause to agree on how to pay for revamping the health-care system, Rangel, a New York Democrat, said today. The measure’s cost is reaching well beyond the $634 billion President Barack Obama proposed in his budget request to Congress as a 10-year down payment for the policy changes.

Asked whether the cost of a health-care overhaul would be more than $1 trillion over a decade, Rangel said, “the answer is yes.” Some Senate Republicans, including Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, say the costs will likely exceed $1.5 trillion.

House Democrats plan to release their legislation next week. Obama is working with Congress to get legislation to his desk by October.

Democrats in the House and Senate are crafting legislation that would require all Americans to have health insurance, prohibit insurers from refusing to cover pre-existing conditions and place other restrictions on the industry.

Online Exchanges

The legislation would establish online exchanges for individuals to purchase insurance and would require employers to provide health benefits to workers or pay a penalty. Some Democrats also are backing creation of a government-run program to expand coverage to the uninsured. The issue is the subject of bipartisan negotiations with Republican who oppose the so-called public option.

Rangel said Democrats are still considering options for tax increases that might be in the bill, including a possible end to the income tax exclusion for employer-paid health benefits.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, is considering a proposal to apply income taxes to health-care plans if they are significantly more expensive than the basic health plan for federal employees -- $13,000 for a family of four.

Rangel said House Democrats want to avoid the deeper cuts to projected spending under Medicare and Medicaid that Obama has been putting forth. House Democrats want to achieve cost-savings by cuts in payments to private insurance plans under Medicare.

Covering the Costs

Obama has pledged that health-care changes won’t add to the deficit. To accomplish that, he’s proposed getting about $600 billion by reducing tax deductions available to the wealthy, and by trimming Medicare payments to insurance companies.

That won’t be enough to cover the overhaul costs. Obama said this week he plans in the coming days to disclose more proposals for raising “additional sources of revenue.” In a letter last week to Senate Democrats drafting legislation he said he will be proposing between $200 billion and $300 billion in further Medicare and Medicaid cuts.

Obama plans to give a speech Monday in Chicago to the American Medical Association as part of his campaign to build up support for what could be the biggest changes to healthcare policy since Medicare was established in 1965.

Rangel said that while House Democrats will likely release more details about health policy changes in their legislation next week, the package of offsetting tax increases and spending cuts likely will come later. Democrats, he said, want to put forth the more-positive aspects of an overhaul first. Rangel also wants to let lawmakers have time to study and weigh in on proposed offsets.

“We have a problem in not wanting to attract enough negative attention to the bill in terms of the pay-fors,” he said. “Let them get a good feel for the coverage.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aqLNecbH0dcg

I hope the 5% of Americans can handle 600 billion in tax increases.. since [i]95% of Americans will see a tax break under an Obama Administration...]/i]

[Gan]

This will be interesting to see how it fits within the pay/go framework.

Removing the tax exclusion to employer based health care premiums is going to suck. Looks like I'm going to have to up my premium to be more than 13k a year.

I'm hoping he doesnt go after things like Mortgage Interest Deduction as well.

[Parkbandit]

This will be interesting to see how it fits within the pay/go framework.

Removing the tax exclusion to employer based health care premiums is going to suck. Looks like I'm going to have to up my premium to be more than 13k a year.

I'm hoping he doesnt go after things like Mortgage Interest Deduction as well.

This will be an exception to the pay/go, since we're already out of money for the next decade.

And it still amazes me how the simpletons of this country somehow believe that the Government is the best vehicle to manage healthcare. Name ONE single entity that our Government runs intelligently that wouldn't be better off in the private sector.

To reform healthcare, you first need to stop the bullshit.

Fact: Doctors will fuck up from time to time. Sorry, they are only human. Unless you have a willful neglect case, you are shit out of luck. Sorry. This will stop people from going to the doctors with a headache and the doctor being forced to run all these tests on the patient JUST so he won't be sued later on.

Nothing will change unless some serious tort reform is brought about... and with the Government being in charge of healthcare decisions, you can bet it will only get worse. Far worse.

[TheWitch]

Agree completely, PB.

Until the greedy people in this country stop needing to "place blame" and "be compensated" for every problem they have via the courts, nothing can really change except our tax bill.

[ElanthianSiren]

And it still amazes me how the simpletons of this country somehow believe that the Government is the best vehicle to manage healthcare. Name ONE single entity that our Government runs intelligently that wouldn't be better off in the private sector.


If this insinuation is true, then the healthcare companies won't mind a little competition from the government, especially over people they don't want to insure anyway. After all, a public-type plan is doomed to fail anyway because the government is so inefficient.

I agree with you on tort reform. As usual, however, in politics, every candidates says they're going to do something then doesn't do anything. It's ridiculous.

Edit: I'm not comfortable with Blackwater policing the US, just as an example.

[Parkbandit]

If this insinuation is true, then the healthcare companies won't mind a little competition from the government, especially over people they don't want to insure anyway. After all, a public-type plan is doomed to fail anyway because the government is so inefficient.

No company can actually compete with the Government, since the Government can create a situation where their competition fails. Government doesn't have to rely on turning a profit, since the will continue to be funded via taxes, where a company doesn't have that source of income.

When Healthcare "reform" is shoved down our throats, the Government will do everything it can to solidify their new found power and choke any and all competition. Companies will get on board with the Government because their healthcare at the beginning will be "cheaper" and they don't want the Government to force them into it via threats and repressive regulations.



I agree with you on tort reform. As usual, however, in politics, every candidates says they're going to do something then doesn't do anything. It's ridiculous.

The "law" industry is a very powerful lobbying group... and they certainly don't want tort reform. Think of the billions they would lose every year.



Edit: I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable with private security forces policing the US.

Why? Do you somehow believe that the Government being the employer is somehow doing a good job? What power does the Government have as the employer that it wouldn't have as a regulator? I have 2 relatives that work for the USPS, and the amount of complete waste is staggering... not to mention you practically have to kill someone to be terminated once employed. I have one relative who has been on the wagon/off the wagon more than I can count.. and they continue to pay for his treatment (to the tune of $3000 a month) every time he passes out in the parking lot... because he is a 'victim' of the evil alcohol industry........

[radamanthys]

If this insinuation is true, then the healthcare companies won't mind a little competition from the government, especially over people they don't want to insure anyway. After all, a public-type plan is doomed to fail anyway because the government is so inefficient.

I agree with you on tort reform. As usual, however, in politics, every candidates says they're going to do something then doesn't do anything. It's ridiculous.

Edit: I'm not comfortable with Blackwater policing the US.

They (Blackwater troops) have already been seen in DEA raids of dispensaries in Cali.

The government, since it makes the rules, isn't a healthy nor fair competitor. Consider it this way: would the post office still be around if they weren't tax subsidized?

Which is better, the VA system (the one turning soldiers with mental health issues away), or private medical?

It's silly obvious that a Universal healcare system would suck. And we already provide healthcare with medicaid to the poor (And medicaid isn't exactly the most healthy/inexpensive of government programs either).

[Gan]

My one hope is that the allocation pools of for profit insurers are opened up so that participants can participate in pools with larger numbers which would drive costs down. The regionalizing (limiting) of participant pool size is a pretty greedy practice IMO.

Forcing existing insurers to be more competetive with pricing would be a good side effect and perhaps offset the increase in taxes that we'll see in order to pay for insurance for those who cant pay for it themselves.

[ElanthianSiren]

When Healthcare "reform" is shoved down our throats, the Government will do everything it can to solidify their new found power and choke any and all competition. Companies will get on board with the Government because their healthcare at the beginning will be "cheaper" and they don't want the Government to force them into it via threats and repressive regulations.



The "law" industry is a very powerful lobbying group... and they certainly don't want tort reform. Think of the billions they would lose every year.



Why? Do you somehow believe that the Government being the employer is somehow doing a good job? What power does the Government have as the employer that it wouldn't have as a regulator?

That's where we differ. I don't see reform as being shoved down my throat. I see the capitalistic system as a failure that had multiple opportunities to redeem itself. That's not much different from your attitude that if something isn't working, it's time to remove it. It's not like the problems in our system developed overnight. Do I trust the government to run healthcare? Not really. Do I trust private insurance? Hell no.

Agreed.

You're asking me to compare the FoP to a system that doesn't exist. I do believe the police do a good job in most scenerios of trying to balance order and what's best for the community. Further, I believe they do a better job than a private contractor like Blackwater would if given free reign to police communities.



My one hope is that the allocation pools of for profit insurers are opened up so that participants can participate in pools with larger numbers which would drive costs down. The regionalizing (limiting) of participant pool size is a pretty greedy practice IMO.

Forcing existing insurers to be more competetive with pricing would be a good side effect and perhaps offset the increase in taxes that we'll see in order to pay for insurance for those who cant pay for it themselves.

Agreed; however, even if pool restrictions are eliminated, what keeps the relatively limited number of insurance companies from engaging in practices that tend toward oligopoly? I don't believe the capitalistic healthcare companies can work unless they're very highly regulated.




It's silly obvious that a Universal healcare system would suck. And we already provide healthcare with medicaid to the poor (And medicaid isn't exactly the most healthy/inexpensive of government programs either).

What's being proposed isn't anything near a universal, single payer system, as far as I know. I haven't been able to read as much as I'd like since I'm taking some summer courses this year, but I don't believe that's what they're going for. It isn't an issue of poor or wealthy, it's an issue of insurance companies regularly rising premiums, deductables, indiscriminately charging people more for reasons like "hey you're female," and everything else to a level of ridiculousness IMO.

We've tried insurance, given them chances since the 1960s or so to provide adequate, comprehensive, affordable care, and they can't manage it to the tune of regular slippage down WHOs list. I don't give a fig who administers the system as long as it works, and the present system clearly is broken. Why should we trust healthcare companies to improve their access/deductables/ etc?

[Parkbandit]

My one hope is that the allocation pools of for profit insurers are opened up so that participants can participate in pools with larger numbers which would drive costs down. The regionalizing (limiting) of participant pool size is a pretty greedy practice IMO.

Forcing existing insurers to be more competetive with pricing would be a good side effect and perhaps offset the increase in taxes that we'll see in order to pay for insurance for those who cant pay for it themselves.

What's stopping insurance companies from actively competing with one another currently?

You don't have to force companies to compete.. you have to just stop the regulations that don't allow them to.

[Gan]

What's stopping insurance companies from actively competing with one another currently?
Mostly because they're employer based plans. There is competition between insurers to be accepted as part of the offering by each employer. Once they're approved then the competition is minimized to the level of coverage (HMO, PPO, PPO High Ded, etc.) The problem is that all health care insurers practice the small risk/participant pool practice. Furthermore most insurers will want look at preliminary data from a company's HR denoting number of employees, median age, male/female ratio, etc. Based on my experience fielding bids from insurers for a company health plan - its about as close to collusion as you can get (it being small risk pool denoted by region). The smaller the risk pool, the smaller the premium base, the higher the cost per participant.



You don't have to force companies to compete.. you have to just stop the regulations that don't allow them to.
If there are regulations that disallow insurers from opening up the risk pools from being regionalized or limited to single company participants then I would definately be interested in hounding my congressman about removing them.

[Parkbandit]

That's where we differ. I don't see reform as being shoved down my throat. I see the capitalistic system as a failure that had multiple opportunities to redeem itself. That's not much different from your attitude that if something isn't working, it's time to remove it. It's not like the problems in our system developed overnight. Do I trust the government to run healthcare? Not really. Do I trust private insurance? Hell no.

Do believe that the health insurance problems is completely a capitalistic system breakdown is being blissfully ignorant about the governmental role in healthcare.

Again.. name a SINGLE system that the government runs that is successful. Just one? Look at Medicaid. Medicare. What a fucking nightmare that our children will have to clean up one day. Social Security? :rofl: We are all paying into a system that won't be around for us when we retire.

The answer to our problems isn't looking to the Government to take care of us like they are somehow our parents and we're helpless children..

[ElanthianSiren]

Again.. name a SINGLE system that the government runs that is successful. Just one? Look at Medicaid. Medicare. What a fucking nightmare that our children will have to clean up one day.

I named one. The fraternal order of police.

Medicaid and medicare contribute more toward actual care per dollar than private insurance, due to lower administrative costs.

http://www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.asp?imID=1&parentID=61&id=358

I suggest you reread my post. I'm not arguing for a single payer system or the complete removal of the health insurance companies. I'm arguing that they need to shape up or ship out and saying I don't particularly care what fills in the place where they used to be, as long as it works. That means, it could be the great spaghetti monster healthcare corporation or BCBS We Love the USA. If it works, great.

Also, in the end, I'm saying I don't know what will work, but I know what I feel hasn't worked.

Do you honestly feel the current system works?

[radamanthys]

What's being proposed isn't anything near a universal, single payer system, as far as I know. I haven't been able to read as much as I'd like since I'm taking some summer courses this year, but I don't believe that's what they're going for. It isn't an issue of poor or wealthy, it's an issue of insurance companies regularly rising premiums, deductables, indiscriminately charging people more for reasons like "hey you're female," and everything else to a level of ridiculousness IMO.

We've tried insurance, given them chances since the 1960s or so to provide adequate, comprehensive, affordable care, and they can't manage it to the tune of regular slippage down WHOs list. I don't give a fig who administers the system as long as it works, and the present system clearly is broken. Why should we trust healthcare companies to improve their access/deductables/ etc?

So it's more about regulation of insurers than provision of healthcare?

I confess that insurance is not one of my strong suits.

[ElanthianSiren]

So it's more about regulation of insurers than provision of healthcare?

I confess that insurance is not one of my strong suits.

The last thing I had read (this was awhile ago) was that the current plan was to remove the practice of having to buy coverage in state, which Obama took alot of heat for (and rightfully so since it was something he blasted McCain for) and to put in a public "pool" option. Rather than eliminating insurnace companies, it seemed more like a combination of public and private, where people could keep their normal insurance if they chose.

I'm sorry if it came off like I was arguing for single payer as the government's stance on reform. I'm not; like I noted, as long as it works, I don't care. I'm simply interjecting my own experience. Among that is dealing with BCBS and their billing department constantly refusing to pay for necessary tests like hgA1c then coming back and telling me "oops our bad... it really IS on your policy" after wasting 2 hours of my life arguing with them. HgA1c needs to be done every 6 months, and is only one example from a series of diagnostic bloodwork I regularly need, including kidney tests, cholesterol etc to make sure my body's not rotting from type 1 diabetes. How covered are these things when someone wastes an hour or two every time arguing with the company over them? The inefficiency's staggering and makes me wonder if they're not just trying to get people to write a check.

Gan brings up a really good point though; is it going to make the private insurance people want to keep prohibitively expensive? If so, that's a problem.

I hope I have time to read indepth what the plan is when it comes out, but I have three tests coming up over the next 3 days, so I'll probably be relying on checking in here and with my family/friends for updates :(

[Parkbandit]

I named one. The fraternal order of police.

No, you named an entity that you are more comfortable with.. not one that is more successful. Protection is one government's core responsibilities.



Medicaid and medicare contribute more toward actual care per dollar than private insurance, due to lower administrative costs.

http://www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.asp?imID=1&parentID=61&id=358

I suggest you reread my post. I'm not arguing for a single payer system or the complete removal of the health insurance companies. I'm arguing that they need to shape up or ship out and saying I don't particularly care what fills in the place where they used to be, as long as it works. That means, it could be the great spaghetti monster healthcare corporation or BCBS We Love the USA. If it works, great.

Also, in the end, I'm saying I don't know what will work, but I know what I feel hasn't worked.

Do you honestly feel the current system works?

Absolutely not. The current system is a damn mess... but that doesn't mean we should simply give up and look to our sweet uncle to get us out of a mess he essentially created. Our uncle is a crack smoking, unemployed lunatic who is looking to score his next rock. You want to go out, pay the dealer and deliver it to our crazy ass Uncle's house... when what our Uncle needs is a swift kick in the ass.

[ElanthianSiren]

No, you named an entity that you are more comfortable with.. not one that is more successful. Protection is one government's core responsibilities.



Absolutely not. The current system is a damn mess... but that doesn't mean we should simply give up and look to our sweet uncle to get us out of a mess he essentially created. Our uncle is a crack smoking, unemployed lunatic who is looking to score his next rock. You want to go out, pay the dealer and deliver it to our crazy ass Uncle's house... when what our Uncle needs is a swift kick in the ass.

How are you defining success?
Because it's a core responsibility doesn't change that it's a government entity.

I never said we should. I haven't advocated for single payer government run care once in the debate. I have argued for a different approach to care and reform of care, however, since I feel what we have is broken.

If that means more regulation, so be it. If that means removing restrictions on who can buy what, where, so be it. I'm not married to any policy, as long as what emerges works (and keeps me from wasting hours on the phone with idiots who can't read my policy and their supervisors). I should note what I am against and that is taking the healthcare companies at their word that yes yes things will improve as long as everyone is forced to buy care (one of the big suggestions that I believe was being floated). I want to see specific figures on how things will improve and why before we make it criminal for anyone not to have care.

[Daniel]

Name ONE single entity that our Government runs intelligently that wouldn't be better off in the private sector.
.

The infantry?

[radamanthys]

The infantry?

The quality of soldiers would be better, the benefits would be better and the bases, housing and food would be better.

That said, the wars would be fought for profit, instead of for peace. That's why the military is not privatized- it's not a profit-driven operation. In fact, it's totally a sunk cost operation.

The highway system is a better example.

[Daniel]

The quality of soldiers would be better, the benefits would be better and the bases, housing and food would be better.

That said, the wars would be fought for profit, instead of for peace. That's why the military is not privatized- it's not a profit-driven operation. In fact, it's totally a sunk cost operation.

The highway system is a better example.

Stop being a tool.

Seriously.

[radamanthys]

Stop being a tool.

Seriously.

Stop being a prick.

Seriously, stop.

[Parkbandit]

How are you defining success?
Because it's a core responsibility doesn't change that it's a government entity.

That's as dumb as stating that the government is good at generating revenue through taxes. The government holds a self imposed monopoly over protecting it's citizens, how are you defining success? Are you saying that there isn't MASSIVE fraud, waste and bureaucratic bullshit in the police department? You assume it's a "success" because you've never experienced it any other way.

[Parkbandit]

The infantry?

See above.

[TheWitch]

ES's point about struggling to get things paid for, that are covered, is a good one and HAS to contribute to the costs we pay now. The incompetence and pure stupidity of the people on the other end of the phone at an insurance company is maddening, and worse, a huge waste and money sink.

When my son had leukemia, I literally blocked out an hour a day - and that was rarely enough - to deal with assinine insurance issues. AND, it's not just the insurance companies. Issues often started with the hosptial/dr. office, submitting incorrect codes, missing deadlines, etc.

Maybe, even if nothing else comes of this overhaul of which I am very afraid, it will at least scare this fools into being more efficient.

[Daniel]

See above.

I'm pretty sure our infantry is better than any other in the world. I doubt you want to say otherwise. The point being is that it doesn't help your point to deal in absolutes. There are things governments do well and things they don't, but sometimes it takes a little bit of both to get the best benefit. China is proving that every day.

[Daniel]

Stop being a prick.

Seriously, stop.

Lol. Good one.

I always find conservatives without jobs funny.

[Parkbandit]

I'm pretty sure our infantry is better than any other in the world. I doubt you want to say otherwise. The point being is that it doesn't help your point to deal in absolutes. There are things governments do well and things they don't, but sometimes it takes a little bit of both to get the best benefit. China is proving that every day.

Again, you are missing my point. Name an entity other than protection and taxing citizens, that our government does successfully. You can't count the armed forces, since our government (and rightfully so) doesn't allow it's citizens to form it's own militia or police it's own streets.

[ElanthianSiren]

That's as dumb as stating that the government is good at generating revenue through taxes. The government holds a self imposed monopoly over protecting it's citizens, how are you defining success? Are you saying that there isn't MASSIVE fraud, waste and bureaucratic bullshit in the police department? You assume it's a "success" because you've never experienced it any other way.

Perhaps you should have made your demand clearer then. You still haven't answered what sort of success you were looking for initially. Once you clarify that, I can likely find an example to help.

Unfortunately, many entities are full of massive fraud, waste, and bureaucratic bullshit. Anyone whose had to argue "My policy says that I'm covered for x number of test y a year, why are you billing me 300.00?" and dealt with someone who then referred them to their superior(s ie chain of command) about the contents of their policy has experienced the bureaucracy first hand.

Neither enterprise expressing such behavior is excused IMO. But then, healthcare companies have also proven themselves inable or unwilling to behave in a responsible manner to their consumers, so I'd invite the government to do something it does do reasonably well... regulate and legislate.

-M

[Parkbandit]

Seriously? Now I have to define successful to you? You claimed the police department is successful.. yet we have some of the highest crime rates of the civilized world.

#6 in assaults per capita
#8 in murders with weapons per ca pita
#9 in rapes per capita
#6 in total crimes per capita

Yea.. a real beacon of success there.

Look at agencies in our government that do deal with healthcare... Veterans is a fucking nightmare.. Medicaid and Medicare are both in a desperate need of wholesale reform..

But hey.. once our Government is allowed to control ALL healthcare in this country.. then they will somehow do something they have never, ever done before... manage something without widespread fraud, budget over runs and great customer service!

Hope and Change my ass...

[radamanthys]

Lol. Good one.

I always find conservatives without jobs funny.

Still a prick.

http://bingweb.binghamton.edu/~bkarker1/danprick.bmp

[Parkbandit]

Still a prick.

http://bingweb.binghamton.edu/~bkarker1/danprick.bmp

You realize he is just going to say "OMG LOOK HOW BIG MY COCK IS!"

PS - You are in Binghamton, NY? I'll be there for 4th of July.

[radamanthys]

You realize he is just going to say "OMG LOOK HOW BIG MY COCK IS!"

PS - You are in Binghamton, NY? I'll be there for 4th of July.

Shit, I just moved out a week ago. I'm up about an hour north, now.

(he probably would think 2 inches is big)

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

You realize he is just going to say "OMG LOOK HOW BIG MY COCK IS!"

PS - You are in Binghamton, NY? I'll be there for 4th of July.

Bring your smoker and some amahzing meat and I will provide cake in collateral.

<3

::lives within a couple hours drive of Bing::

[radamanthys]

Bring your smoker and some amahzing meat and I will provide cake in collateral.

<3

::lives within a couple hours drive of Bing::

Ooh, this sounds like a good plan!

[Daniel]

Still a prick.

http://bingweb.binghamton.edu/~bkarker1/danprick.bmp

Photoshop: The last bastion of failed insults.

Next time you might want to put some more effort into it, but I guess that's "good enuf for the english classroom".

[Parkbandit]

Shit, I just moved out a week ago. I'm up about an hour north, now.

(he probably would think 2 inches is big)

About an hour north would put you around Norwich NY... which is where I grew up.

[Daniel]

Again, you are missing my point. Name an entity other than protection and taxing citizens, that our government does successfully. You can't count the armed forces, since our government (and rightfully so) doesn't allow it's citizens to form it's own militia or police it's own streets.

NASA?

State Universities?

The Highway system?

RAND?

DARPA (who brought us such things as the Internet)?

The CIA?

The FBI?

The FDA?

Foreign Ag service?

The EX-IM Bank?

Census Bureau?

Department of Energy?

Centers for Disease Control?

National Institute of Health?

National Economic Bureau (the one you rely on to say the economy is fine or not)?

I could probably go on...unless you consider all of these unmitigated disasters...

[ElanthianSiren]

You claimed the police department is successful.. yet we have some of the highest crime rates of the civilized world.

#6 in assaults per capita
#8 in murders with weapons per ca pita
#9 in rapes per capita
#6 in total crimes per capita

Yea.. a real beacon of success there.

Look at agencies in our government that do deal with healthcare... Veterans is a fucking nightmare.. Medicaid and Medicare are both in a desperate need of wholesale reform..

But hey.. once our Government is allowed to control ALL healthcare in this country.. then they will somehow do something they have never, ever done before... manage something without widespread fraud, budget over runs and great customer service!

Hope and Change my ass...

Then, you agree that the healthcare system needs reform, since we're ranked just above Slovenia and just under Costa Rica (that would be 36th place for those keeping score) in the civilized world. Apparently, private business isn't so great at administering care. I know you see what I did thar.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

I already rebutted you on medicare and medicaid. I have to confess I don't know much about veterans care, aside from that it's often touted as the second opportunity to die for the US. However, I never stated that medicare, medicaid, or veterans care was the best health care obtainable. Further, I don't believe the current system to be either.

I'm not sure if you're overracting as much as you are for attention or if you're really as afraid as you come off sounding. The Obama administration, including congress, has already pulled single payer off the table. That means, government isn't going to own all of health care.

More than likely, government will try to regulate health care and improve access, which would be fine by me. I'm drawing this conclusion mainly from the fact that the board Obama is taking advice from is largely comprised of individuals working for privatized healthcare corporations; therefor, I don't believe we're going to see the bottom fall out of private health insurance any time soon.

However, nobody in this debate can honestly know what exactly the plan is until next weekish.

[Daniel]

I wouldn't lump the VA into any discussions of healthcare in America. It's a seperate, but admitedly entirely fucked up situation.

I'm really hoping Shinseki can get that place in order. /tangent.

[radamanthys]

Photoshop: The last bastion of failed insults.

Next time you might want to put some more effort into it, but I guess that's "good enuf for the english classroom".

It's MS paint.

It wasn't an insult- You are a prick. You're one of the most acerbic people on these boards. There's not a thread that you post in that you don't cause to descend into hostility. I'm guessing the world would be better off without your self-important attitude- which seems to be your entire being.

Now we're kicking teachers? What's next, puppies with cancer?

That's pretty scummy.

[Daniel]

It's MS paint.

It wasn't an insult- You are a prick. You're one of the most acerbic people on these boards. There's not a thread that you post in that you don't cause to descend into hostility. I'm guessing the world would be better off without your self-important attitude- which seems to be your entire being.

Now we're kicking teachers? What's next, puppies with cancer?

That's pretty scummy.

In your last 3 posts you've insulted my family, "mspainted" my face on a dick, told me to "die in a fire" and alluded that I had a <2 inch penis and you want to tell me about scummy?

Do you ever get tired of being a hilariously adept idiot?

That's like trying to call someone out on their work performance when you can't even get a job...

Oh wait...My bad.

Here's something: Don't talk shit to me and I won't talk shit to you. It's really simple.

[Parkbandit]

Then, you agree that the healthcare system needs reform, since we're ranked just above Slovenia and just under Costa Rica (that would be 36th place for those keeping score) in the civilized world. Apparently, private business isn't so great at administering care. I know you see what I did thar.

Since I've already stated:




Absolutely not. The current system is a damn mess... but that doesn't mean we should simply give up and look to our sweet uncle to get us out of a mess he essentially created. Our uncle is a crack smoking, unemployed lunatic who is looking to score his next rock. You want to go out, pay the dealer and deliver it to our crazy ass Uncle's house... when what our Uncle needs is a swift kick in the ass.

I'm pretty sure I would agree that the healthcare system in this country needs reform. Difference is, you look to the government to solve your problems, where I look to American capitalism with some government regulations to do the same thing far less expensively and far better.

[Daniel]

Since I've already stated:



I'm pretty sure I would agree that the healthcare system in this country needs reform. Difference is, you look to the government to solve your problems, where I look to American capitalism with some government regulations to do the same thing far less expensively and far better.

What incentive does the healthcare sector have to reform?

[radamanthys]

In your last 3 posts you've insulted my family, "mspainted" my face on a dick, told me to "die in a fire" and alluded that I had a <2 inch penis and you want to tell me about scummy?

Do you ever get tired of being a hilariously adept idiot?

That's like trying to call someone out on their work performance when you can't even get a job...

Oh wait...My bad.

Here's something: Don't talk shit to me and I won't talk shit to you. It's really simple.

Sounds good to me. I'll play nice if you do.

[Parkbandit]

NASA?

State Universities?

The Highway system?

RAND?

DARPA (who brought us such things as the Internet)?

The CIA?

The FBI?

The FDA?

Foreign Ag service?

The EX-IM Bank?

Census Bureau?

Department of Energy?

Centers for Disease Control?

National Institute of Health?

National Economic Bureau (the one you rely on to say the economy is fine or not)?

I could probably go on...unless you consider all of these unmitigated disasters...

Most of these entities either is a function of a government (law enforcement, military, Departments) or has a complete monopoly over whatever they do (NASA, FDA, etc..). Take the ones that don't fit this, universities and highways, and you can clearly see how much better private business runs them.

Just because they function, doesn't make them successful.

[Parkbandit]

What incentive does the healthcare sector have to reform?

You have to address the issues that are causing the cost problems. There will never be healthcare reform in this country without serious tort reform. There also won't be healthcare reform without addressing the abuses the system is burdened by.

[Parkbandit]

I wouldn't lump the VA into any discussions of healthcare in America. It's a seperate, but admitedly entirely fucked up situation.

I'm really hoping Shinseki can get that place in order. /tangent.

It's an example of our government managing healthcare... which they have turned it into a complete clusterfuck.

[TheWitch]

What incentive does the healthcare sector have to reform?

Being taken over and/or put out of business by the government.

That should be one hell of an incentive.

[Daniel]

It's an example of our government managing healthcare... which they have turned it into a complete clusterfuck.

Except almost all of the people in it have very significant health issues which can not be mitigated and that we are obligated to take care of. It's not the same. At all.

[Daniel]

Being taken over and/or put out of business by the government.

That should be one hell of an incentive.

oh. Imagine that...

It's a good thing we're legitimately making that threat then, hmm?

[Daniel]

Most of these entities either is a function of a government (law enforcement, military, Departments) or has a complete monopoly over whatever they do (NASA, FDA, etc..). Take the ones that don't fit this, universities and highways, and you can clearly see how much better private business runs them.

Just because they function, doesn't make them successful.

A "There is nothing you can ever say about a good functioning government entity that I'll believe" would have sufficed.

[Parkbandit]

Except almost all of the people in it have very significant health issues which can not be mitigated and that we are obligated to take care of. It's not the same. At all.

Got stats on that? Stats that show there are "almost all" 25 million vets have significant health issues?

Because I'd love to see that.

[Parkbandit]

A "There is nothing you can ever say about a good functioning government entity that I'll believe" would have sufficed.

Next time, think about what you are posting before you post it then.. since most of the examples you gave are basic responsibilities of any government and have no civilian counterpart to benchmark success or not.

[Fallen]

Wouldn't the United States Postal Service be a representation of a business that the government runs, while UPS, Fed-ex, etc be privately owned business still able to compete and thrive despite the competition? Or is the USPS not completely government run?

[Ignot]

Wouldn't the United States Postal Service be a representation of a business that the government runs, while UPS, Fed-ex, etc be privately owned business still able to compete and thrive despite the competition? Or is the USPS not completely government run?

I think that's a good example in addition to all the other examples in this thread.

[Daniel]

Got stats on that? Stats that show there are "almost all" 25 million vets have significant health issues?

Because I'd love to see that.

You don't qualify for va healthcare unless you have a service connected disability or are retired.

[Daniel]

Got stats on that? Stats that show there are "almost all" 25 million vets have significant health issues?

Because I'd love to see that.

You don't qualify for va healthcare unless you have a service connected disability or are retired.

[Parkbandit]

Wouldn't the United States Postal Service be a representation of a business that the government runs, while UPS, Fed-ex, etc be privately owned business still able to compete and thrive despite the competition? Or is the USPS not completely government run?

It's an excellent example of how Government has difficulty in running a business while 2 competitors are able to do it successfully.

[ElanthianSiren]

Hence why I asked which benchmark you were using for success. NASA put a man on the moon before Russia, the USPS works, and police are accomplished at keeping order in a society based on gun ownership.

The NIH funds universities researching cures for diseases, ailments, and viral infections, technology overhauls in schools, as well as ensuring information is accessable for anyone with internet access or the ability to write in a request. I view it as a success to have a large amount of unbiased information available to anyone who chooses to read about their medical ailments.

CDC is first out there researching something when it becomes an epidemic or rises to pandemic levels, pushing for cures and information before other countries. I'd view it as a success when they come up with the vaccine to something like swine flu.

Science is ridiculously competitive and political, and because of the government funnelling money into the organizations Daniel listed, we have more resources to be competitive with other countries.

[Ignot]

name a SINGLE system that the government runs that is successful.


United States Postal Service


Nuh uh!

:lol2:

[Parkbandit]

You don't qualify for va healthcare unless you have a service connected disability or are retired.

Duh. I'm fucking retarded.

:(

[Parkbandit]

:lol2:


I don't expect to have an intelligent conversation with you about successful businesses... but here's a clue: The USPS is far from a successful business.

[Warriorbird]

Here's the thing... remove the government from an equation completely and you're also likely to get ridiculously high costs. In the long term the 'breakup of Ma Bell' didn't do much good for the consumer.

[ElanthianSiren]

Here's the thing... remove the government from an equation completely and you're also likely to get ridiculously high costs. In the long term the 'breakup of Ma Bell' didn't do much good for the consumer.

I was wondering about that, but I didn't have any information on finance personally. The CDC and NIH are entities I'm more comfortable with.

I was wondering how many businesses start without some kind of government incentive/forgiveness etc, just in general.

[Warriorbird]

Businesses are largely amoral entities unless they're forced to be otherwise.

Another noteworthy point.... the upper middle class and low end rich (the folks who actually care about this stuff.... believe you me, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates don't give a fuck) probably didn't vote for Obama to begin with.

Parkbandit... if he's even effected (because, frankly, most of these folks are pretty good at tax avoidance) and Paul certainly didn't vote for Obama.

[Ignot]

The USPS is far from a successful business.

That's your opinion. What I found funny was that you shot down every single example thrown your way because you are to afraid to admit you are wrong. Had you just said "okay, those are good examples" everyone would be respecting you instead of laughing at you.

[Parkbandit]

Hence why I asked which benchmark you were using for success. NASA put a man on the moon before Russia, the USPS works, and police are accomplished at keeping order in a society based on gun ownership.


Ah.. then your definition of a successful business is that results are met, regardless of the costs. Fantastic. By using that definition, the US Government must be a perfect example of how to run a successful business. Obviously, you've never managed a business. I can't imagine telling my boss (when I had one) "Hey, I was able to meet the goals you laid out for me, but I had to spend 5X what is normally spent to do it" and for him to tell me "Good job!"

I did love your little comment about this being a society based upon the gun though.. it sounded like it was taken straight off the moveon.org website. Funny how I saw Great Britain on the high crime countries.. didn't they ban handguns years ago? Weird.

[Parkbandit]

Here's the thing... remove the government from an equation completely and you're also likely to get ridiculously high costs. In the long term the 'breakup of Ma Bell' didn't do much good for the consumer.


No one is asking for government to be removed completely. Unbridled capitalism is almost just as bad as socialism.

[Warriorbird]

No one is asking for government to be removed completely. Unbridled capitalism is almost just as bad as socialism.

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/2/2c/Oreillyorly.jpg

[Parkbandit]

That's your opinion. What I found funny was that you shot down every single example thrown your way because you are to afraid to admit you are wrong. Had you just said "okay, those are good examples" everyone would be respecting you instead of laughing at you.

The opinion that the USPS is an abysmal business failure isn't just my opinion.. it's pretty much everyone's opinion that believes it should function without having to be paid for by tax payers... like UPS and FedEx are able to do.

But good to know you speak for everyone.

[Parkbandit]

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/2/2c/Oreillyorly.jpg


I accept your apology for your unsubstantiated assumption.

[ElanthianSiren]

Obviously, you've never managed a business. I can't imagine telling my boss (when I had one) "Hey, I was able to meet the goals you laid out for me, but I had to spend 5X what is normally spent to do it" and for him to tell me "Good job!"

I did love your little comment about this being a society based upon the gun though.. it sounded like it was taken straight off the moveon.org website. Funny how I saw Great Britain on the high crime countries.. didn't they ban handguns years ago? Weird.

No, I haven't, and I have no desire to. I already noted that finance isn't something I enjoy.

2nd amendment, still there, I believe. I'm the last person to start attacking about gun BS. You're reaching.

[Warriorbird]

I accept your apology for your unsubstantiated assumption.

I'm curious whether Ron Paul and Radamanthys would agree with the unsubstantiated nature of it.

[Parkbandit]

No, I haven't, and I have no desire to. I already noted that finance isn't something I enjoy.

And thus your definition of a successful business. Let me assure you, that the financial side of things is a huge determining factor in a business being successful.



2nd amendment, still there, I believe. I'm the last person to start attacking about gun BS. You're reaching.

I'M reaching? You just made the reach that the country is based upon gun ownership and because of that, the police department is doing a great job. How are those crime statistics in Britain again?

[Warriorbird]

I'm curious whether Ron Paul and Radamanthys would agree with the unsubstantiated nature of it.

More substantiation for what I said.


Federally speaking, it is my opinion that I should be paying for little else than our military. I should be paying for what little beyond the federal military that it takes to facilitate a bare minimum amount of oversight (for prevention of fraud and abuse) that the federal government should have in the exercise of their ENUMERATED powers under the constitution. I don't care to lose 30%+ of my income to social welfare programs, made up emanations and penumbras to the Constitution, and the exercise of the federal government pretending that they have general police powers (health, safety, welfare), which they commandeer via the commerce clause.
-Khariz

Tell me that doesn't sound like unfettered capitalism to you, PB. This is folks, educated folks, from your party.

[Parkbandit]

I'm curious whether Ron Paul and Radamanthys would agree with the unsubstantiated nature of it.


Ron Paul also wants to get rid of the IRS and the FBI.. not the most sane guy I've ever heard...

[Warriorbird]

You get people crowing about the Fair Tax around here quite frequently.

[Parkbandit]

More substantiation for what I said.



Tell me that doesn't sound like unfettered capitalism to you, PB. This is folks, educated folks, from your party.


Read his post again.. he addressed the need of government.. so it's not "completely removed" as you had suggested. I happen to agree with Khariz's opinion.. that government, other than preventing fraud and abuse, should leave companies alone.

You might need to find another "example".. since it clearly didn't fit your assumption.

[Parkbandit]

You get people crowing about the Fair Tax around here quite frequently.

You would still need the IRS if a fair tax were implemented

[Fallen]

It's an excellent example of how Government has difficulty in running a business while 2 competitors are able to do it successfully.

Well, in the USPS's defense, the volume of regular mail has decreased sizably. In a sense, it is BETTER to have the government handle a situation where a company is providing a vital service, even if it is at a loss, or for at best, a narrow margain of gain. They (USPS) will have to adjust in order to change with the way people are doing business these days. From what I heard, that means closing more Post Offices, and possibly suspending Saturday mail deliveries.

[ElanthianSiren]

And thus your definition of a successful business. Let me assure you, that the financial side of things is a huge determining factor in a business being successful.



I'M reaching? You just made the reach that the country is based upon gun ownership and because of that, the police department is doing a great job. How are those crime statistics in Britain again?

It isn't, however, the only facet of a successful entity. Necessity and acting as a safety net is another and why the USPS will likely always be in business. Innovation is another, unless you believe that the US government should never have helped fund development of the internet to pave the way for google, yahoo, AOL, comcast, verizon etc and so on.

You're reaching to try to insinuate that I'm associated with being anti gun, and if you're not aware of it, someone else has been reading and responding for you. I never said that other countries lack crime, but I highly doubt that Britain's police force experiences some of the dangers that ours does.

Furthermore, you're arguing with a strawman (the government is going to take over healthcare and run everything, so name a business the government runs efficiently), as the government itself has said this isn't the plan for healthcare reform.

[Ignot]

Well, looks like PB hit his sensitivity overload, there goes the rational discussion.

[Parkbandit]

Well, looks like PB hit his sensitivity overload, there goes the rational discussion.

Where was your rational discussion again? Read over your posts in this topic and let's compare content. You might not agree with my viewpoint, but I believe I've articulated it far better than anything you have ever attempted to post in a political folder that was anywhere close to being on topic.

You are an ignorant troll, boy. Now run along and let the adults talk.

[Parkbandit]

It isn't, however, the only facet of a successful entity.

Who said it was the only facet of a successful entity? You, on the other hand, blissfully ignore the fiscal side of a business.. like it doesn't really matter.


Necessity and acting as a safety net is another and why the USPS will likely always be in business.

USPS will be around because of the unions. If our Government actually allowed true competition for postal service, it would hemorrhage even more tax dollars every year.. but it still would be around.


Innovation is another, unless you believe that the US government should never have helped fund development of the internet to pave the way for google, yahoo, AOL, comcast, verizon etc and so on.

You believe that the Government created it.. I believe the Government created a favorable environment for it to happen... which is what it should do.



You're reaching to try to insinuate that I'm associated with being anti gun, and if you're not aware of it, someone else has been reading and responding for you.

You initiated the gun debate, darling. You made mention of the law enforcement being a successful entity. I showed how it really wasn't successful using per capita statistics... then you tried to brush that off as it's because we're all gun totin' cowfolks.


I never said that other countries lack crime, but I highly doubt that Britain's police force experiences some of the dangers that ours does.

Britain took away guns from law abiding citizens. Bravo. Now the bad guys, who couldn't give two shits if they broke another law or two.. acquire whatever gun they want and have less worry of a normal everyday citizen shooting them. Many of their crime statistics are just as bad if not worse than the United States.



Furthermore, you're arguing with a strawman (the government is going to take over healthcare and run everything, so name a business the government runs efficiently), as the government itself has said this isn't the plan for healthcare reform.

I realize Obama has stated that he doesn't want universal healthcare.. much like he stated he doesn't want to manage the US vehicle production (oops), manage banks (oops), wants to give 95% of Americans a tax break (oops), that he won't sign a bill until it's been reviewed by the American people for 5 days (oops) and that he will bring a new fiscal responsibility to Washington (oops). You will excuse me if I question his motives and his word.

[ElanthianSiren]

Who said it was the only facet of a successful entity? You, on the other hand, blissfully ignore the fiscal side of a business.. like it doesn't really matter.

I certainly don't harp on it constantly like others in this debate. Additionally, as it comes to healthcare, I don't believe companies should make record profits while shrinking services and behaving in ways not in the interest of their paying customers (ie inability to even read a policy before (predictably) !!you must talk to my supervisor!! Please hold a long while!).





You believe that the Government created it.. I believe the Government created a favorable environment for it to happen... which is what it should do.



The origins of the Internet reach back to the 1960s when the United States funded research projects of its military agencies to build robust, fault-tolerant and distributed computer networks. This research and a period of civilian funding of a new U.S. backbone by the National Science Foundation spawned worldwide participation in the development of new networking technologies and led to the commercialization of an international network in the mid 1990s, and resulted in the following popularization of countless applications in virtually every aspect of modern human life. By 2009, an estimated quarter of Earth's population uses the services of the Internet (see Growth).




The National Science Foundation (NSF) is a United States government agency that supports fundamental research and education in all the non-medical fields of science and engineering. Its medical counterpart is the National Institutes of Health. With an annual budget of about $6.02 billion (fiscal year 2008), NSF funds approximately 20 percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by the United States' colleges and universities. In some fields, such as mathematics, computer science, economics and the social sciences, NSF is the major source of federal backing.

It looks like the US government was involved every step of the way.






You initiated the gun debate, darling. You made mention of the law enforcement being a successful entity. I showed how it really wasn't successful using per capita statistics... then you tried to brush that off as it's because we're all gun totin' cowfolks.

Hardly. I simply noted that police departments do their job reasonably well, which is to keep order. You brought in other countries, and I noted that you're not comparing apples to apples.




I realize Obama has stated that he doesn't want universal healthcare.. much like he stated he doesn't want to manage the US vehicle production (oops), manage banks (oops), wants to give 95% of Americans a tax break (oops), that he won't sign a bill until it's been reviewed by the American people for 5 days (oops) and that he will bring a new fiscal responsibility to Washington (oops). You will excuse me if I question his motives and his word.

If he was going for single payer, I doubt his advisory board on the matter would be from the major health care companies.

[Parkbandit]

I certainly don't harp on it constantly like others in this debate. Additionally, as it comes to healthcare, I don't believe companies should make record profits while shrinking services and behaving in ways not in the interest of their paying customers (ie inability to even read a policy before (predictably) !!you must talk to my supervisor!! Please hold a long while!).

If only the world was made of sugar plums and pixie dust..




It looks like the US government was involved every step of the way.


It would have happened regardless of the US Government's involvement. No need to put them up on a pedestal.



Hardly. I simply noted that police departments do their job reasonably well, which is to keep order. You brought in other countries, and I noted that you're not comparing apples to apples.


You need to revisit this thread of the chain of events and who first brought up law enforcement and guns.



If he was going for single payer, I doubt his advisory board on the matter would be from the major health care companies.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Hey, maybe Obama will actually keep his word for once. OR, maybe he's simple setting us up. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

[4a6c1]

Britian is a bad example for lack of gun crime. Very bad. I cant speak to street crime statistics but I can speak to the organized crime. Gun parts are almost unregulated over there. The system is broken for monitoring gun traffic and interpol largely ignores the problem. As a result Britian is prime area for traffickers and machine gun parts are produced in mass quantity and exported and sold to everyone everywhere...including us. Remington is a large buyer for 'scrap metal' exported from Britian. It is actually cheaper for them to buy their parts from wholesale manufacturers in the United Kingdom than to make it theirselves. Are these taxed as weapon parts? No. Are these regulated by the government? No. This is what happens when one country ignores a problem hoping it just goes away.

Eh..I have nothing else to say on topic. I'm just hoping my premiums dont go up.

[ElanthianSiren]

maybe Obama will actually keep his word for once. OR, maybe he's simple setting us up. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

I don't believe much in politics has to do with keeping your word. It's more 'what can I get out of it'.

IMO Obama can't get much out of universal care except pissing off a large number of people with private insurance, losing a major rallying cry for the Kucinnich-type supporters of the democratic party, and invoking immeasurable debt and thus pissing off fiscally conservative democrats aut infinatum.

If I was playing politics with it, the better investment would be to do reform IMO and then bitch later about how the system is still broken because republicans somehow blocked efforts at comprehensive reform (despite having both chambers and the executive branch). In this, dems get to blame republicans, keep the universal care people enthused with a carrot stick approach (because hey! we tried, right?!), reform the system somewhat to keep constituents pacified and the lobbyists/healthcare happy and in business, and the republicans have less to attack on because it's a reform, not universal care.

I see no gain in trying for universal, single payer care right now, but I suppose we'll see. What makes you think they will?

[radamanthys]

I don't believe much in politics has to do with keeping your word. It's more 'what can I get out of it'.

IMO Obama can't get much out of universal care except pissing off a large number of people with private insurance, losing a major rallying cry for the Kucinnich-type supporters of the democratic party, and invoking immeasurable debt and thus pissing off fiscally conservative democrats aut infinatum.

If I was playing politics with it, the better investment would be to do reform IMO and then bitch later about how the system is still broken because republicans somehow blocked efforts at comprehensive reform (despite having both chambers and the executive branch). In this, dems get to blame republicans, keep the universal care people enthused with a carrot stick approach (because hey! we tried, right?!), reform the system somewhat to keep constituents pacified and the lobbyists/healthcare happy and in business, and the republicans have less to attack on because it's a reform, not universal care.

I see no gain in trying for universal, single payer care right now, but I suppose we'll see. What makes you think they will?

I'm going to give you the biggest insult you will ever get in your life:

You'd make an excellent politician. The above analysis is quite cogent.

[Bhuryn]

I'm pretty sure our infantry is better than any other in the world. I doubt you want to say otherwise. The point being is that it doesn't help your point to deal in absolutes. There are things governments do well and things they don't, but sometimes it takes a little bit of both to get the best benefit. China is proving that every day.

See this thread: http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=43382

[Mabus]

I'm going to give you the biggest insult you will ever get in your life:

You'd make an excellent politician. The above analysis is quite cogent.
It was a pretty decent effort.

One option was left out:
Really "break" health care now, blame it on the opposing party, have business scream under the new requirements and taxation, and then when you are a lame duck you can go for universal health care without a worry and with some support from those that may oppose it now.

[ElanthianSiren]

It was a pretty decent effort.

One option was left out:
Really "break" health care now, blame it on the opposing party, have business scream under the new requirements and taxation, and then when you are a lame duck you can go for universal health care without a worry and with some support from those that may oppose it now.

I don't believe dems are going to retain enough seats between '10 and '12 to do that. That's a possibility, however. Good catch.

[Daniel]

See this thread: http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=43382

Because " And people wonder why people think Republicans are racist during the immigration debate.." is an absolute?

Can you read?

[Bhuryn]

Because " And people wonder why people think Republicans are racist during the immigration debate.." is an absolute?

Can you read?

He used an absolute statement, you used a blanket generalization. Both are equally retarded. Don't judge his posting standards if you're not going to uphold yourself to the same standard.

[Daniel]

He used an absolute statement, you used a blanket generalization. Both are equally retarded. Don't judge his posting standards if you're not going to uphold yourself to the same standard.

Oh. Yea. A blanket generalziation is usually qualified as some unspecified group of people thinking that some other group has certain motives for their arguments in something very specific.


Or possibly, you're just stupid.

[Tsa`ah]

The current plan on the floor was deemed budge neutral by the congressional budget office and joint committee on taxation. Read (http://esciencenews.com/dictionary/health.plan)

Tort reform will do squat in regards to current healthcare costs. Less than one percent of the total cost to the healthcare industry can be connected to malpractice claims, let alone payouts. Less than two percent of total healthcare spending and less than four percent of tort cases (of which only fifteen percent are decided by verdict, not to mention that payouts are actually declining).

The USPS operates without the use of our tax dollars ... I think 1982 was the last time the USPS received any of our tax dollars.

Our current system of healthcare is the direct result of a free market, or at least a market with nearly no regulation.

No insurance entity would view a government controlled plan as competition until those not blacklisted, those they wish to insure, start enrolling in a government controlled plan. At that point they would have to compete, which would work better than strict regulation.

Back to the fields and fighting the local government.

[Parkbandit]

The current plan on the floor was deemed budge neutral by the congressional budget office and joint committee on taxation. Read (http://esciencenews.com/dictionary/health.plan)

Might want to get your facts (and link) checked. The CBO stated that it will cost 1 trillion dollars over the next decade... and the CBO is notorious for under guessing the costs. It'll likely be at least double that amount. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/16/how-much-will-health-reform-cost/



Tort reform will do squat in regards to current healthcare costs. Less than one percent of the total cost to the healthcare industry can be connected to malpractice claims, let alone payouts. Less than two percent of total healthcare spending and less than four percent of tort cases (of which only fifteen percent are decided by verdict, not to mention that payouts are actually declining).

You have to create an environment where doctors first don't have to conduct massive amounts of unneeded tests on every patient so they don't get sued later on because they missed some rare disease. You have to limit the pain and suffering which is currently uncapped.



The USPS operates without the use of our tax dollars ... I think 1982 was the last time the USPS received any of our tax dollars.


So wait.. when the USPS ran up 2.8 billion in losses last year.. where did that money come from?



Our current system of healthcare is the direct result of a free market, or at least a market with nearly no regulation.

No insurance entity would view a government controlled plan as competition until those not blacklisted, those they wish to insure, start enrolling in a government controlled plan. At that point they would have to compete, which would work better than strict regulation.

Back to the fields and fighting the local government.

Nice opinion.. just not factually based.

[Tsa`ah]

Might want to get your facts (and link) checked. The CBO stated that it will cost 1 trillion dollars over the next decade... and the CBO is notorious for under guessing the costs. It'll likely be at least double that amount.

Try http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9184/05-01-HealthCare-Letter.pdf


You have to create an environment where doctors first don't have to conduct massive amounts of unneeded tests on every patient so they don't get sued later on because they missed some rare disease. You have to limit the pain and suffering which is currently uncapped.

This is your opinion and nothing more. Tort is no more of an issue than abortion. It is nothing more than a misleading distraction. Tort reform will have a negligable impact on the quality of healthcare let alone the cost of healthcare.


So wait.. when the USPS ran up 2.8 billion in losses last year.. where did that money come from?

Unlike other corporations, the USPS doesn't have share holders, lenders, etc to think about. 27 years of revenue via postage and postal insurance, zero leverage and so on means they can take a hit and adapt.

The failing of the USPS has very little to do with UPS, Fed-EX or any other entity outside of the internet ... though I would be interested in any source you have that clearly shows the USPS receiving any tax dollars since 1982.



Nice opinion.. just not factually based.

It is an opinion based on observation of readily available facts. Next you'll be telling me that the government should not tell you what DRs you can visit or what level of care you can receive.

[Bhuryn]

Oh. Yea. A blanket generalziation is usually qualified as some unspecified group of people thinking that some other group has certain motives for their arguments in something very specific.


Or possibly, you're just stupid.

You said:
And people wonder why people think Republicans are racist during the immigration debate...

The article talks about:

...comedic stylings of Tom Tancredo from his brief turn...

... can't blame Tancredo for throwing ...

...But maybe Tancredo should check his own house before throwing around charged terms. One of his chief speechwriters, Marcus Epstein, has pleaded ...

---

You applied the beliefs/past actions of two men to a party that has millions of members. You generalized an entire party based on two people.

---

generalization or -isation
Noun
a principle or statement based on specific instances but applied generally

[Parkbandit]

Try http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9184/05-01-HealthCare-Letter.pdf

I'll read it over later (going to World of Beer in a bit), but there is no way to take a trillion dollars and make it budget neutral.



This is your opinion and nothing more. Tort is no more of an issue than abortion. It is nothing more than a misleading distraction. Tort reform will have a negligable impact on the quality of healthcare let alone the cost of healthcare.

You are using the statistics of the number of malpractice cases lost and the amount of money awarded vs. the entire healthcare system costs... which skews your numbers down to a point where you can simply dismiss the percentage of money. Without meaningful tort reform, doctors will have to continue to play defensive medicine, which exponentially increases expenses.

[Tsa`ah]

You are using the statistics of the number of malpractice cases lost and the amount of money awarded vs. the entire healthcare system costs... which skews your numbers down to a point where you can simply dismiss the percentage of money. Without meaningful tort reform, doctors will have to continue to play defensive medicine, which exponentially increases expenses.

Actually no. I stated that less than one percent of costs to the industry can be connected to claims .... that means won or lost.

So let me say it again. Tort reform will anything but a negligible effect on healthcare.

[Daniel]

You said:
And people wonder why people think Republicans are racist during the immigration debate...



You applied the beliefs/past actions of two men to a party that has millions of members. You generalized an entire party based on two people.

---

generalization or -isation
Noun
a principle or statement based on specific instances but applied generally


You seem confused on multiple levels.

First, notice how I did not use a personal pronoun. Thus, to say that "I" said anything is factually incorrect. This is intentional. I am referring to an undefined group (again: Intentional) who may believe that the motivations behind the Republican position on immigration are racist.

Second, you seem to think that I am suscribing that belief to *all* Republicans, as opposed to the official party platform. That would be incorrect, and nothing in my post or posting history would give credence to that logical leap.

Third, you seem convinced that taking the actions of 1-2 people when subscribing it to a party platform is a "generalization". This would be true if I took any two republicans at random and used their actions as a basis to judge the entirety of the party. For instance, if I said that all conservatives were racist anti semites because of the whack job who killed the guard in the holocaust museum, I would be making a "blanket generalization".

However, you fail to recognize that the person's being mentioned have played an integral part in formulating and espousing the Republican position on the issue. They are representatives of the party on the issue and by definition *do* speak for Republicans on this issue. Does this mean that all Republicans are racist? Of course not, see number 2.

To say that the Democratic position during the Jim Crow debates were racist, is no more a generalization of south democrats as persons but rather a characterization of their position.

I hope that helped.

[Parkbandit]

Actually no. I stated that less than one percent of costs to the industry can be connected to claims .... that means won or lost.

So let me say it again. Tort reform will anything but a negligible effect on healthcare.

You aren't attributing anything that doctors currently do now (defensive medicine, high malpractice insurance, etc..) to those costs though.

[Parkbandit]

You seem confused on multiple levels.

First, notice how I did not use a personal pronoun. Thus, to say that "I" said anything is factually incorrect. This is intentional. I am referring to an undefined group (again: Intentional) who may believe that the motivations behind the Republican position on immigration are racist.

Many people think blacks are lazy, uneducated, crack smoking derelicts who use the race card as an excuse to be that way. What opinion do you now have of me since I used the phrase "some people" in my post?

[Tea & Strumpets]

First, notice how I did not use a personal pronoun. Thus, to say that "I" said anything is factually incorrect. This is intentional. I am referring to an undefined group (again: Intentional) who may believe that the motivations behind the Republican position on immigration are racist.


The Republicans should just find a Democrat or two that is pro universal healthcare, but also a racist. Then the Republicans will be able to invalidate the entire Democratic party's stance on health care.

I think the whole racism argument in regard to this issue is idiotic, but that's just my opinion.

[Parkbandit]

The Republicans should just find a Democrat or two that is pro universal healthcare, but also a racist. Then the Republicans will be able to invalidate the entire Democratic party's stance on health care.

I think the whole racism argument in regard to this issue is idiotic, but that's just my opinion.

It's easier to dismiss an opinion from a crazy racist than it is to actually debate the merits of their position.

[Gan]

An interesting article:

(full report)
http://www.bcbs.com/blueresources/cost/Malpractice_Ins_Crisis0127.pdf

The Malpractice Insurance Crisis: The Impact on Healthcare Cost and Access

Michael Millenson, Northwestern University, 2003.
Focus: To investigate the impact of rising medical malpractice insurance premiums on healthcare access and costs.
Study Design: Survey of Blue Cross and Blue Shield Plans.
Results:

One hundred percent of Blue Plan Executives in medical malpractice insurance crisis states (as defined by the American Medical Association1) believe that rising medical malpractice premiums are a problem. In non-crisis states, 66 percent view it as an "extremely" or "very" important problem.
A majority of Blue Plans in crisis states report that local doctors are cutting back on some aspect of patient care.-Fifty-six percent of Plans in crisis states say physicians are refusing some high-risk procedures, versus 32 percent for non-crisis states.
-Fifty-six percent of Plans in crisis states say more physicians are leaving practice or retiring, versus 41 percent of respondents in non-crisis states.

Fifty-four percent of BCBS Plans predict that fees for obstetrician/gynecologists are likely to rise in response to higher medical liability premiums, while 49 percent say that surgical fees will rise.

[Back]

Many people think blacks are lazy, uneducated, crack smoking derelicts who use the race card as an excuse to be that way.

Then many people, whom you obviously know, are batshit insane at best and fucking ignorant at worst.

Do these same many people think that rednecks are stupid, inbreeding, meth smoking roadkill eaters who use the race card as an excuse to be that way?

Oof, late to the party. But my opinion still stands.

[Parkbandit]

Then many people, whom you obviously know, are batshit insane at best and fucking ignorant at worst.

Do these same many people think that rednecks are stupid, inbreeding, meth smoking roadkill eaters who use the race card as an excuse to be that way?

Oof, late to the party. But my opinion still stands.

http://www.magfundraising.com/dumpTemp/SPONSOR_817278_335074_43.gif

[Back]

Yeah yeah, I deserved that. :P

[Dhuul]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/21/senators-spar-public-health-care-plan/

bizarro world anyone?

[Daniel]

Many people think blacks are lazy, uneducated, crack smoking derelicts who use the race card as an excuse to be that way. What opinion do you now have of me since I used the phrase "some people" in my post?

It would obviously depend upon the context. If you were referring to Marion Barry and the people he represents then I'd have to conceede the point. If you were talking about Charlie the crack head on lennox avenue then well, you woudn't be making much of a point now would you?

[Daniel]

The Republicans should just find a Democrat or two that is pro universal healthcare, but also a racist. Then the Republicans will be able to invalidate the entire Democratic party's stance on health care.

I think the whole racism argument in regard to this issue is idiotic, but that's just my opinion.

The comments weren't in regards to healthcare. This is an entirely different thread and topic that someone is obviously butt hurt about (immigration). Thanks for the two cents though.

Remember, reading is fundamental.

[Tea & Strumpets]

The comments weren't in regards to healthcare. This is an entirely different thread and topic that someone is obviously butt hurt about (immigration). Thanks for the two cents though.

Remember, reading is fundamental.

I must have gotten confused by the thread title. :D I knew you guys were doing that thing where you argue back and forth about everything you ever argued about in the past, but I figured I'd use health care as my example since it was right their at the top of the page and didn't make me strain my puny brain.

Thank you for pointing out my poor reading comprehension, though!

[Daniel]

I must have gotten confused by the thread title. :D I knew you guys were doing that thing where you argue back and forth about everything you ever argued about in the past, but I figured I'd use health care as my example since it was right their at the top of the page and didn't make me strain my puny brain.

Thank you for pointing out my poor reading comprehension, though!

How else would I get through the day?!?!

[Tsa`ah]

An interesting article:

(full report)
http://www.bcbs.com/blueresources/cost/Malpractice_Ins_Crisis0127.pdf ...

A few things.

First being that you're using BCBS as a source and BCBS is using a guy that makes chicken little look calm and collected.

Second ... of course every BCBS executive is going to claim that malpractice claims are a problem. The problem with that notion, malpractice claims and payouts have been on the decline yet premiums have been on the up swing. If you emphatically claim the sky is falling, well, people will line up for falling sky insurance and keep paying the premiums as they increase.

Third, BCBS and Millenson fail to denote the number of doctors refusing high risk procedures, let alone include the reason for refusal ... and they fail to denote the number of doctors leaving "crisis states".

Finally fourth ... of course BCBS predicts fees will rise simply because they'll respond in kind.

Check out Insurance reform.org (http://www.insurance-reform.org/issues/MedMalSystemCostsFactSheet2009F.html) and examine their sources.