patrick.net

Teddy Says: I believe we are in a game of shirts vs. skins....with the passage of health reform shirts just went up with a touchdown for my progressive movement. Teddy started this 100 years ago and Teddy is as conservative as can be yet we have all listened to the rhetoric aimed at defeating this bill and latched on to a lot of false facts.

The above proves the bill will have positive impact throughout our country, right?

"Tanning Tax — 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services."

Hey, even better, tax all outdoor tanning.

Okay, I'll play. Food for thought, things to consider.

Cost: Some of the proposed deficit reduction comes from the four year run up. To whit, taxes are being increased over the entire ten years, but the majority of the program isn't implemented except during six of those years. You would hope that, in this situation, deficit reduction would be possible. But the bill does not cover Obama's plan to restore a medicare reduction to doctor payouts that alone will likely undo any savings this might bring (and actually according to most estimates, including the administration's, would undo the savings by about 300 percent).

Coverage: Expanding coverage is both a good and a bad thing. For those people without coverage, it's great. For those with, it's terrible. The math is simple. Say that our medical system is capable of producing 100 million units of health care (there is a limit, based on how many nurses, doctors, and facilities we have; if we increase any of these, we're increasing the total cost, which would cut into the previous section's credibility, not to mention an increase in doctors would require the AMA's approval, which isn't likely). Say that before this, there were two hundred million people insured. This would mean there was enough health care for each person to have one half of a unit. Increasing the amount of consumers means there is only .43 units available for each. Do all of us currently feel we are receiving as much care as quickly as we would like. Judging by the six month to a year waits for many specialists, I doubt it. This is common sense and basic logic, unless we increase the total amount of something, dividing it by more people will not improve the outcomes for the people who already have it. So this is a gain for 32 million, a loss for all the previously insured. From a humanitarian point of view this is probably worth it, to care for the least fortunate, but it is still a potential issue.

Medicare:
The Medicaid cuts to states are particularly problematic because of the matching system. As it is, for each federal Medicaid dollar given to a state program, the state matches a certain percentage. So each federal dollar cut also cuts some state funding, which will be very problematic in areas such as services for people with disabilities and the indigent.

Insurance Reform:
Long term this will work itself out, because everyone will be on the system full time. But short term this could break our medical system. If we assume that a lot of people currently without insurance are without insurance because they cannot get it due to pre-existing conditions, these people, once insured, will likely require large amounts of medical services, otherwise what was the point of the insurance company rejecting them. Most of these people probably received medical care anyway, as hospitals are required to provide lifesaving care, but the amount of sustenance care they will receive will certainly increase. This could even out over time, as additional preventative treatments hopefully lower the amount of people with serious illnesses, but we can't be sure.

Abortion:
This is something of a non-issue, actually. Abortion is legal, deal with it, live with it. Move on.

Individual mandate:
This mostly exists to force young able-bodied people to buy insurance, because they are currently opting out. This is financially bad for young able-bodied people. More importantly, there are serious questions of constitutionality in regards to this. Many New Deal Programs were declared unconstitutional, this could be headed the same way. Though congress can pass laws that do a number of things and bar a number of things, there are questions as to what power congress has to compel behavior except in cases of national emergency (the draft). Most conservatives oppose this simply because they consider themselves to be in favor of the most freedom possible, and this is certainly a step away from that. Any mandate is a step away from individual freedom.

Employer Mandate:
Most conservatives believe this will cost jobs, because any burdens placed on business will cost jobs. Obviously non-conservatives disagree, and this is something that has been argued for years and is an ongoing difference between the two sides. So, if you're a conservative, you see this as a job killer. If you're not, you don't.

Illegal Immigration:
This part is still open, as the wording of the bill leaves open amnesty as a method for allowing illegal immigrants to buy in.

Also, Teddy Roosevelt was no conservative. He was the founder of the Progressive Party and would certainly be a modern Democrat considering the major influence his party's platform had on modern liberalism.

ahasuerus99 makes some good points. This bill is quite flawed and does only the bare minimum to contain costs. The strange thing is that this is essentially a moderate Republican bill passed by Democrats and demonized by some of the very Republicans that either proposed or, in the case of Romney, passed almost identical plans in the past. The Republicans clearly decided to follow the William Kristol playbook from '93 and put all their eggs in the obstructionist basket.

The problem with this approach is that, as Kristol so famously warned in '93, if any element of the bill ended up getting passed by the Dems, the Republicans would be SOL. Why? Well, for one thing, the obstructionist path require absurd claims that contradict both logic and past Republican claims. Casting their lot with the "death panel" crazies was a calculated risk, and one that they lost. Also, as Kristol warned, elements that are passed could grow in popularity as the public learns about them and grows accustomed to them (like extending the age of kids on plans to 26 and eliminating the "donut hole").

As a result of taking the Kristol obstructionist route, the Republicans were stuck repudiating almost every moderate cost control measure. What they were left with was tort reform, draconian "high risk pools", and a whole lot of nothing.

So now they are forced to hope the public will keep its collective head shoved where the sun don't shine and not ever figure out what is actually in the bill, or, just as significantly, what is not in the bill. Sure, most don't want "socialized medicine" (apparently except for Medicare) but they DO seem to want an elimination of pre-existing condition exclusions, and they want subsidies to enable the less well off buy insurance (and get them out of emergency rooms). See the problem here? What if the public actually figures out what is in the bill? (Especially since the major elements of the bill all poll very well on their own.)

Now I supported healthcare as a first step, to allow everyone to buy insurance. But I don't support many other elements of the Democratic agenda. So I fear the gamble the Republicans took (and lost) with healthcare will come back to haunt them in the near and long term. It looks to me like they listened to Kristol one time too many.

Both of you make very solid points, however, Teddy Roosevelt is my hero and yes, I know he was not a conservative but a progressive.

He is well remembered for his energetic personality, range of interests and achievements, leadership of the Progressive Movement, model of masculinity, and his "cowboy" image. He was a leader of the Republican Party and founder of the short-lived Progressive ("Bull Moose") Party of 1912. Before becoming President (1901–1909) he held offices at the municipal, state, and federal level of government. Roosevelt's achievements as a naturalist, explorer, hunter, author, and soldier are as much a part of his fame as any office he held as a politician. In 1901, President William McKinley was assassinated, and Roosevelt became president at the age of 42, taking office at the youngest age of any U.S. President in history.[3] Roosevelt attempted to move the Republican Party in the direction of Progressivism, including trust busting and increased regulation of businesses. Roosevelt coined the phrase "Square Deal" to describe his domestic agenda, emphasizing that the average citizen would get a fair shake under his policies. As an outdoorsman and naturalist, he promoted the conservation movement. On the world stage, Roosevelt's policies were characterized by his slogan, "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Roosevelt was the force behind the completion of the Panama Canal; he sent out the Great White Fleet to display American power, and he negotiated an end to the Russo-Japanese War, for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize.[4]

Roosevelt declined to run for re-election in 1908. After leaving office, he embarked on a safari to Africa and a trip to Europe. On his return to the US, a rift developed between Roosevelt and his anointed[5][6] successor as President, William Howard Taft. Roosevelt attempted in 1912 to wrest the Republican nomination from Taft, and when he failed, he launched the Bull Moose Party. In the election, Roosevelt became the only third party candidate to come in second place, beating Taft but losing to Woodrow Wilson. After the election, Roosevelt embarked on a major expedition to South America; the river on which he traveled now bears his name. He contracted malaria on the trip, which damaged his health, and he died a few years later, at the age of 60. Roosevelt has consistently been ranked by scholars as one of the greatest U.S. Presidents.

In all, he would be applauding yesterdays efforts.

It can be both inspiring and utterly depressing to look back at the quality of leadership we had in this country in the past, both on the left and on the right. Without Teddy R's trust busting, the country could well have descended into chaos. And without his appreciation for public spaces, we might well have far fewer of our most treasured national parks today.

Back then, it seemed a large portion of the electorate on both sides of the spectrum had an appreciation for intellectual abilities and actually admired leaders who were the best, brightest, and most educated. Today, well... can you imagine Bush or Palin holding any sort of meaningful conversation with any of the great Republican leaders of the past?

ahasuerus99 says

Coverage: Expanding coverage is both a good and a bad thing. For those people without coverage, it’s great. For those with, it’s terrible. The math is simple. Say that our medical system is capable of producing 100 million units of health care (there is a limit, based on how many nurses, doctors, and facilities we have; if we increase any of these, we’re increasing the total cost, which would cut into the previous section’s credibility, not to mention an increase in doctors would require the AMA’s approval, which isn’t likely). Say that before this, there were two hundred million people insured. This would mean there was enough health care for each person to have one half of a unit. Increasing the amount of consumers means there is only .43 units available for each. Do all of us currently feel we are receiving as much care as quickly as we would like. Judging by the six month to a year waits for many specialists, I doubt it. This is common sense and basic logic, unless we increase the total amount of something, dividing it by more people will not improve the outcomes for the people who already have it. So this is a gain for 32 million, a loss for all the previously insured. From a humanitarian point of view this is probably worth it, to care for the least fortunate, but it is still a potential issue.

The huge, glaring flaw with this argument is that the uninsured *ARE* currently getting health care. Every day, poor, uninsured people show up in emergency rooms. Those of us who are paying insurance premiums are paying for them already.

Worse, because these people are constantly avoiding using the 0.1 "units" of health care that they could get from basic preventative care, they're instead using 10 or 20 "units" when they show up in the emergency room.

One of the things that stands out constantly when comparing the US and other wealthy nation's health care systems is that americans overwhelmingly avoid routine preventative care.

ahasuerus99 says

This mostly exists to force young able-bodied people to buy insurance, because they are currently opting out. This is financially bad for young able-bodied people.

Until they get pregnant. Or hit by a car.

More importantly, there are serious questions of constitutionality in regards to this. Many New Deal Programs were declared unconstitutional, this could be headed the same way. Though congress can pass laws that do a number of things and bar a number of things, there are questions as to what power congress has to compel behavior except in cases of national emergency (the draft). Most conservatives oppose this simply because they consider themselves to be in favor of the most freedom possible, and this is certainly a step away from that. Any mandate is a step away from individual freedom.

Most "conservatives" oppose this because they'll oppose anything that the democrats want to do. If they were serious about "the most freedom possible", they'd be pushing for the elimination of medicare. Too bad they're pussies.

There are no shortage of arch conservatives opining that if there's not a secret loophole already SOME WAY WILL BE FOUND to offer illegals healthcare. Amendment or trapdoor or what have you, they are convinced we are on the slippery slope and it's only a matter of time until some Federal agent is knocking on the door confiscating not only all their money but demanding a kidney so they can cure Consuela. You don't have to dig very far to find such opinionating, and the fact that it's not true has not stopped widespread fear-mongering about it.

Oh no, illegal immigrants might be able to buy health insurance instead of the free health care that they already enjoy at any emergency room.

and then they'll take our jobs!

Kevin says

Most “conservatives” oppose this because they’ll oppose anything that the democrats want to do. If they were serious about “the most freedom possible”, they’d be pushing for the elimination of medicare. Too bad they’re pussies.

I'm sure there might be some other reasons as well, but it is much easier to just boil down your opponents arguments to something that they do not resemble, than it is to listen and think about it, ironically while being on a soap box about the other side not listening and thinking...? As far as the very last statement: not specifically to Medicare, but applied in general - I totally agree.

@Kevin

Most conservatives I know would like to push for the end of Medicare, Social Security, and most social programs. There's just not very many conservatives. Most conservatives despise the Republican party almost as much as the Democrat party, and are constantly forced into a lesser of two evils position. My father, for example, could not bring himself to vote for John McCain for President (he lives in Arizona), so he didn't vote. He also didn't vote for Bush the second time, and he has registered as Independent for the last ten years. Truthfully, the Libertarian party is much closer to a true conservative platform than is the Republican party.

@Vicente

The illegal alien issue is always interesting to me, because I believe there is a fantastic, simple solution to the problem. Make legal immigration very easy, then seal the borders. If people can come to America (as they should be able to) easily and legally, then there should be less opposition to a stricter enforcement of the border, which would stand a slightly better chance of keeping out the criminals (which do make up an unfortunate percentage of illegal immigrants) and drugs. I grew up in a border town (Yuma, AZ) and have had many experiences with both the best and the worst of the immigration issue, but I will testify that the vast majority of people coming to this country just want to help their families. And I will also testify that without immigrants, the citrus fields would not be getting picked on a 115 degree day.

re: forcing people to buy insurance. car insurance is mandatory in my state and probably in the other 49 yet there doesn't seem to be any ongoing problem because of this.

jzamora says

re: forcing people to buy insurance. car insurance is mandatory in my state and probably in the other 49 yet there doesn’t seem to be any ongoing problem because of this.

Really? Even if you don't have a car?

Paralithodes says

jzamora says

re: forcing people to buy insurance. car insurance is mandatory in my state and probably in the other 49 yet there doesn’t seem to be any ongoing problem because of this.

Really? Even if you don’t have a car?

Yes. It has got nothing to do with owning a car. It has everything to do with _driving_ a car. For eg: Rented, borrowed from family/friends, or provided by the employer. You drive, someone has to cover you.

The only thing missing is FREEDOM.

We tried FREEDOM in the 19th century. It sucked.

Your comment demonstrates a lack of mental health.

@KEVIN

ahasuerus99 says

This mostly exists to force young able-bodied people to buy insurance, because they are currently opting out. This is financially bad for young able-bodied people.

Until they get pregnant. Or hit by a car.

I agree, however, with insurance me and my wife spent 4k out of pocket to deliver due to the PPO we have. Our previous child was delivered on a HMO at no cost.

I'd hate to see how much it would cost without insurance.

Kevin says

Oh no, illegal immigrants might be able to buy health insurance instead of the free health care that they already enjoy at any emergency room.
and then they’ll take our jobs!

Dey tuk our jerbs!

ahasuerus99 says

@Kevin
My father, for example, could not bring himself to vote for John McCain for President (he lives in Arizona), so he didn’t vote. He also didn’t vote for Bush the second time, and he has registered as Independent for the last ten years. Truthfully, the Libertarian party is much closer to a true conservative platform than is the Republican party.

And how un-American is that? he wouldnt vote because he wanted to make a statement huh? The statement was that he sided with the sheeple who do nothing to participate in our political process. With all due respect it sounds like if we LIBERALS caught on fire your father wouldnt have the decency to urinate on us to put the fire out. If your father didnt like social programs then maybe he should have never taken you to the park or supported the United States military which are also socialized programs paid for by tax dollars. In every society there comes a point where specific services are necessary to sustain the growth of the economy. Defense, Social Welfare do not consume a major portion of our budget simply because some guy in Congress thinks its a good idea, these programs exist because we need them to ensure the stability of our society.

All this talk of civil liberties is stupid, either pay your fair share or leave our country. Are we merely simplistic animals left to leave our fellow man to die simply because we dont want to collectively pay for services?

4X says

@Kevin
All this talk of civil liberties is stupid, either pay your fair share or leave our country. Are we merely simplistic animals left to leave our fellow man to die simply because we dont want to collectively pay for services?

Hear hear! For too many "conservative libertarians" that I know, it's all about maximum RIGHTS (which translates to near-anarchy) and responsibilities and civic duties are not even in their thought process.

@4X

Perhaps I have given a misguided view of my father and his brand of conservatism. Conservatism does not inherently reject looking out for our fellow man, it rejects the government being in charge of doing so. My father is extremely dedicated to charity for all people, liberals or conservatives. He just prefers charity to be handled on a personal level rather than have the government legislate it. He volunteers at soup kitchens and works with alcoholics, has been known to allow homeless families stay at our home until they could get back on their feet, and is always willing to help out anyone who asks. But just because he does these things, he does not think his neighbor should be required to. I don't see how opposing medicare and social security means you wouldn't personally do things for others. It's just a different idea of what the government's responsibilities should be. There are, of course, people who would just as soon let everyone else suffer, and many of them will be drawn to conservatism because it gives them permission to be assholes. But there are also people who would truly just as soon let everyone else suffer, but self-style themselves liberals because they believe that it shows that they aren't actually only interested in themselves, they are also concerned for the common man. There are bad people on both sides of every debate. Our HRC rep at our company is one of the former people; she is (and I try to avoid using words like this) a greedy bitch who is only interested in preserving her bonus, and has no respect for the work of others. She is a self-described conservative, and honestly, I would rather live the rest of my life with those I can politely disagree with in power than work with her to bring about the changes she wants. But she is functionally no different than our Operations Manager, who also is only concerned with preserving his bonus, but is a staunch Obama supporter who lets us know how progressive he is for supporting worker's rights (even as he tries to short one of our supervisor's hours on a weekly basis). I know people on both sides of the political spectrum that I respect a great deal (my sister and mom are both pretty much as liberal as you can find, and it contributes to the family dynamic that they bring a much desired viewpoint to any political discussions at family gatherings, and having been raised by a person of each viewpoint has, I believe, contributed to my own desire to look at both sides of issues; too many people are raised by their parents to be either a Republican or Democrat, my parents always encouraged us to look at each issue separately).

Also, there is nothing un-American about not voting. I've never understood this idea, and in general I dislike the word. In my mind, there's not a whole lot that's un-American. To me, the ultimate representation of being an American is to be true to yourself while having respect for the opinions of others. That is what I believe a representative democracy should be. We have a right to vote, and a right not to. We have a right to protest, and a right not to. We have a right to bear arms and a right not to. Just because something is a right doesn't mean we are required to take part. To me, the point of voting is to elect someone to represent you; if none of the candidates represent your beliefs, then not voting is perfectly reasonable. It's this simple: say my dad had voted for McCain because he preferred him (slightly) over Obama. McCain would have followed 95 percent of the same policies Obama has (in Afghanistan and Iraq, corporate reform, refusal to do anything about the Fed, continuing to allow banks to not mark to market). So you are saying my dad should have voted for a man who he would have disagreed with 75 percent of the time, if not more. "Sheeple" brings to mind the idea of people voting mindlessly, rather than people choosing not to take part because there is no candidate who shares their ideals. The constitution isn't built around the idea of two parties endlessly disparaging each other, and ideally our government wouldn't be built around that prospect, but it is. But as long as it is, there will be a lot of people who can't find a candidate who represents their world-view, and I think it's better for those people not to take part.

@Vicente

I'm always happy when people catch on to this idea; the extreme right is not Fascism, it's anarchy. Fascism calls for strong leadership and collective identity (think the parades of Mussolini). The far right calls for absolute individuality and the dissolution of most forms of government. I've always found it interesting that just going back to World War II, conservatives were the ones in opposition. Vietnam was started by JFK and escalated by LBJ, with Nixon campaigning on ending the war. Reagan changed the paradigm and out of basically blind obedience to him, conservatives have continued to support military endeavors without recognizing that true conservatism (built in large part on fiscal responsibility and low taxes) opposes military expansion simply because it's expensive and requires huge amounts of taxation to support. That's one of the major problems in this country, too many people buy into party lines without asking whether those lines make sense with each other. And those of us who don't buy into party lines are left with awkward situations of min/maxing every election. We agree with Obama that it is time to get our troops out and that we need to look at cutting military spending (it can't be some type of sacred cow that can't be cut), but we dislike much of his domestic agenda (cutting tax breaks for donation to non-profits raising my particular ire; if taxes are going to be high, I prefer being able to have some say in how my money is allocated, though I would prefer lower taxes leaving me more money to donate to charity). We believe in free markets, but recognize that as long as the policy of the country all but requires fractional reserve lending and intentionally encourages what it considers to be good behavior (consumption, buying houses) the markets are distorted, and that in the case of this distortion, we have to look at reforms. I would like to see the fed abolished and even the end of the FDIC, where banks would have to prove their soundness to obtain our investment, but it's a pipe dream. I realize that, but it doesn't change the fact that I will continue (in my own small way) to work for the changes I would like to see, while accepting that I live in a nation of majority rule, and that it is not a requirement of government that it do what I want it to do. My guess is, for all the arguing that goes on back and forth, most of the people on both sides of the issue are good people who just have different ways of looking at the world. Perhaps I'm naive, but in my experience the vast majority of people are good people and good neighbors, the bad people are just a whole lot more memorable.

Sorry if this post got a little long and off topic, but this seems like as good a place on these forums for a discussion of what conservatism is and isn't, and the problems I have with so many self-styled conservatives (who have no concept of what views they should reasonably be espousing) changing the perception of what conservatism means. And honestly, after many years I've come to the conclusion that the word is in danger of losing it's meaning, and that saddens me. Every time I hear a "conservative" call for the return of the Republican party to "True Conservatism," I shudder. The Republican party has never represented "True Conservatism," no political party could and remain functional, because "True Conservatism" would always be a minority position. Most people, such as many of the members of the Tea Party, would not be comfortable in a world where the government exists only to provide a select few services (coining money, military- only in times of war and funded by levies) and bound only by the constitution with no other laws. Most people like their federally funded highways, state parks, standing military, social security, unemployment insurance, etc. They would not be comfortable with a pay as you go system, being able to rely only upon family, friends, and private charities in times of need. Conservatism relies upon the innate goodness of man and the social contract to function, and this is the reason that this ideal has only ever caught on in America, a country built on the fundamental premise of man's nobility.

ahasuerus99 says

Truthfully, the Libertarian party is much closer to a true conservative platform than is the Republican party.

Libertarians are not "conservatives", except with regard to fiscal conservatism. The libertarian platform would:

- End virtually all government programs, including federal highways, the department of education, social security, and medicare (people who vote for Republicans generally agree)

- End all aggressive wars and dismantle the standing military (people who vote for Republicans violently disagree)

- End prohibition (people who vote for Republicans disagree)

...among other things. Sorry, but I'm not buying the argument that any meaningful number of self-described "conservatives" are actually Libertarians. It's just trendy for people who completely agree with the GOP platform to call themselves Libertarians because they don't want to be associated with the likes of George Bush and John McCain. I'm sure if Bush had actually managed to finish up his wars and hadn't ended his presidency at the beginning of the deepest recession since the great depression, they'd happily call themselves Republicans.

ahasuerus99 says

Vietnam was started by JFK and escalated by LBJ, with Nixon campaigning on ending the war.

Vietnam was an attempt by the 20th century liberal Establishment to not "lose" SE Asia like they "lost" China. The conservatives, including Nixon, made a lot of political hay out of that previous episode.

Goldwater of course was very truculent towards the Communists, as was Nixon until his personal visit to Mao in 1972. America's involvement in our portion of the Vietnam war started with our taking over from the French in being the newly-emplaced Saigon regime's protectors. The installation of Diem and support of his regime against the Viet Minh was done during the Eisenhower administration.

Most people, such as many of the members of the Tea Party, would not be comfortable in a world where the government exists only to provide a select few services (coining money, military- only in times of war and funded by levies) and bound only by the constitution with no other laws. Most people like their federally funded highways, state parks, standing military, social security, unemployment insurance, etc.

Nah, the Tea Party people are right with you for a pay-for-play society.

Conservatism relies upon the innate goodness of man and the social contract to function, and this is the reason that this ideal has only ever caught on in America, a country built on the fundamental premise of man’s nobility.

Actually, being able to hand out 160-acre parcels of good, productive land to all (white) comers in the latter half of the 19th century has a lot to do with the mythic American Spirit of man's nobility, whatever the hell that means. Australia actually has a similar social dynamic producing a conservative streak, as does Canada. It's easy praising the merits of self-sufficiency when you own a lot of f---ing land.

The story of the 19th century in more crowded nations is one of the rise of radical big-S Socialism, and then Progressivism (a milder, less doctrinaire and more empirical form of socialism).

The election of 1912 is an interesting snapshot of American politics. Wilson was the southern social conservative. Taft was the republican pro-wealth conservative. Debs was the Red. Roosevelt was the Progressive, and represented the middle-of-the-road platform that liberal Democrats and Republicans successfully brought into fruition through the postwar American reforms.

The current HCR law does nothing to fix the real problem, which is the cost of health care. Health care costs too much for two reasons: Lawsuits and health insurance. Get rid of both, and the cost of healthcare would quickly become reasonable again. Large companies and lawyers have found yet another clever way to steal money out of a system and make the poor fools in the system pay for their greed.

I am all for insurance, as long as it is used for what it was originally designed, which is to protect against a LOSS. Since when is a visit to a doctors office a loss? Yet all you critical thinkers out there are using your health insurance for simple things like doctor’s visits, cheap prescription drugs, and borderline elective procedures, and at the same time smoking, drinking, and getting fatter. Since so many of you abuse your health insurance, and the medical industry understands how it all works, they jack up prices, and you don't care, because it's covered under insurance. Let’s have health insurance to protect against catastrophic loss (cancer, accidents, serious illness, etc) and let everyone pay the actual cost for the normal, routine health care items. This would foster competition, and drive down costs dramatically.

We don’t need expanded health insurance, since it is a broken, predatory system. We need to reform the way health insurance is used. However, since Congress will never bite the hands that feed, we have the current HCR that expands the status quo. Disgusting.

MCM,

Thanks for you diagnosis. I have no idea how accurate it is, but you claim it's true and I must trust the diagnosis of any pundit I read on the intertubes. Please set about reforming the world around your viewpoint.

I suggest kill all the lawyers and insurance agents, problem solved!

Thanks!

Rich!!!

The Democrats have been rebelling the Republicans for over a 100 freaking years.
One damn time in our History that the Republicans rebel against the Democrats, and you guys quote the One Percenters, and talk about "Civil War", as if that is what this is all about.

Face it Liberals don't like being the new "The Man".

The Republicans are doing what the Democrats should have been doing 10, 9, years ago.

Why is it when Liberals challenge the Federal Government on "Marijuana Laws", "Gay Rights", "Abortion Rights", or just Civil rights in general. It's the good fight, when they want to invoke "States Rights". This one time when Republicans want to invoke that same spirit, you guys go "Natzi" killers on us?

Forcing people to pay for a service or a product, from a private entity, is huge Violation of Our Rights.
America only started accepting the whole concept of Privatizing some functions of Government, when it was "Tax" dollars footing the bill. Under a blanket of accepted sporadic corruption and mishandling, business as usual, with all of the other Pork in spending packages. We didn't have to worry about where the money was coming from. We were already paying taxes.

It takes on a whole different reality when you flip that and tell the Citizens you "MUST" purchase this goods and service from this company, or pay a fine and still not be medically covered. But being covered or not, is not the point. Being forced to pay in, IS.

IF you Liberals are not careful, THIS legislation will be Your own undoing.

Every stride and Victory that Liberals have made on state levels to exercise their rights to handle how they address their constituency, hinges on the out come of the Conservatives right to challenge this weeks Momentous Liberal Unilateral Victory.

That means the kaputz on all of this Legal Pot talk, married Gay Couples rights, Abortion rights on state levels. This means California.

There's not one Republican Vote on this thing. That gives them a lot of credibility in both Present and future Historical ponderance. Especially for 50% or more of the nation.

Vicente says

MCM,
Thanks for you diagnosis. I have no idea how accurate it is, but you claim it’s true and I must trust the diagnosis of any pundit I read on the intertubes. Please set about reforming the world around your viewpoint.
I suggest kill all the lawyers and insurance agents, problem solved!
Thanks!

Oh, now I get it!

I wasn't quite sure what to make of your reply, but I just read the "GOP Propaganda Reversed" thread, and now I understand. It is apparent that anybody that does not wholeheartedly support your precious HCR is a racist teabagging redneck, and hence it is beneath you to actually engage is discourse.

So, you quickly throw out a smart ass insult so you can get back to your gloating.

I'm impressed. Not.

MCM says

Since so many of you abuse your health insurance, and the medical industry understands how it all works, they jack up prices, and you don’t care, because it’s covered under insurance.

You're full of shit if you think that prices are jacked up because people abuse their insurance. There are people with serious medical conditions who lack the funding to get treated. By the time it's serious enough to be treated by an admission thru the ER, the cost is astronomical. I guess that you'd consider this abuse?

Healthcare should never, ever be an option.

elliemae says

MCM says

Since so many of you abuse your health insurance, and the medical industry understands how it all works, they jack up prices, and you don’t care, because it’s covered under insurance.

You’re full of shit if you think that prices are jacked up because people abuse their insurance. There are people with serious medical conditions who lack the funding to get treated. By the time it’s serious enough to be treated by an admission thru the ER, the cost is astronomical. I guess that you’d consider this abuse?
Healthcare should never, ever be an option.

Am I full of it? Sure would like someone to prove me wrong.
I got no problem with using insurance for catastrophic illness/accident. After all, that is what insurance is for.
I got a problem with with the government using health insurance as a way to force everyone into a system that artificially supports the high cost of healthcare, and penalizes the responsible, and rewards the irresponsible. To me, it is kinda like the mortgage bailouts.
I would be a lot happier if the government were to provide a means for affordable healthcare (not insurance!) to more people, and impose a tax to pay for this new program.

elliemae says

MCM says

Since so many of you abuse your health insurance, and the medical industry understands how it all works, they jack up prices, and you don’t care, because it’s covered under insurance.

You’re full of shit if you think that prices are jacked up because people abuse their insurance.

Real world example that says I am not full of it:
A vision insurance (which is form of health insurance) that I am familiar with will pay $150 per year for glasses,and another $100 per year for exam. I shop around, and find I can get an exam for $49, and I can go online and order some brand new glasses for $39. Total cost: $88. So I contact insurance, and ask if I can go the $88 route. Nope, these cheaper providers on not on the blessed list. In order to use insurance, must use approved provider. So I contact approved provider, and guess what? Exam is only $110, and new glasses are only $170, so yippee!, I only have to pay $30 dollars out of pocket.

So I got a choice:
I can pay $30 for new glasses, and $280 goes in the system.
Or I can pay $88 for new glasses, and $88 goes into the system.
How many folks will go the abuse route, and pay the $30 to keep the overpriced system running, since it is only $30 out of pocket?
I paid the $88 and cancelled my vision insurance.

Now this may be too simplistic, however, lets examine actual health insurance for a minute...
How many of you out there that have health insurance know how much your doctor billed for your last visit? That right, dig through some receipts, read some fine print, dig through your insurance statements, and let me know what you eventually find.
But if I were to ask what your doctors visit co-pay is, I am sure I would get an immediate answer: $5, $10, $25, whatever.

Extend this out for the cost for surgeries, procedures, vaccinations, etc. Nobody really cares about the real cost billed, everyone only cares about co-pays and out-of-pocket costs.

This is the first part of the abuse I hate.
Second part of the abuse is the folks that refuse to take care of their health (smoke,drink,get fat, etc) and think they are entitled to an insurance that shields them from the consequences of their bad choices.

We have a right, I might even say an obligation, to start asking every doctor, and every hospital, every clinic how much they are charging, and to start questioning why it costs so much, and start patronizing providers that are not entrenched in the pseudo-health insurance schemes.
More honest healthcare is what we need, not more insurance.

I don't want benefits. It is immoral to take resources from other people, even if you give them to me.

15 new taxes, 150 government agencies, 16000 IRS agents to enforce, 2000 uses of the phrase "as the Secretary shall determine" in the legislation. Open-ended power grab.

AMA reports 80% of health costs are related to behavioral choices people make: drugs, obesity, alcohol, sedentary lifestyles.
Government health care forces healthy people who make good decisions to work to subsidize the bad decisions of others. Bad decisions are rewarded, people who make them shielded from the consequences of their decisions and behavior.

Controls will then be implemented to regulate population behaviors so as to control costs. Only certain behaviors will be controlled; Big Macs may get scarce, but be sure that every effort will be made to keep gay bath-houses open as billions pour into the urgent AIDS issue. There will be the favored and the unfavored.

Cost control via behavior regulation will always be only partly successful, so at the same time rationing will become part of daily life, with committees from the 150 agencies constantly tweaking rules about who does and doesn't not get health care and when. Decisions formerly made by millions of people in consultation with their doctors will now be made by committees.

The 1800s saw the abolition of slavery of the culturally weak. Immediately the masters cast around for new slaves to live off of, instead enslaving free men as communism and socialism rose from the rubble of slavery abolition. The timing and trace from one into the other is direct. The trick was getting free men to enslave themselves ...

If someone gets diabetes in Vermont because they like Mountain Dew and hate the feeling of exercise, why is someone in Florida obligated to work all day so as to send a big chunk of his effort to pay for the other person's care?

Keep in mind, there is nothing stopping the worker from VOLUNTARILY sending that person a check every month ... but why must it be mandated, such that if the worker doesn't pay for the sick person through taxes, government agents come to his house with guns, take everything he has and put him in jail?

Is the worker not effectively a slave to the sick person's desire for Mountain Dew and hatred of exercise? Why should he be a slave to the sick person?

Government Health care is IMMORAL. It is slavery. It is plunder. It is theft.

atritium says

If someone gets diabetes in Vermont because they like Mountain Dew and hate the feeling of exercise, why is someone in Florida obligated to work all day so as to send a big chunk of his effort to pay for the other person’s care?

I was just reading a study about how Mountain Dew has been proven to cause diabetes, lack of motivation to exercise, and a propensity to live in Vermont - and was wondering how to weave it into an interweb forum conversation.

Thank you!

>That's a sixth grade level argument, so it's no wonder these people aren't taken seriously. A portion of everyone's taxes are spent on things they don't agree with, but claiming to be a slave is just plain silly.

Exactly the opposite. Government healthcare reflects the desire of the child to be taken care of, to make the government into a surrogate parent.

Adults recognize life involves risks; there are no guarantees; and that is GOOD. Freedom ends when people are forced to support the needs of others, because the needs of others are unlimited.

The state cannot act as a surrogate parent, because the state by definition is a "psychopath" -- it acts without regard to the individual (something parents do), but instead according to policies specifically designed to disregard the individual in favor of an assumed "average".

It is IMMORAL to demand money (i.e., time and effort) from some people so as to support other people. You are free to do so voluntarily. Why do you want to make it mandatory that some people should be forced to support other people?

You yearn for the security of childhood, a Mommy and Daddy who will always be there to make the boo-boo better? Healthy adults do not.

It's not a matter of agreeing with it, it's the fact it is IMMORAL. It is theft. It is plunder.

atritium says

It is IMMORAL to demand money (i.e., time and effort) from some people so as to support other people. You are free to do so voluntarily. Why do you want to make it mandatory that some people should be forced to support other people?

Right, imagine I'm a slave of all those who can't protect themselves. I (a healthy man with military training, who can just carry a loaded M14 with me everywhere, M16 would be even better) am forced to pay for police, whose only use is to fine me for speeding. I'm a slave of idiots who own wooden boxes (they call houses) that burn nicely, - I'm forced to pay for fire departments to protect them.

It's insane to think about all those of whom I'm a slave.

It's immoral, Immoral, IMMORAL, IMMORAL!!!

atritium says

It is IMMORAL to demand money (i.e., time and effort) from some people so as to support other people.

And there it is. That is the crux of the argument.

I guess my question to you is--if/when you get cancer, you're OK dying if no one will volunteer their money to pay for your treatment?

tatupu70 says

atritium says

It is IMMORAL to demand money (i.e., time and effort) from some people so as to support other people.

And there it is. That is the crux of the argument.
I guess my question to you is–if/when you get cancer, you’re OK dying if no one will volunteer their money to pay for your treatment?

Or actually are you OK with paying your premiums for a lifetime and you are 60 and get cancer and you'll die without treatment, but the treatment costs so much money that your insurance company denies you because now you cost too much and only sick people get insurance so there isn't money for you to get treatment, so you die without treatment or even pain meds to ease your death?

I don't want government health benefits. If I get cancer, that is my problem, not yours, not some guy in Pennsylvania who works 40+ hrs a week to support his family.

Right? Of course.

Life involves anticipating and dealing with such things. There is risk. Only children think otherwise and expect to be shielded. Mature adults realize and relish the risks and opportunities of life.

Catastrophic insurance can have a role if freely chosen. But insurance as a mechanism of payment has created the problem you find. If it weren't for insurance, no one could afford $8000 MRI tests. There would be enormous pressure to find ways to lower the price so people could pay for them.

Instead, prices are now negotiated by disinterested parties. There is no "price discovery" mechanism; the hospital merely has to persuade the insurance company what the charge should be. And what does the insurance company care whether it's real or not, as long as they remain financially viable?

So medical costs rise to level that only insurance can pay for, because insurance is the only customer.

Without insurance, we could have $50 MRIs instead of $8000 MRIs. But instead, liberals want more of exactly the same thing that makes healthcare so expensive in the first place -- insurance that insulates people from cost and so removes any need to lower cost.

Do you see conservatives out there seeking to ban you from voluntarily helping your neighbor with his medical bills? Go ahead and mail a check to the sick lady Idaho you read about in the paper, if you think it will help her. Who is stopping you?

But why do you want to use the government to force people to pay?

atritium says

I don’t want government health benefits...

I wasn't talking about government health benefits. You neglected the appropriate question for the bill that just passed and what it would mean to repeal it. Answer the question:

Are you OK with paying your premiums for a lifetime and you are 60 and get cancer and you’ll die without treatment, but the treatment costs so much money that your insurance company denies you because now you cost too much and only sick people get insurance so there isn’t money for you to get treatment, so you die without treatment or even pain meds to ease your death?