patrick.net

The tea party is a lot of old white people who are afraid of black people. It's obvious.

If the tea parties are such lunatic fringe nuts, why are they being discussed? It's like the democrats are not capable of ignoring idiocy. It's a typical straw man mentality. Ignore any reasonable criticism of the healthcare bill, while focusing on overblown stories of drunk rednecks spitting on random congress people. The tea parties are all a silly media hyped distraction.

The article in the OP is full of fluff, while lacking much content. Of the "myths" presented in the article, there are only a few that are worth discussing at all. (The rest is a convenient straw man.)

1) MYTH: The bill will cover illegal immigrants. --I am curious to see how this works out in practice. The truth is that illegal immigrants already get medical care via Medicare. If they don't change Medicare, it really doesn't matter that they won't be getting extra care from this program. Perhaps they have addressed this problem already, but I can't gain any relevant info from the article.

2) MYTH: Under the bill, there will be health care rationing and/or death panels. --Notice how the author didn't deny this point. She merely twisted the definition of rationing (doublespeak?) to claim that life will be better with government mandated rationing rather than limited access via costs. To be fair, when someone can't afford something, THAT IS NOT RATIONING. Rationing is when you CAN afford something, but you are not allowed to buy it. There is no system that can offer ever advanced medical services to every citizen. A capitalistic system makes the most use of limited resources via costs, whereas a government run system makes use of resources via some bureaucrat's god-complex.

It is an ugly fact in healthcare, that we can not afford to pay for every procedure for every patient. Furthermore, there has never been a system of healthcare that didn't offer a higher tier of service to the most powerful/rich/politically connected. There is no way to ration healthcare in a "fair" way, though the government will be forced to make these decisions. The method by which our government rations healthcare has been conveniently left out of every debate, simply by associating the concept with Tea Party types. The democrats are simply putting on blinders and plowing ahead. These are scary times.

3) MYTH: The bill will make health care costs skyrocket. --This is forecasting, but the smart money is on this prediction coming true. Notice again that RAND doesn't even mention how they come to the 2% increase figure. Most figures that I've seen are using "costs" synonymously with "government net costs minus funding." Therefore, the fact that all of our private insurance bills will increase (which they absolutely must), is probably not included in any of these calculations. All they "count" is the net effect on the national debt from the tax increase revenue minus the projected government expenditure of the program. Does anyone know the actual projected cost of this legislation? This would be akin to me saying my new Ferrari won't cost a thing, because I plan to downsize my mortgage, which will fully cover the monthly payments. It's doublespeak logic.

I don't mind reading an article that is shooting down ridiculous criticisms of a bill. I would also like to see honest critiques and valid complaints regarding the bill. What could they do better, what did it fix, what did it not fix, what will get better/worse, etc. Unfortunately this article reads like a Pelosi webpage. It adds nothing of interest to the discussion. This article reads like propaganda to me. At best, its an opinion piece.

Rand is a mostly government sponsored think tank, who's job it is to critique and effect public legislation (can you say conflict of interest?). The money they recieve from "private" sources comes mostly from huge corporations (including the health insurance business), and from a small group of the filthy rich individuals.

elliemae says

funny, I didn’t see the white house quoted in this article. In fact, I looked on three pages of google searches before I got bored, with none of the results being white house oriented. In fact, the only mention of politics was by Wellpoint, bitching that they’d have to raise premiums if the democrats had their way… I guess that they’d have to raise thier rates in order to continue to rake in huge profits. But do tell us how the white house manipulated this information and the media chose not to report the facts.

Even funnier, I found direct White House references to Wellpoint in the second entry on the very first page of a Google search, simply using "White House Wellpoint" as the search term.
"http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/11/when-health-insurance-companies-attack

Here alone, the White House reports: "In recent weeks, you’ve probably heard a lot about WellPoint, the big insurance company that reported earning $2.7 billion in one quarter, and then promptly raised rates on some customers in California by up to 39 percent. " This is aside from other public statements by the White House and by KS directly about Wellpoint, but this example will do fine.

What the White House doesn't tell you is that their reference to "$2.7 billion in one quarter" was literally just in one quarter, and that $2.2 billion of that was due specifically to the sale of a business unit. Their regular profit from operations in that "one quarter" was more in the $500M range, similar to their normal quarterly profits, and consistent with their profit margin of between 2-5%, across its quarterly profit margins across the last several years.

And this is part of the problem with the whole debate. Many conservatives, such as me, don't actually want to defend insurance companies. I see them as a huge part of the problem, but not for the over-simplified - to the point of being practically untrue -, non-"nuanced" explanation that it is all about their wish to "rake in huge profits." If that were in fact the case, then the Administration could simply tell the untarnished truth that does not depend on financial/accounting ignorance on the part of most of the population. Wellpoint, from a financial performance standpoint, does NOT stand out among the large insurance companies, which do not "rake in huge profits." But I guess it is just very easy to pick a target (the insurance companies in general and Wellpoint specifically) and make it THE scapegoat for the entire issue. Plenty of folks will fall for the propaganda and jump right on the bandwagon.

Nomograph says

Even the above plays on emotion and manipulation. The “reality” answers of some of them are not at all reality,

For example?

Paralithodes says

because they are yet to be seen. It is likely that both sides will be correct about some and incorrect on others. To call them all “reality” now is simply an emotional wish.

Next time, try quoting my entire statement....

This article doesn't seem to understand the law very well. An executive order is absolutely useless in this situation, because executive orders cannot contradict or add to law, but simply establish policy in situations where a law is not directly applicable. Thus, the executive order is meaningless in this situation (executive orders cannot affirm law anyway, law is law), and all that matters is how the courts interpret existing statutes versus the new law. Thus, it is possible that money could go to pay for abortion. Also, executive orders are one of the easiest things to change. Most presidents countermand many of the executive orders of previous administrations, and Obama himself could choose to countermand the order at any time. If executive orders could override law, every presidency would see an executive order making abortion illegal, legal, or legal with a variety of restrictions. Again, I don't see this as an issue, because as long as abortion is the law of the land, it seems strange to restrict federal funds from paying for it.

It's also interesting that this article states that the bill will increase health care costs by 2 percent, which is at odds with the stated purpose of the bill.

CBOEtrader says

3) MYTH: The bill will make health care costs skyrocket. –This is forecasting, but the smart money is on this prediction coming true. Notice again that RAND doesn’t even mention how they come to the 2% increase figure. Most figures that I’ve seen are using “costs” synonymously with “government net costs minus funding.” Therefore, the fact that all of our private insurance bills will increase (which they absolutely must), is probably not included in any of these calculations. All they “count” is the net effect on the national debt from the tax increase revenue minus the projected government expenditure of the program. Does anyone know the actual projected cost of this legislation? This would be akin to me saying my new Ferrari won’t cost a thing, because I plan to downsize my mortgage, which will fully cover the monthly payments. It’s doublespeak logic.

I have a few issues with this paragraph. First, what exactly is "smart money"? People who agree with what you think? Second, our private insurance bills do not "absolutely" have to increase. We already pay by far the most per captia for health care. Why do you think it absolutely has to increase?? The myth is that all these uninsured people weren't receiving health care before the bill passed. In fact, they were receiving the most expensive form possible--in the ER--and we were already paying for it.

I don't see how the Ferrari analogy is at all relevant. The analogy is defiintely doublespeak logic...

tatupu70 says

First, what exactly is “smart money”? People who agree with what you think?

I stated my opinion. Do you disagree? Have something to add? Or are you simply trying to play word games?

tatupu70 says

We already pay by far the most per captia for health care.

Let's be clear about the "we" part of your statement. Our federal government, without even counting private insurance fees, pays more per capita for healthcare than the rest of the industrialized world.

The analysis that I have read (mostly articles) of the healthcare bill ONLY DISCUSSES NET GOVT EXPENDITURES. These analysts typically argue that "we can't afford NOT to pass this bill" since they estimate the taxes to more than compensate for the cost. This logic INGORES THE ACTUAL COST OF THE BILL, exactly like my Ferrari analogy.

tatupu70 says

Second, our private insurance bills do not “absolutely” have to increase.

How would they go down? We are making it illegal to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. This is massive extra risk that the insurance company must be paid to accept. Electronic medical records and a government mandated insurance exchange, while not necessarily bad concepts, will not make up for the extra risk premium.

Clearly there are a lot of assumptions being made before any opinion can be formulated about this. We could agree to disagree if you like. Let's check insurance rates in 2 years, and see who was right. I'll bet everything I own that they go up. Our government already spends more than any other government on healthcare. Simply throwing more government money at healthcare is NOT THE ANSWER to lowering costs.

tatupu70 says

I don’t see how the Ferrari analogy is at all relevant. The analogy is defiintely doublespeak logic…

Nonsense. Care to explain yourself?

Tat, you are better than this. This reminds me of when a child simply repeats what someone calls him. Child #1," You're a dummy!" Child #2, "No, YOU'RE A DUMMY."

CBOEtrader says

1) MYTH: The bill will cover illegal immigrants. –I am curious to see how this works out in practice. The truth is that illegal immigrants already get medical care via Medicare. If they don’t change Medicare, it really doesn’t matter that they won’t be getting extra care from this program. Perhaps they have addressed this problem already, but I can’t gain any relevant info from the article.

Explain. You have to be a citizen to sign up for medicare or medicaid. The just signed bill specifically excludes illegals. The only reimbursement from medicare for illegals (bush 2003) is to hospitals which by law must treat anyone who walks into the er. Interesting that 2/3 of illegals pay into medicare which they will never be able to collect. It's more than a little shameful that the wealthiest country on earth uses these people to be able to have cheap fruit and lawn care then knowingly steals from them besides.

Paralithodes says

If that were in fact the case, then the Administration could simply tell the untarnished truth that does not depend on financial/accounting ignorance on the part of most of the population.

Very valid point. It never ceases to amaze me the way the liberals point their fingers at Fox news and the neocons for distorting reality to support their agenda, WHEN THE DEMOCRATS ARE DOING THE EXACT SAME THING.

The average democrat is like a golden retriever that is easily distracted by his ball (the tea party republican media reporting) any time his master wants some privacy. A word of advice to democrats: IGNORE COMMON IDIOCY. So the tea partiers are drunken, redneck, and racist. So what? They are nothing more than an unimportant distraction to the theft going on in front of your eyes.

For the future of our country, I do hope the democrats can figure out that their leaders are liars and demogogues faster than the 25 years it took the average republican to deduce the same.

bob2356 says

CBOEtrader says

1) MYTH: The bill will cover illegal immigrants. –I am curious to see how this works out in practice. The truth is that illegal immigrants already get medical care via Medicare. If they don’t change Medicare, it really doesn’t matter that they won’t be getting extra care from this program. Perhaps they have addressed this problem already, but I can’t gain any relevant info from the article.

Explain. You have to be a citizen to sign up for medicare or medicaid. The just signed bill specifically excludes illegals. The only reimbursement from medicare for illegals (bush 2003) is to hospitals which by law must treat anyone who walks into the er. Interesting that 2/3 of illegals pay into medicare which they will never be able to collect. It’s more than a little shameful that the wealthiest country on earth uses these people to be able to have cheap fruit and lawn care then knowingly steals from them besides.

I am most likely mixing up medicare/medicaid names. Nor am I a healthcare expert. What I do know is that many ER's accept illegals as patients, costing our hospitals billions per year. This will not change under the current plan.

Additionally, though they are citizens, the children of illegals get full government medical coverage costing us many more billions per year. (Aside: How do the socialized medicine countries handle this? I was in Germany back in 1998, when my professor was hit by a car. He went to the hospital, was asked for minimal paperwork, got fixed up with a splint, and was sent on his way without ever being handed a bill. I have heard that most of europe does not have the automatic citizen laws that we have here, but they do cover foreigners traveling their country at least. How do they pay for this?)

My only point is that: for the author to claim that illegals will not be covered by this plan is disingenuous. What he means is they will not recieve additional coverage under this plan.

Days Since Socialist Health Care Destroyed America

Helpful counter for y'all!

CBOEtrader says

How would they go down?

I thought I was pretty clear in my post outlining one way. The uninsured go to ERs now to get any treatment. That is the most expensive way to dispense health care. Also, because they have no insurance, it's likely that the uninsured wait until a sickness or disease has become critical before going to the ER, likely significantly raising the costs of treatment.

“Liberals feel unworthy of their possessions. Conservatives feel they deserve everything they've stolen.”

Mort Sahl

CBOEtrader says

tatupu70 says
First, what exactly is “smart money”? People who agree with what you think?
I stated my opinion. Do you disagree? Have something to add? Or are you simply trying to play word games?

I do disagree. And I tire of seeing people say "smart" money is doing xyz, implying that it is the correct course without providing any evidence to back it up. I was trying to ascertain to who you were referring when you say "smart" money.

CBOEtrader says

Very valid point. It never ceases to amaze me the way the liberals point their fingers at Fox news and the neocons for distorting reality to support their agenda, WHEN THE DEMOCRATS ARE DOING THE EXACT SAME THING.

Just today I browsed through World Health Organization reports and publications, as well as an analysis (by Cato I believe) of some of the methodological problems with such reports. The "US is ranked 37" mantra is incredible propaganda when you figure out what actually goes into that metric. We could completely nationalize the entire US health system today, without increasing actual medical care outcomes a single bit, and the US ranking would go up substantially simply because the "social" aspects of the health care system are baked into the metric. Even if not a single specific metric changes regarding cancer survival rates, etc., our rankings after 2014 will improve from 37 (on the specific metric referenced by Michael Moore and others here) simply because of the cost "equality" of the system. (In addition, metrics have very wide margins of error and factor in many lifestyle and cultural traits that are separate from the actual health care system.)

That aside, readings of the WHO's reports and goals make it clear that they, among other things, are against commercialization of health care in nearly any form, and support a very specific concept very common to a particular ideology: "social justice." The term is all over their literature. There is no wonder that the "37" is so subjectively loaded.

MarkInSF says

That’s even better than Glen Beck telling his audience that he educated himself on the evils of Progressivism at the public library.
“It’s Free!”

Wow, libraries are run by the Federal government? Or... The "government" runs libraries well, so therefore the "government" will run health care well? Who knew!

US is 33rd in infant mortality rates. You're right, much better than 37th.

Who cares what Sarah Palin says. Its not like she's going to fix things or make things worse either. She'll do what the corporations tell her to do. So listen to the corporations instead. Same thing goes for any politician!

"Lifestyle and cultural issues"? Please. USA sucks so bad because not enough people are doing regular checkups and catching things EARLY because they are not insured.

I find the infant mortality issue hard to reconcile. Seems like a system in which masses of uninsured underclass don't get proper prenatal care, is arriving at the same pile of dead babies that they wanted to save? It's very confusing to me that the NeoCons oppose a system in which preventive medicine reaches everyone. I see it as rationalizing loathing of poor people into "God's will".

tatupu70 says

US is 33rd in infant mortality rates. You’re right, much better than 37th.

Sigh. This one makes me extremely angry any time it is trotted out because it is so devious. What is pushing up the infant mortality rate in the US is low birth rate, acknowledged in this report:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=6219&type=0

“Low birthweight is the primary risk factor for infant mortality and most of the decline in neonatal mortality (deaths of infants less than 28 days old) in the United States since 1970 can be attributed to increased rates of survival among low-birthweight newborns. Indeed, comparisons with countries for which data are available suggest that low birthweight newborns have better chances of survival in the United States than elsewhere. ”

Doesn’t that strike you as odd? Babies in the highest risk group for infant mortality have a BETTER chance for survival in the United States? Somehow that doesn’t seem to jive with the propaganda that we’ve been fed telling us that babies die because our health care system sucks.

Oh, but it gets better. If you read further in that report, we find out that the reason for the high infant mortality in the US is that more low birth weight babies are born. In fact, a baby born with low birth weight is 37 times more likely to die within 28 days than one with normal weight, here: http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/34415043/Effect-of-low-birth-weight-on-infant-mortality-Analysis-Using-Weibull-Hazard-Model

37 times more likely to die. Keep that number in mind. That’s 97% of infant mortality attributable to a single cause.

“Aha”, the vigilant socialist says, “those low birth weights wouldn’t be happening if our medical care didn’t suck so much!” Not quite. There are many risk factors for low birth weight. Smoking, multiple births, alcohol, and socioeconomic background can all be risk factors. The biggest overall factor is teenage pregnancy. Guess which country has the highest rate of teenage live births. Anyone?
http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/repcard3e.pdf

Take a look at page 6. I would have liked to have had more recent data, but scattered references seemed to suggest that there was a slight increase in the last 10 years. The next closest nation, the UK, has only about 60% as many, and it drops off quite a bit more after that. Much of the difference can be attributed to a higher rate of abortion in those nations, especially among teens.

So, in essence, if universal healthcare in the US is going to tackle the problem of infant mortality, its first task will be to prevent teen pregnancy while promoting more abortions among this troubled age group.

Do you understand why I’m angry now? They lie. They know the facts, or they would if they studied it for any reasonable amount of time, but cherry pick the truth to present the picture they want to promote. It is sickening.

For a little more color read "The Infant Mortality Crises" by Murray Rothbard :

http://mises.org/Econsense/ch15.asp

So infant mortality is all about "lifestyle choice" of one flavor or another? Another factor may be the rapid increase in rates of early induced labor and Cesarian sections.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-11-15-sections_x.htm

CBOE---

I understand what you are saying but I don't agree with the cause/effect that you are proposing. I would argue that poor pre-natal care among uninsured is a strong factor in low birthweight babies and infant mortality.

Preventing teen pregnancy is certainly an admirable goal, but how about making sure pregnant teen receive proper prenatal care also?

Forget all the B.S. you people. What is going to happen if/when all these uninsured start to go the doctor en masse. Its already crowded. And who says the problem is uninsured people who would otherwise go to the doctor are going to the E.R.?? Have you all seen the majority of people in E.R.'s?? Mostly drunks, drugs abusers and gangbangers, and if you dont beleive me ask someone who works in your local county hospital. That is not going to change anytime soon. So what we will have is crowded E.R.'s and crowded doctors office. Gee thanks, Obama.

Oh, no, sick people are accessing medical services and getting better! Gee, thanks Obama.

This debate is liberalism vs. conservatism in a nutshell. Liberals ask "can't the government do something?" while conservatives desire returning to the good old days of the 1800s when rich people prospered and poor people just f---ed off and died already.

I consider my view on this entirely pragmatic: government's economic mission should be to guarantee access to the goods and services necessary to become -- and remain -- a productive member of society, without regard to ability to pay. Health care. Police and disaster services. Education. Local transportation.

This requires mildly redistributive taxes to pay for all this of course; conservatives are under the mistaken belief that low taxes results in greater economic freedom and a higher standard of living. I think they are ignoring the effect the real estate market has on wealth distribution.

Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and the economy eventually took off in the latter half of the 90s. Bush cut taxes 2001-2003 and home values went to the sky -- skyrocketing housing costs simply erased any takehome income gains created by these tax cuts, making them worse than useless.

The bottom line is that all taxes, in the end, come out of rents (and land values). This is why the high-tax "hellholes" up in Eurosocialist land function as well as they do. This is just my theory, but I don't see anything that contradicts it. The Real Estate sector is an immense parasitical drag on the actual wealth-producing economy, even greater than health care (which while health care doesn't necessarily produce new wealth it does at least restore it).

Troy says

Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and the economy eventually took off in the latter half of the 90s.

Post hoc ergo proptor hoc? The explosion of the tech/telecom industry had nothing to do with it? The popping of that bubble started well before Clinton left office, so does he get the blame for that as well?

Vicente says

“Lifestyle and cultural issues”? Please.

You are welcome to do the research itself, though it should be pretty obvious: certain lifestyles in certain cultures lead to higher incidence of certain diseases, sicknesses, etc. You really disagree?

tatupu70 says

I understand what you are saying but I don’t agree with the cause/effect that you are proposing. I would argue that poor pre-natal care among uninsured is a strong factor in low birthweight babies and infant mortality.
Preventing teen pregnancy is certainly an admirable goal, but how about making sure pregnant teen receive proper prenatal care also?

This is all part of the point, Tat. Yes, it would be good to make sure pregnant teens receive proper prenatal care as well, but the societal/cultural factor is also a confounding variable in the comparison to other countries. Do the research. I don't expect you would change your opinions on the overall issue, for what I consider noble reasons, but you might not be so trusting of all of the data/statistics that get thrown out there.

Forget all the B.S., what I am worried about is what happens when all these uninsured start going to the doctor. Its already over-crowded the few times I go to my doctor. Luckily I havent had to go to the emergency recently, but does anybody really think people are just going to magically start going to the doctor on a regular basis so that they will catch all these diseases/conditions before the emergency room visit?? On what basis are we making that assumption. Just look at the people in the emergency rooms for gods sake (drunks, gang members, etc.)!!

Paralithodes says

elliemae says
funny, I didn’t see the white house quoted in this article. In fact, I looked on three pages of google searches before I got bored, with none of the results being white house oriented. In fact, the only mention of politics was by Wellpoint, bitching that they’d have to raise premiums if the democrats had their way… I guess that they’d have to raise thier rates in order to continue to rake in huge profits. But do tell us how the white house manipulated this information and the media chose not to report the facts.
Even funnier, I found direct White House references to Wellpoint in the second entry on the very first page of a Google search, simply using “White House Wellpoint” as the search term.
“http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/11/when-health-insurance-companies-attack

The White House didn't create the story, but it did make references to it. Unfortunately, the pesky media found the story first. I guess that the White House shouldn't refer to it even though it's topical? Sure, some of the profits are a result of the sale of a unit. But Wellpoint made huge profits, in part by denying benefits to people based on pre-existing conditions. It's a huge for-profit corporation with the goal of making money - what better way to do it than to do so at the expense of those people who need its services the most?

Troy says

This debate is liberalism vs. conservatism in a nutshell. Liberals ask “can’t the government do something?” while conservatives

Ask: can't WE THE PEOPLE do something rather than relying on Uncle Sam and Big Brother to take care of us? Lets start a charity. Lets get together some doctors, nurses etc... to set up free clinics for those in need. Lets allow people to write off the cost of their health care so they are not taxed on being healthy. Lets let non-profit charitable organizations run hospitals.

Then liberals come along with all those rules and regulations making it nearly impossible for anyone but the government and the mega corporations to run health care operations. Costs skyrocket, small clinics close and access is curtailed. Sorry, but big brother and uncle sam don't solve or fix any problem that you and I can't fix if we work together in our local communities to do so. Why not do that first?

by the way Troy, I guess you didn't really mean it when you said your last post was on March 13th. So why should we believe anything you say?

Ummm, yes charity will be lining up to provide you treatment for MS. I suspect not.

AdHominem says

I guess you didn’t really mean it when you said your last post was on March 13th. So why should we believe anything you say?

An actual ad hominem attack from AdHominem. This is my surprised face.

But you're right. I'm wasting too much valuable time here going around in pointless argumentation and do want to sign off. Maybe this one will be it . . .

AdHominem says

Ask: can’t WE THE PEOPLE do something rather than relying on Uncle Sam and Big Brother to take care of us?

No, "we" can't because "we" are stupid, lazy, and apathetic (obviously not all of us, but enough to make things difficult)

Kevin says

AdHominem says

Ask: can’t WE THE PEOPLE do something rather than relying on Uncle Sam and Big Brother to take care of us?

No, “we” can’t because “we” are stupid, lazy, and apathetic (obviously not all of us, but enough to make things difficult)

If you're gonna describe me, you forgot middle-aged, overweight and bitter. I'm getting a bumper sticker made that says that.

Haven't they already done that - built the world a home and furnished it with love? You should have plenty of time, then.

elliemae says

The White House didn’t create the story, but it did make references to it. Unfortunately, the pesky media found the story first. I guess that the White House shouldn’t refer to it even though it’s topical?

The WH and others in the Administration like Kathleen Sebelius specifically pointed out Wellpoint without the full context, in an entirely misleading way. Yes, they shouldn't have referred to it, because there was nothing to specifically refer to without being misleading. If the truth is on your side in the issue, then why lie?

elliemae says

Sure, some of the profits are a result of the sale of a unit. But Wellpoint made huge profits

Some? How about the vast majority? Wellpoint made "huge profits" simply because they had "huge revenue." Their profit margin (not counting a one-time sale of a huge business unit) has been typically between 2-5%. Is that a "huge" profit margin? Have you taken an accounting and/or finance class?

Para,

Unfortunately you have accurately diagnosed the basic mindset of the average liberal, as demonstrated on this site. They are the epitomy of the pot calling the kettle black. When fox news uses propoganda, they yell bloody murder, but when the propoganda supports their politics, they fail to even acknowledge the propoganda.

The democratic brainwashing machine is a powerful force.

Pot, meet kettle.

Paralithodes says

The WH and others in the Administration like Kathleen Sebelius specifically pointed out Wellpoint without the full context, in an entirely misleading way. Yes, they shouldn’t have referred to it, because there was nothing to specifically refer to without being misleading. If the truth is on your side in the issue, then why lie?

My lord, you have really beaten this into the ground. WH just repeated exactly what Wellpoint had reported as their earnings. How is that a "lie"?? I would argue that it was Wellpoint that was deceiving in its earnings report. Blaming the WH is a stretch.

Paralithodes says

Some? How about the vast majority? Wellpoint made “huge profits” simply because they had “huge revenue.” Their profit margin (not counting a one-time sale of a huge business unit) has been typically between 2-5%. Is that a “huge” profit margin? Have you taken an accounting and/or finance class?

OK--if you really want to dig into the numbers on this, let's look at what % of Wellpoint's costs are for actually providing healthcare. How much is overhead? What is their cash flow? I'm sure insurance companies do everything they can to hide profits with all the attention on them.

Here's the thing about Wellpoint and their crazy increase in fees: they have to do it because they are working with a population increasingly composed of those who would not do without health insurance because they know that given their health status, they must have insurance because they will be needing some health care. Where are the healthy people? Well, some of them are opting out entirely, and others are going with cheaper, catastrophic health insurance plans which cost less and don't cover day-to-day issues, unless their day-to-day issues include being hit by a truck.

And that is the vector in this. Insurance costs go up, healthy people and their employers opt out of full insurance in order to control costs, lather, rinse, repeat. Unless they are immortal, the healthy people will become less healthy at some point, but if they are not able or not choosing to fund preventive care, they may not know it for awhile, and by then they will be sicker than they might have been otherwise, and whatever is wrong with them will cost more to address than it might have otherwise.

Thus there is real value in creating a situation that will allow more people--including healthy people--to buy and to afford more complete health insurance packages. When the insurance companies have a larger pool of subscribers, a pool of subscribers which includes healthy people as well as people with illness, the insurance companies have a more workable, stable business situation. When people out in the world have better access to health care--including those early doctor visits which allow them to ask that important question, or perhaps to notice and derail the kind of weight gain that leads to diabetes, heart disease, etc--those people get to lead healthier, fuller lives, and they are more likely to be productive in society, and, oh yeah, their health care costs will be lower and more predictable over time.

I don't think Wellpoint is the devil, but clearly their subscribers cannot continue to accept 39% yearly increases, and if the subscribers cannot accept those increases, then that company and others like it will need to come up with another solution. Something closer to universal coverage (in any of a number of possible business structures) would help to change the current vector in such a way that the companies may survive...and the people, too.

This seems logical to me. I don't see why people are getting so upset about it, or why it is a partisan issue.