Canadian health leader wants Private options

[Magox]

Two things first:

1. Kelly's "1% of the American people know what this is about" is wishful thinking, and tells us a lot about the psyche of people on the left. The truth is: that statement is utter BS. In fact there is a hell of a lot of people who know exactly what is going on. Health Care is 1/6 of the US economy. Are you trying to pretend that 1/6 of our people don't know what is going on "big picture" wise at their own jobs? Wishing this was 1933 doesn't mean that it is. Wishing does not make it so, just ask Nancy Pelosi how well her "wishes" have been accommodated.

OC, you bring up a very valid point. I respect Dog, but it is an extremely arrogant point of view to believe that most people don't understand what they are bitching about. It is the same case that the liberals and W.H are now making, if you are against it, it is because you are either an "astroturfer, unamerican or fascist" or you "simply don't understand it".

 

It is the same view and stance that Dog and other liberals are taking that are pissing people off. Now Dog, I know you havn't called people names but you fall in the second category.

 

Now I see that the white house is throwing out another "trial balloon" with the idea of just ramming this health care legislation down our throats threatening reconciliation, even though the general public doesn't want it. I've thought alot about this lately, this definitely is the "Holy Grail" of Liberal aspirations, and there is little doubt in my mind that they will lose a lot of seats as a result of it, but it doesn't matter for them, it is about getting the bill through, even though the general public is against it. The damage will have been done, and now we will have to go through what will most likely be the largest government entitlement program in the history of the U.S.

[Kelly the Dog]

OC, you bring up a very valid point. I respect Dog, but it is an extremely arrogant point of view to believe that most people don't understand what they are bitching about. It is the same case that the liberals and W.H are now making, if you are against it, it is because you are either an "astroturfer, unamerican or fascist" or you "simply don't understand it".

 

It is the same view and stance that Dog and other liberals are taking that are pissing people off. Now Dog, I know you havn't called people names but you fall in the second category.

 

Now I see that the white house is throwing out another "trial balloon" with the idea of just ramming this health care legislation down our throats threatening reconciliation, even though the general public doesn't want it. I've thought alot about this lately, this definitely is the "Holy Grail" of Liberal aspirations, and there is little doubt in my mind that they will lose a lot of seats as a result of it, but it doesn't matter for them, it is about getting the bill through, even though the general public is against it. The damage will have been done, and now we will have to go through what will most likely be the largest government entitlement program in the history of the U.S.

 

Again, you folks don't bother to read, and then complain about things that people don't say. Here is the quote about 1%: "I don't think more than 1% of the public has a firm grasp on why the deficit is so big."

 

There are more Democrats than Republicans, so that means I am saying the Democrats aren't any smarter or wiser about it than the Republicans and in fact more of them are ignorant about the deficit. "Firm grasp". Know what that means? More than a casual understanding. And to be honest, I didn't have a firm grasp on why the deficit was so big until I went out and read a bunch of articles on it from people without partisan bent or agendas (plus numerous more from people that did, from both sides).

 

Not to mention that the deficit isn't really the health care plan.

 

And I'll add that the "1%" came from earlier in the day when I heard a very popular conservative saying that if you walked out into the street and asked 100 random people to explain what the public plan actually was, he didn't think more than one could explain it to you. And I agreed with him, I didn't think they could, from either side.

[DC Tom]

And I'll add that the "1%" came from earlier in the day when I heard a very popular conservative saying that if you walked out into the street and asked 100 random people to explain what the public plan actually was, he didn't think more than one could explain it to you. And I agreed with him, I didn't think they could, from either side.

 

I don't even think one could explain it.

 

I'll go even further and say: if you picked 100 congresscritters at random and asked them, I don't think more than one could explain it.

[IDBillzFan]

Teddy Roosevelt, you know, the Republican, was the first President to call for universal health coverage and national health insurance.

 

Way to want to rip away other people's parents and grandparents health and health insurance til they die. Only half of the elderly had insurance when Medicare was enacted. But fukk those old people and their petty little ailments and diseases, either their neighbor will gladly take care of them or they are just slackers trying to steal hard working American's tax money.

 

And what do you mean by it was supposed to be 47 million but now it is 10 million?

And there you have it: disagree with the left on health care reform (or whatever the focus groups say to call it this week) = you want people to die. I can't say it enough: I am always willing to help the helpless, but when you put a big government program in place, it fosters corruption and apathy. Fix the problem. Don't create a new one.

 

As to the 47 million issue: how long did we hear "Almost 50 million Americans are uninsured, and we need to make sure they all have affordable health care." Over and over and over. Then you turn to the CBO report that the plan would only cover 10-11 million. So we no longer care about the other 40 million. BUT WAIT...now it's no longer about those who are uninsured. Now it's about the people who do have insurance, but face bankruptcy when faced with a catastrophic illness.

 

None of that was working. America is clearly against this plan. So what do we do now? Send Waxman after the insurers! Let's see how they're spending their money because profitable companies are greedy companies and greedy companies are the reason for ALL the problems in this world. Look everyone! A 400% increase in profit! This is the problem, and as you all know the chorus by now: only the government can help you.

 

Jesus. This group gets more desperate and pathetic with every passing day.

[Kelly the Dog]

And there you have it: disagree with the left on health care reform (or whatever the focus groups say to call it this week) = you want people to die. I can't say it enough: I am always willing to help the helpless, but when you put a big government program in place, it fosters corruption and apathy. Fix the problem. Don't create a new one.

See how wrong and infuriating it is when someone takes what you say and turns it into you trying to kill old people when what you are actually saying is exactly the opposite?

As to the 47 million issue: how long did we hear "Almost 50 million Americans are uninsured, and we need to make sure they all have affordable health care." Over and over and over. Then you turn to the CBO report that the plan would only cover 10-11 million. So we no longer care about the other 40 million. BUT WAIT...now it's no longer about those who are uninsured. Now it's about the people who do have insurance, but face bankruptcy when faced with a catastrophic illness.

 

None of that was working. America is clearly against this plan. So what do we do now? Send Waxman after the insurers! Let's see how they're spending their money because profitable companies are greedy companies and greedy companies are the reason for ALL the problems in this world. Look everyone! A 400% increase in profit! This is the problem, and as you all know the chorus by now: only the government can help you.

 

Jesus. This group gets more desperate and pathetic with every passing day.

See? You have no idea what the public plan is either, or what are the probable effects of it are. The 10 million is how many people that are newly covered are going to be in the public plan. That means the 40 MILLION OTHER NEWLY INSURED PEOPLE are going to be in private plans. So the private insurance world is going to actually INCREASE by a full 25% according to the non-partisan CBO, not be taken over by the government. (The numbers they cite are actually 11-12 million of the 40 million newly insured will go into the public plan and the rest will go into private plans, so it's more like a 15-20% increase in private insurance enrollees)

[IDBillzFan]

See how wrong and infuriating it is when someone takes what you say and turns it into you trying to kill old people when what you are actually saying is exactly the opposite?

 

See? You have no idea what the public plan is either, or what are the probable effects of it are. The 10 million is how many people that are newly covered are going to be in the public plan. That means the 40 MILLION OTHER NEWLY INSURED PEOPLE are going to be in private plans. So the private insurance world is going to actually INCREASE by a full 25% according to the non-partisan CBO, not be taken over by the government. (The numbers they cite are actually 11-12 million of the 40 million newly insured will go into the public plan and the rest will go into private plans, so it's more like a 15-20% increase in private insurance enrollees)

I've got news for you: NO ONE knows what the probable effects are, which is why I say I have history on my side, because history says the government will !@#$ this up faster than every other entitlement program they created, regardless of which party created it. There MUST be other options beyond a public option. There must. Be no one on the left wants anything to do with it. Why? Control. Proof? See Waxman's hunt for insurer's books. I just hope that when the insurers are brought before Congress to explain the audacity of making a profit and taking business trips that they at least have the common sense to ride a bike to the meetings because Congress will have plenty to excoriate them about without chastising them for taking private planes paid for with the greedy profits they stole from the poor.

[OCinBuffalo]

I clearly stated that 75% of the Federal Budget = entitlement programs. The budget has a deficit. Therefore, 75% of the deficit comes from the entitlement programs, within reason. The entire Iraq war represents less that 2% of the Federal Budget. It has been said that "people" can't understand this. I find it hard to believe that most of the people on this board can't understand the concepts laid out in this paragraph. Therefore, again, telling us that only 1% of people understand the deficit, where it comes from, how we got here, and how to avoid it getting worse, or any other connotation presented in any other context is....STILL BS.

 

The bottom line is: for all the bluster...and good points...from both sides, the fact remains that setting up any system whereby the government competes with business means that business always loses. Why?

1. The government can "print money"/deficit spend it's way out of bad management. Business cannot....unless it is bailed out by the government...and we go through this all over again

 

2. The government, unfortunately, is not required to show a profit. If it was, then I would be fine with this. However, it is not, and therefore it can always undercut its "real business" competition. Profit, in and of itself, is how those of us in the real world judge our performance. Without profit, government has no REAL way of proving it's efficiency, or effectiveness. And this is the big LIE: they can talk about service, they can even talk about results(to a certain degree). What they can't talk about, and what the proponents of big government try to confuse with results is: effective use of resources.

If a government manager spends 50k on something that only needed 25k, we won't know, because there is no loss of profit to measure.

 

3. Name ONE TIME when the objective of any government agency has been solely to provide a service, and its policy has not been overridden by the need to create jobs. Example: They are expanding the Army After years spent on cost cutting, effectiveness, and force multiplying every single soldier, the "solution" is suddenly: hire more soldiers? WTF? So, once again, we see that to the left, even the Army is just one more government jobs program. What happens when these government jobs are created? They become unionized/entrenched, and then it becomes impossible to get rid of them, even when it makes no sense whatsoever to keep them.

 

If you were going to work someplace as a bureaucrat/jackass supply sergeant, where would you work? The government, who has to jump through impossible hoops to fire your ass? or, for a guy like me who will fire you the minute you stop thinking/trying? Clearly this moves these types to work for the government, rather than business, once again making it tougher on business to find people that will work for what they can afford to pay.

 

There's plenty more...so can we stop pretending that government = business when it comes to competition?

[Kelly the Dog]

There's plenty more...so can we stop pretending that government = business when it comes to competition?

What it all comes down to -- and this is just my opinion and no one else's -- and I haven't heard anyone talk about it anywhere -- is that a huge portion of the country thinks that private insurance is true, basic capitalism and it needs to make a profit like anything else and the free market dictates prices and on and on...

 

And all of that is true.

 

And another huge portion of the country simply doesn't think anyone or any company should grossly profit off of people's poverty and health and sickness and dying.

 

That's all there is to it.

 

So these people of the second ilk tolerate marginal profits for private insurance companies but would prefer that the government pay for it because the government is not beholden to making a profit. And they cannot tolerate what they consider to be gross profits by private insurance companies off sickness and death, nor huge compensation by its executives, nor lobbying for excessive power against the government to keep prices high, nor and probably most importantly, cutting off care to individuals at their most vulnerable to make higher profits.

 

One side thinks that's what's America's all about and it's fine. Survival of the fittest, capitalism, least government intervention possible.

 

The other side thinks that's not at all what America's all about, and it's not at all fine making the most profit you can off the weak and poor and sick and dying.

 

The fact is they are both right and they are both wrong.

[Magox]

What it all comes down to -- and this is just my opinion and no one else's -- and I haven't heard anyone talk about it anywhere -- is that a huge portion of the country thinks that private insurance is true, basic capitalism and it needs to make a profit like anything else and the free market dictates prices and on and on...

 

And all of that is true.

 

And another huge portion of the country simply doesn't think anyone or any company should grossly profit off of people's poverty and health and sickness and dying.

 

That's all there is to it.

 

So these people of the second ilk tolerate marginal profits for private insurance companies but would prefer that the government pay for it because the government is not beholden to making a profit. And they cannot tolerate what they consider to be gross profits by private insurance companies off sickness and death, nor huge compensation by its executives, nor lobbying for excessive power against the government to keep prices high, nor and probably most importantly, cutting off care to individuals at their most vulnerable to make higher profits.

 

One side thinks that's what's America's all about and it's fine. Survival of the fittest, capitalism, least government intervention possible.

 

The other side thinks that's not at all what America's all about, and it's not at all fine making the most profit you can off the weak and poor and sick and dying.

 

The fact is they are both right and they are both wrong.

Then according to this logic, shouldn't we socialize medicine/pharmaceutical companies as well? The Drug makers have much higher profit margins than the health insurers, who btw are much less than most other industries.

[Kelly the Dog]

Then according to this logic, shouldn't we socialize medicine/pharmaceutical companies as well? The Drug makers have much higher profit margins than the health insurers, who btw are much less than most other industries.

You know that's a foolish argument, do you think we should just completely stop and drop Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security?

 

Everyone knows that drug companies make big profits and the same people on one side want them to not make so much on other people's health that insurance and care that they suffer.

 

Some provisions in the reform bills are to cut down on drug costs, some of the deals the White House is making with drug companies are to get down drug costs (btw, I think Obama is doing terrible on this issue and these deals, though I'm not sure what the real story is).

 

I don't see how you would ever socialize drug companies, and no one wants that or is calling for it, they just want them regulated. People aren't against private business and aren't against profits or capitalism, what they're against is grossly taking advantage of people's health and their lives ONLY to make as big a profit as they possibly can while people suffer and die without them. It's a very simple concept to understand.

[OCinBuffalo]

What it all comes down to -- and this is just my opinion and no one else's -- and I haven't heard anyone talk about it anywhere -- is that a huge portion of the country thinks that private insurance is true, basic capitalism and it needs to make a profit like anything else and the free market dictates prices and on and on...

 

And all of that is true.

 

And another huge portion of the country simply doesn't think anyone or any company should grossly profit off of people's poverty and health and sickness and dying.

 

That's all there is to it.

 

The fact is they are both right and they are both wrong.

Nah...they are both wrong.

 

Insurance is a racket, and made even more so by the fact that politicians have involved themselves in it.

 

And, nobody in business gives a rat's ass about anybody's "opinion", other than their clients, their owners, and their suppliers/service providers. The fact that anybody outside that group believes that they are entitled to an opinion about how that business runs...is amazingly arrogant. "People" that think that they get to decide what is "moral" and what is not in terms of how business is done, need to apply that judgment consistently, or not at all.

 

If these phony "do-gooders" are going to talk about bad/greedy business practice, they must also include: Hollywood et al, law firms, accounting firms, consulting firms(that means me), real estate agents, and every friggin sales guy in this country...and others...all of which I can guarantee you make OBSCENE profits, in most cases 30 points higher than any insurance company.

 

These Chicago mob/politicos can't have it both ways: whatever justification they use to shake down the insurance companies, can also be used, word for word, to shake down their own law firms.

So these people of the second ilk tolerate marginal profits for private insurance companies but would prefer that the government pay for it because the government is not beholden to making a profit. And they cannot tolerate what they consider to be s by private insurance companies off sickness and death, nor huge compensation by its executives, nor lobbying for excessive power against the government to keep prices high, nor and probably most importantly, cutting off care to individuals at their most vulnerable to make higher profits.

And they need to realize that the very politicians they support have been extorting these insurance companies for literally billions in campaign contributions for years. IF they want to talk about what they can't tolerate, they need to start with not tolerating the politicians they typically support! They have been shearing the insurance companies on the threat that if they don't get their money, the rabble will be roused. Now, they are trying to finally skin the insurance sheep. If this rabble only realized that their "tolerances" aren't their own, they have been manufactured for them, they might get the rest of us to stop smirking when they talk. But, as usual for this segment of the population, they are often willing to accept some random bumper sticker logic: "gross profit" blah, blah, blah, "huge compensation", blah, blah, blah, "excessive power", as holy writ.

One side thinks that's what's America's all about and it's fine. Survival of the fittest, capitalism, least government intervention possible.

Our history says: that is precisely what America is all about.

The other side thinks that's not at all what America's all about, and it's not at all fine making the most profit you can off the weak and poor and sick and dying.

You wish our history said: that is precisely what America is all about.

 

But as you sit there wishing, you denigrate most of what your parents, grandparents and great-grandparents have accomplished: they succeeded, so they could have you, so things would go well for you, so you could be a big Hollywood writer someday Like I said, insurance is a racket, it needs to be regulated, and it is. If it needs to be regulated some more, go right ahead!

 

All of this could have been avoided if Obama and his people were realistic in their approach = fix it all, go after the insurance companies AND the trial lawyers at the same time. They should have stayed away from taking a one sided approach, real or perceived. However, their arrogance, and the fact that they simply don't realize that the vast majority of us don't agree with them, got the better of them. They are paying the correct price for it now, and, it may cost them them the whole thing.

[IDBillzFan]

If these phony "do-gooders" are going to talk about bad/greedy business practice, they must also include: Hollywood et al, law firms, accounting firms, consulting firms(that means me), real estate agents, and every friggin sales guy in this country...and others...all of which I can guarantee you make OBSCENE profits, in most cases 30 points

I think it's funny how this administration just goes after whatever bad guy they can create this week. Wall street bankers, automotive execs, credit card companies, insurance companies...and leave out the people who are really doing the damage to the poor: like the companies who hire illegals, or my personal favorite, the paycheck advance companies. These companies have the poor by the short and curlies because desperate people are more than willing to commit to turning over next Friday's $800 paycheck in exchange for $500 this Tuesday.

 

But no. It's better to go after insurance companies, make them open the books on anyone earning more than half a million, and spill the beans on where they take their business trips. Because they don't have a prayer of passing government-run health care without public support, and nothing will get you public support faster than holding hearings on a bunch of successful business people and showing the struggling American public what a big old party these people are having at their expense. A lot of things have pissed me off lately, but this latest move by the administration to get the insurers to report to them the first week in September has me spitting railroad ties. I hope some of them tell Waxman to !@#$ off until he shows them the part of the Constitution that explains where the government has this ability to do this.

[Magox]

But no. It's better to go after insurance companies, make them open the books on anyone earning more than half a million, and spill the beans on where they take their business trips. Because they don't have a prayer of passing government-run health care without public support, and nothing will get you public support faster than holding hearings on a bunch of successful business people and showing the struggling American public what a big old party these people are having at their expense. A lot of things have pissed me off lately, but this latest move by the administration to get the insurers to report to them the first week in September has me spitting railroad ties. I hope some of them tell Waxman to !@#$ off until he shows them the part of the Constitution that explains where the government has this ability to do this.

Thats a very good point. I did hear today on NPR that Waxman and a few other Democrats are requesting that the 52 largest Health insurance companies to disclose all their financial information to them and if that they didn't that they would be subject to court order subpoena's.

 

Immediately when I heard this I knew exactly what the score was. They are losing the battle in the public court of opinion regarding Health Reform on this particular plan. So the idea is that they will expose and demonize them to the general public, because we all know that the idea of anyone making over $1 Million dollars a year or taking vacations during this downturn, is downright "greedy" and "evil".

[Delete This Account]

you know what kills me about this -- ooops, wrong choice of words ...

you know what bothers me about all this, is how many folks here, other than those in the medical/pharmaceutical industries, think that the current system works. take away the whitewash or pinkwash of "socialism," because there are "socialist programs" already operating in this country, and what do you have left?

-- the current option of a dysfunctional system that bankrupts people who get sick.

-- the option of something different. ... and if Sarah Palin is correct, the way the thing's working now, a consultation on how you want to die might not be a bad strategy (sarcasm switch, shifted to high).

 

jw

[Magox]

You know that's a foolish argument, do you think we should just completely stop and drop Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security?

 

Everyone knows that drug companies make big profits and the same people on one side want them to not make so much on other people's health that insurance and care that they suffer.

 

Some provisions in the reform bills are to cut down on drug costs, some of the deals the White House is making with drug companies are to get down drug costs (btw, I think Obama is doing terrible on this issue and these deals, though I'm not sure what the real story is).

 

I don't see how you would ever socialize drug companies, and no one wants that or is calling for it, they just want them regulated. People aren't against private business and aren't against profits or capitalism, what they're against is grossly taking advantage of people's health and their lives ONLY to make as big a profit as they possibly can while people suffer and die without them. It's a very simple concept to understand.

I think you misunderstood me, I didn't imply that we should stop or drop medicare and medicaid and Social Security. At this stage of the game, it would be catastrophic to do so. This has probably been one of the biggest if not the biggest government entitlement program in our country's history and we have had it for over fifty years, you just can't discontinue it on a drop of a hat.

 

I don't disagree with just about anything that you just stated, my point Dog was that one of the arguments that have been out there is that health care insurers shouldn't be profiting from the sick, or that they should have very small profits. Considering their profit margins, even if it is 5.5% as you noted, (probably in between 3-5%), that still is not a large margin, where as the pharmaceutical companies is much larger.

 

What I am saying is when is enough enough? Where do you draw the line? If you can make the argument that the health insurers shouldn't be making as much as they are, then surely you can make a case for Socializing drugs.

 

I agree that this is a foolish idea, but I just wanted to illustrate my point that it has the same "moral" argument, considering medicinal drugs are meant to help people.

[DC Tom]

-- the current option of a dysfunctional system that bankrupts people who get sick.

 

Some illnesses are, in fact, expensive.

 

-- the option of something different. ... and if Sarah Palin is correct, the way the thing's working now, a consultation on how you want to die might not be a bad strategy (sarcasm switch, shifted to high).

 

Then allow me to suggest it without the sarcasm.

 

I had the dubious pleasure of hearing someone the other day talk about how people have an inalienable right "to not die", and we need universal health care to preserve that right. That was the BIGGEST load of crap I have ever heard...everyone dies. Nobody has a right to not die. Nobody lives forever. Until the American public stops pretending that people should live forever, health care will remain as expensive as ever.

[Delete This Account]

Some illnesses are, in fact, expensive.

 

 

 

Then allow me to suggest it without the sarcasm.

 

I had the dubious pleasure of hearing someone the other day talk about how people have an inalienable right "to not die", and we need universal health care to preserve that right. That was the BIGGEST load of crap I have ever heard...everyone dies. Nobody has a right to not die. Nobody lives forever. Until the American public stops pretending that people should live forever, health care will remain as expensive as ever.

so i'm guessing you have a good plan, then.

 

jw

[DC Tom]

so i'm guessing you have a good plan, then.

 

jw

 

I believe health care services are a resource, not a right, and you are entitled to what you can afford. Period.

 

And my company's health coverage pretty much sucks. And I'm bipolar. Almost all my medical expenses are out-of-pocket (insurance doesn't cover them).

[ThereIsNoDog]

I believe health care services are a resource, not a right, and you are entitled to what you can afford. Period.

Kind of like...food. Which as I've been saying, SHOULD be the most basic right of every person in the world. Yet no one is giving it out for free (well, except for the soup kitchens, which are the equivalent of ER's and free clinics in medicine).

 

And my company's health coverage pretty much sucks. And I'm bipolar. Almost all my medical expenses are out-of-pocket (insurance doesn't cover them).

My coverage sucks as well. I pay about $24K a year and still have to pay a $15 co-pay for meds, and I barely use any other services (I take good care of myself and see a doctor every few years). Usually I'll just go with older/generic meds and pay out of pocket. I've been bugging my damn workplace for an HSA/HDHP account, and will finally be able to get one next year. They are the way to go, but the Dems want to kill them off as well, for some reason.

 

Then again, maybe I should just ditch the insurance, save $24K a year, and when an illness or injury comes along, cry that I don't have coverage and demand for the government to bail me out?

[Delete This Account]

I believe health care services are a resource, not a right, and you are entitled to what you can afford. Period.

 

And my company's health coverage pretty much sucks. And I'm bipolar. Almost all my medical expenses are out-of-pocket (insurance doesn't cover them).

i'm sorry about the bipolar thing, but ... what's you're view on police and fire and edukation?

if guns are a right in this country, then shouldn't there be a right to fix the wounds? (and i realize i'm stepping on two hot-topic issues here, but what the hell).

 

jw