Excerpts from Obama's Speech Tonight

[billsfan89]

I listened to the speech and it was the usual stuff. No I am not trying to kill your grandmother or pay for abortions. I am not trying to give illegals free health care. The public option is still in there but I am will to put into trial some measure of tort reform that Bush tried to put in. The only new ideas he put in there were the trial of tort reform and the public market place although the market place idea wasn't exactly explained what it was.

 

To me this is what is going to happen. The public option will be dropped in favor of letting health care companies compete across state lines in that public market pool that Obama mentioned. That will be the compromise that he will get in order to win over the Blue dogs and some republicans. The rest of the Bill will remain intact but the Republicans will claim they got rid of the public option and got rid of state limitations on health care.

 

Keeping in the Public option for now was just a political measure to later drop in order to keep a bunch of other things in it. I really hope that Obama is serious about the whole I am willing to listen to other ideas yet I for some reason doubt that at least to a certain extent.

[billsfan89]

Please. The office of the President hasn't been shown respect for the past 16 years. Why should anyone start now? And yes, he is a fuggen liar. He's a Chicago politician. You can't be honest and succeed in Chicago.

 

Actually since Richard Nixon and LBJ there hasn't been a lot of respect for the president. Reagan got some but he still had a lot of critics and jokes thrown his way. Honestly I love a country where you can feel free to make fun of and throw around criticisms of its leader.

 

But to have a Representative yell at the guy (Or any president for that matter) directly while he is giving a speech to Congress is a little over the top and disrespectful. To me tell him this stuff in private tell the media or the people you are representating what you think of the guy and his policies I guess I just think that there is a time and a place for these things.

[Magox]

Man, I'm on a roll, here is another article that further supports my argument, straight from the CBO:

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=a_6Mxz6ewOfY

 

A proposed government-run health- insurance option would probably have only a small effect on private insurance premiums, according to Congress’s official budget scorekeepers.

 

“Premiums for the public plan would typically be roughly comparable to the average premiums of private plans,” said the CBO letter to Senator Mike Enzi, a Wyoming Republican and one of the so-called Gang of Six negotiating a health-care plan.

 

Well Duhhh!! It's all in the numbers, profit margins are below 4%, added competition would do little lower the costs of health insurance, simply because there isn't too much you can shave off of the profit margins.

 

The only way that they would be able to significantly lower the premiums is if they reduced the quality of coverage.

 

Like I've said before, it's all in the numbers.

[Kelly the Dog]

Man, I'm on a roll, here is another article that further supports my argument, straight from the CBO:

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=a_6Mxz6ewOfY

 

A proposed government-run health- insurance option would probably have only a small effect on private insurance premiums, according to Congress's official budget scorekeepers.

 

"Premiums for the public plan would typically be roughly comparable to the average premiums of private plans," said the CBO letter to Senator Mike Enzi, a Wyoming Republican and one of the so-called Gang of Six negotiating a health-care plan.

 

Well Duhhh!! It's all in the numbers, profit margins are below 4%, added competition would do little lower the costs of health insurance, simply because there isn't too much you can shave off of the profit margins.

 

The only way that they would be able to significantly lower the premiums is if they reduced the quality of coverage.

 

Like I've said before, it's all in the numbers.

 

So what are you afraid of it for? And if you're going to accept those numbers from the CBO are you also going to accept their numbers from the same review that only 11 or so million people will choose the public option and therefore it will INCREASE private insurers numbers of clients, not decrease them and wipe them out?

[Magox]

So what are you afraid of it for? And if you're going to accept those numbers from the CBO are you also going to accept their numbers from the same review that only 11 or so million people will choose the public option and therefore it will INCREASE private insurers numbers of clients, not decrease them and wipe them out?

You're right Dog, why should I be afraid of it? I mean, the W.H budget deficit over the next ten years was only bumped up another 2 trillion dollars, so what the hell, it's only another trillion for basically the same damn thing. These numbers millions and billions and trillions rhyme so nicely and they all seem so meaningless now a days. !@#$ it, we'll just borrow it or print it if need be.

 

And if you happened to catch the second half of the post you responded to, which it seems as if you didn't, judging by your response, my greatest fear is that the government will feel the pressure from the public to actually produce results, in other words, lower costs in a significant manner. And you know what? They will be able to do it. And you know why? Because they have unlimited resources and have no quams with losing massive amounts of money, they do it all the time.

 

They will subsidize their losses Dog, because they can, and when they lower the costs of health insurance, you know what will happen next? 3 things, one they will have to lessen the quality of coverage, and two, many private insurers will go under, simply because they can't compete against the government and lastly, the companies that do survive, will adjust and have to lessen the quality of coverage as well to stay alive.

 

And it's not so much that I accept the numbers from the CBO Dog, it's because it only makes sense. It only supports what I have been saying, long before the CBO even came out with this assessment. I told you before, it's simple economics.

[Kelly the Dog]

You're right Dog, why should I be afraid of it? I mean, the W.H budget deficit over the next ten years was only bumped up another 2 trillion dollars, so what the hell, it's only another trillion for basically the same damn thing. These numbers millions and billions and trillions rhyme so nicely and they all seem so meaningless now a days. !@#$ it, we'll just borrow it or print it if need be.

 

And if you happened to catch the second half of the post you responded to, which it seems as if you didn't, judging by your response, my greatest fear is that the government will feel the pressure from the public to actually produce results, in other words, lower costs in a significant manner. And you know what? They will be able to do it. And you know why? Because they have unlimited resources and have no quams with losing massive amounts of money, they do it all the time.

 

They will subsidize their losses Dog, because they can, and when they lower the costs of health insurance, you know what will happen next? 3 things, one they will have to lessen the quality of coverage, and two, many private insurers will go under, simply because they can't compete against the government and lastly, the companies that do survive, will adjust and have to lessen the quality of coverage as well to stay alive.

 

And it's not so much that I accept the numbers from the CBO Dog, it's because it only makes sense. It only supports what I have been saying, long before the CBO even came out with this assessment. I told you before, it's simple economics.

Doctors and Hospitals are going to negotiate with the government to set the prices for the public plan, which are going to be higher than Medicare prices which have already been negotiated. The government can't just set arbitrary prices. I have already linked those same CBO figures here about five times already.

 

And without the public plan, your private insurance is going to skyrocket more than it already is, and your government is going to have substantially higher deficits than they do now because the subsidies for the lower income people and businesses are going to be substantially higher if only private insurers are available for the lower level plans. Your business and your premiums and co-pays go up without the public option.

 

BTW, the original public plan, until the Blue Dogs got their mitts on it, would have drastically cut the premiums and costs, by about $1800 per year. That's probably 15-25% on the lower level policies, and that was because it was to pay Medicare prices plus 5% to doctors and hospitals. But the House and Senate scrapped that policy and made it so they had to negotiate with the Doctors and Hospitals, which is why the CBO figures are so low, and will save maybe 10%.

[blzrul]

To further support my argument:

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aAtF5MQA.3QE

 

“There are other sectors whose profits dramatically exceed our modest profits,” Williams said.

 

Publicly traded insurers generated about $11 billion in net income in 2008 and nonprofit Blue Cross Blue Shield plans made less than $2 billion, said Carl McDonald, an Oppenheimer & Co. analyst in New York, in a July note issued when Democrats first raised the idea of industry fees.

 

Obama hasn’t given a fair portrait of the industry, or the true reasons for rising medical costs in the U.S., said Binns, the spokeswoman for Indianapolis-based WellPoint. UnitedHealth Group Inc., of Minnetonka, Minnesota, is the largest provider.

 

“We disagree with the president’s continued mischaracterization of the health-care industry,” she said in an e-mail. “Health insurer profits account for less than 1 percent of every health-care dollar.”

‘Leading the Effort’

 

The industry has been “leading the effort to increase access to preventive services and wellness programs,” which Obama said will curb health spending, she said.

 

“We would have liked to hear more about policies to bend the trend,” Binns said. That would include changing the way doctors are reimbursed to focus on the quality of care, rather than the quantity of tests or procedures.

 

The American Medical Association applauded the president’s inclusion of medical-liability reform as a potential way to lower expenses.

 

It “is something we’ve mentioned for years is a way to reduce unnecessary costs, as well as streamline health-care waste we have in our system,” said James Rohack, president of the Chicago-based AMA, in a telephone interview.

 

“Paying for the cost of this without adding a dime to the deficit means you’re going to have to eliminate unnecessary costs,” he said.

 

Some estimates put the price of unneeded tests as high as 20 percent of overall health-care expenses, Rohack said. “If one can eliminate even half of that, you’re going to have a significant health savings,” he said.

 

 

The answers lie in the numbers, not in the pink farts and promises.

OMG YOU MEAN AN INSURANCE COMPANY WHOSE GRAVY TRAIN MAY BE DRYING UP THINKS THAT OBAMA'S PLAN ISN'T GOOD?

 

Oh the horror....the horror.

 

Did you ever read the story about the former health insurance CEO who went to see Sicko prepared take notes to debunk it...and couldn't in all honesty find anything inaccurate? The guy who ended up leaving his cushy CEO job because his conscience got to him?

 

No?

 

Of course not.

[billsfan89]

OMG YOU MEAN AN INSURANCE COMPANY WHOSE GRAVY TRAIN MAY BE DRYING UP THINKS THAT OBAMA'S PLAN ISN'T GOOD?

 

Oh the horror....the horror.

 

Did you ever read the story about the former health insurance CEO who went to see Sicko prepared take notes to debunk it...and couldn't in all honesty find anything inaccurate? The guy who ended up leaving his cushy CEO job because his conscience got to him?

 

No?

 

Of course not.

 

I never heard that story could you post a link? I am not saying that isn't true but it sounds like it could be made up.

[Magox]

Doctors and Hospitals are going to negotiate with the government to set the prices for the public plan, which are going to be higher than Medicare prices which have already been negotiated. The government can't just set arbitrary prices. I have already linked those same CBO figures here about five times already.

 

And without the public plan, your private insurance is going to skyrocket more than it already is, and your government is going to have substantially higher deficits than they do now because the subsidies for the lower income people and businesses are going to be substantially higher if only private insurers are available for the lower level plans. Your business and your premiums and co-pays go up without the public option.

 

BTW, the original public plan, until the Blue Dogs got their mitts on it, would have drastically cut the premiums and costs, by about $1800 per year. That's probably 15-25% on the lower level policies, and that was because it was to pay Medicare prices plus 5% to doctors and hospitals. But the House and Senate scrapped that policy and made it so they had to negotiate with the Doctors and Hospitals, which is why the CBO figures are so low, and will save maybe 10%.

I am highly skeptical as most people should be regarding the government negotiating prices with Doctors and Hospitals, I see this as having a very miniscule impact on prices, and if the government gets these small advantages you better believe that the private insurers will get it as well. This will do very little to bring down prices. Why? Because any savings that the government would be able to negotiate with Doctors and Hospitals would be 100% off of the bottom line, and it is only logical that they will be very reluctant to take off anything significant. So this is pretty much meaningless, more of a gesture than anything else.

 

In regards to what I bolded up above, talk about an empty statement. Just because you or the government say it, doesn't make it so. The government will not be able to significantly lower costs just through added competition. That is not where the main problem lies. The answer is in the numbers, and the numbers don't lie. Let's stop bullshitting ourselves and accept the fact that the profit margins are very small and that added competition is not the silver bullet. It is very clear to me, that effective tort reform, and allowing doctors to provide care the way they believe they should as opposed to wasteful defensive care is where the main problem lies. Once again it's in the numbers.

 

The "public option" is absolutely unnecessary and it opens up a huge Pandora's box. It doesn't tackle the main problem, and that is rising health care costs.

 

And in the last paragraph, all I gotta say is paleeeeese

 

[Magox]

OMG YOU MEAN AN INSURANCE COMPANY WHOSE GRAVY TRAIN MAY BE DRYING UP THINKS THAT OBAMA'S PLAN ISN'T GOOD?

 

Oh the horror....the horror.

 

Did you ever read the story about the former health insurance CEO who went to see Sicko prepared take notes to debunk it...and couldn't in all honesty find anything inaccurate? The guy who ended up leaving his cushy CEO job because his conscience got to him?

 

No?

 

Of course not.

By Gravy train, you mean one of the least profitable industries in the U.S on a % of profit margin basis?

 

 

Hook line and sinker.

 

You fall for it every time .

 

Straight out of the Liberal Locotoad handbook.

 

If you can't beat'em, demonize'em.

 

[Kelly the Dog]

I am highly skeptical as most people should be regarding the government negotiating prices with Doctors and Hospitals, I see this as having a very miniscule impact on prices, and if the government gets these small advantages you better believe that the private insurers will get it as well. This will do very little to bring down prices. Why? Because any savings that the government would be able to negotiate with Doctors and Hospitals would be 100% off of the bottom line, and it is only logical that they will be very reluctant to take off anything significant. So this is pretty much meaningless, more of a gesture than anything else.

 

In regards to what I bolded up above, talk about an empty statement. Just because you or the government say it, doesn't make it so. The government will not be able to significantly lower costs just through added competition. That is not where the main problem lies. The answer is in the numbers, and the numbers don't lie. Let's stop bullshitting ourselves and accept the fact that the profit margins are very small and that added competition is not the silver bullet. It is very clear to me, that effective tort reform, and allowing doctors to provide care the way they believe they should as opposed to wasteful defensive care is where the main problem lies. Once again it's in the numbers.

 

The "public option" is absolutely unnecessary and it opens up a huge Pandora's box. It doesn't tackle the main problem, and that is rising health care costs.

 

And in the last paragraph, all I gotta say is paleeeeese

 

Dude, you're insane. Medicare pays about 25-30% less for services than private does. Medicare plus 5%, the original public plan like I said, would therefore pay about 20-25% less. Those are the numbers. Since you seem to be convinced there is no profit in insurance and all of the money seems to go to pay for services. Take out the 4% (yeah, right, sure) profit margin the gov doesn't get and it's now 24-29%. Take out lobbying and advertising and perks and its a couple more percent. Even counting the 30% or so which are administrative costs as equal (which are much less for government health too).

 

Doctors and hospitals decide (i think every year) whether or not they are going to take the 25% less for services and accept Medicare and the vast majority do. The vast majority would accept the new negotiation too.

[Magox]

Dude, you're insane. Medicare pays about 25-30% less for services than private does. Medicare plus 5%, the original public plan like I said, would therefore pay about 20-25% less. Those are the numbers. Since you seem to be convinced there is no profit in insurance and all of the money seems to go to pay for services. Take out the 4% (yeah, right, sure) profit margin the gov doesn't get and it's now 24-29%. Take out lobbying and advertising and perks and its a couple more percent. Even counting the 30% or so which are administrative costs as equal (which are much less for government health too).

You mean the same medicare that is about to bankrupt? that one?

 

great business model

 

oh wait, that is the new US business model, don't worry, be happy, the government has got your back.

[Kelly the Dog]

You mean the same medicare that is about to bankrupt? that one?

 

great business model

 

oh wait, that is the new US business model, don't worry, spend wrecklessly, the government has got your back.

 

So in other words you admit you were dead wrong? Thought so.

[Magox]

So in other words you admit you were dead wrong? Thought so.

how do you figure? I'm not going to let you off that easy. If Medicare is about to go bankrupt, than why in the world should we adopt basically the same plan except only much larger?

 

Medicare is hemorraghing money out it's !@#$ and now you want to repeat it times 10. Our Deficit would expand exponentially, well, it all ready is.

[Kelly the Dog]

how do you figure? I'm not going to let you off that easy. If Medicare is about to go bankrupt, than why in the world should we adopt basically the same plan except only much larger?

 

Medicare is hemorraghing money out it's !@#$ and now you want to repeat it times 10. Our Deficit would expand exponentially, well, it all ready is.

We were discussing how much less it will cost for services for a public plan, not what has bankrupt Medicare, which is an entirely different issue and a dozen different reasons. Not to mention that 40 million people are on Medicare and we're talking about adding maybe 10-20 million. Only in your bizzarro math does that repeat it by 10. Besides, the public has to pay the premiums in the public plan, not the government. The subsidies are the same for whether the plans are private or public.

 

Again, I really think you guys against the public plan are in for an eye opener. This is going to pass. If there isnt a public plan, you are going to pay more AND the deficit is going to go up a lot worse. That's almost inarguable.

[IDBillzFan]

Again, I really think you guys against the public plan are in for an eye opener. This is going to pass. If there isnt a public plan, you are going to pay more AND the deficit is going to go up a lot worse. That's almost inarguable.

Whether the public option passes won't be an eye opener for those us whose eyes are already wide open. HOW it passes will be the issue. And in case you haven't noticed, the current administration is so fiscally irresponsible that if you think NOT having a public option is going to be the straw that breaks this country's financial back, there is no help for you. Again, it's funny how there is so much money being wasted on health care abuse, something that CAN be addressed without a public option, and yet...nothing, without a bill. Tort reform and allowing national competition will bring down costs, and yet...nothing. Oh, maybe a little tort trial in bum!@#$ nowhere. But otherwise, it's nothing but yet another disingenuous way to say "Hey, I tried to reach across the aisle." Hey, I know...maybe we can copy more documents on both sides of the paper. THAT'LL pay for it.

 

You seem to love the fact that regardless of what anyone wants, a public option IS getting passed. So let's see HOW they force the the president's plan; a plan that 53% of the country is against, according to Rasmussen's poll. And that's AFTER last night's speech. Go ahead. Force a public option on a public that doesn't want it. Go ahead. I'll get the popcorn ready.

[Magox]

Again, I really think you guys against the public plan are in for an eye opener. This is going to pass. If there isnt a public plan, you are going to pay more AND the deficit is going to go up a lot worse. That's almost inarguable.

Without the public option the deficit will get worse?

 

I've made my case, if you refuse to acknowledge that lack of competition is not the central issue with rising health care coverage, and that you refuse to ignore that Medicare is a failed business model that is about to go bankrupt, than I can't go any further with you.

 

If the government were to give the public an option, and under your preferred scenario of 25% below cost from competing private insurers like Medicare, and you truly believe that only 10-15 Million people would choose it over their insurance that they all ready have, then you're just a dumbass. Even if it were 10% below, you would see a massive exodus out of people's private plans to the public plans. That sir, would be a prime example of the government "crowding out" the market. You see it's not so bizarre, when you apply common sense, which you seem to lack in regards to simple economics. So yes, it would be much larger than Medicare.

 

You seem to conveniently forget the effects of adding another Trillion dollars to the deficit, this plan will go well beyond theirs and the CBO's projection if the "public option" were to go through, which I don't believe it will.

 

Since your understanding of economics is not really on par, I wouldn't expect you to understand that we are at an inflection point right now with the Dollar. It is under serious attack, and if this plan passes, mark my words, you can go back and quote me on this if I'm wrong, the dollar will spiral out of control within 6 months and you will see serious talk amongst many angry nations about replacing the dollar as the worlds reserve currency. But I don't expect you to know that or refuse to believe it, because it wouldn't support your argument.

 

The only thing that is inarguable here is that you drink lots of the Obama-laid.

 

As I said before, just because you say it so, doesn't make it so, It's as if you say, without the public option things will get worse, so there. na-ner na-ner

[Kelly the Dog]

Without the public option the deficit will get worse?

 

1] It's surely going to get worse because you're ignoring the reality that this thing is going to pass, and there are ten serious changes to what insurance companies are required by law to provide that is going to make their costs go way up. They are going to get more volume to offset it but they are going to raise rates not lower them. Without another option and competition, they are going to make everyone pay for it, and it's likely to be substantial. Percentage of cost for all businesses health care is going to go up higher than it already is. Less profit for businesses, less wages, less tax dollars.

 

2] You're ignoring that the 25% number less is for the old public plan, not the ones being discussed now, which has been drastically cut down but still will cut costs. 10%-15% less on coverage is still a lot, it's just not 25-30%. Without the public option, you're looking at these new people paying MORE for their coverage than people are now, not less (10-15% ballpark) and surely not substantially less (the old public idea 25% less ballpark).

 

3] The public plans being discussed are not like Medicare. They are not underwritten by the government. You can go on acting like it is if you would like.

 

4] Every single Republican and politician and federal worker who is against the public plan gets their health coverage in exactly that "public plan", and they aren't complaining much.

[GG]

1] It's surely going to get worse because you're ignoring the reality that this thing is going to pass, and there are ten serious changes to what insurance companies are required by law to provide that is going to make their costs go way up. They are going to get more volume to offset it but they are going to raise rates not lower them. Without another option and competition, they are going to make everyone pay for it, and it's likely to be substantial. Percentage of cost for all businesses health care is going to go up higher than it already is. Less profit for businesses, less wages, less tax dollars.

 

Again, what everyone ignores is the total cost of providing care. Your explanation doesn't touch it and the plan doesn't address it. All it does is move the cost from one side of the room (subsidy by private insurance) to another side of the room (public option with a bigger subsidy by private insurance and/or taxpayers). Reducing "administrative costs" is a joke because it's an accounting interpretation.

 

Total costs have to go up by definition, because you will be adding at least 10 million people to coverage who will use medical services, but you are not being honest with how that will be financed.

[Kelly the Dog]

Again, what everyone ignores is the total cost of providing care. Your explanation doesn't touch it and the plan doesn't address it. All it does is move the cost from one side of the room (subsidy by private insurance) to another side of the room (public option with a bigger subsidy by private insurance and/or taxpayers). Reducing "administrative costs" is a joke because it's an accounting interpretation.

 

Total costs have to go up by definition, because you will be adding at least 10 million people to coverage who will use medical services, but you are not being honest with how that will be financed.

 

i understand that but it's a peripheral issue and different conversation. My explanation doesn't address it because I wasn't talking about total cost or reducing administrative cost, which surely needs to be addressed. I was simply saying that new services are being demanded by new legislation. Private insurers are going to say, rightly, that these are going to make their costs rise. But without a public option to keep prices down for these new 10-20 million people, as well as the 180 million or so already covered privately who will be included in this new legislation, the private insurers will just jack up everyone's rates and have no incentive to lower them. If people, new and old, can get other insurance (even if it's inferior service) at 15% less, the private insurers cannot raise their rates like they will or lose out on 10-20-30 million people they will need to keep their profits up.

 

The total costs issue can be discussed elsewhere.