Health Care Reform - Universal/Public Option

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by molson

Aren't those the same thing? To be efficient in $, or intelligence gathering means you're efficient relative to each other, cost and results.

My argument is that CIA, FBI and NSA are more efficient as a whole than private companies, albeit this is highly subjective as we do not have comparative, quantative comparisons.

There are some aspects where private companies are more efficient such as $ because there is a profit motive. However, when factoring scale and public good, private companies cannot really be trusted to "do the right thing" as evidenced by our financial, insurance industry equivalents.

Do private companies want all the public school students? Probably not, because they probably cannot serve them all efficiently and profitably.

Do private companies want to gather intelligence on all the countries that the CIA, NSA currently do? Probably not because they would would be strongly guided by the cost-benefit ratio, ROI etc.

There are just some things that are better left to the government to handle.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So the fact that Medicare and VA are cheaper and the people with those plans are more satisfied doesn't matter.

I'd call believing any study that showed that as one hell of a leap of faith. And that's putting it mildly. It took me several minutes to stop giggling when you mentioned it the first time around.

Is it just assumed that because it's a government program it must be worse than a similar private program?

Based on the available evidence, that seems like an extremely reasonable assumption. Is it conceivable that government could manage to do something efficiently? Yeah, based on the two occurrences per day for a stopped clock. But I honestly can't imagine how any rational person could reasonably expect it to happen, it's just too rare a situation.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Based on the available evidence, that seems like an extremely reasonable assumption. Is it conceivable that government could manage to do something efficiently? Yeah, based on the two occurrences per day for a stopped clock. But I honestly can't imagine how any rational person could reasonably expect it to happen, it's just too rare a situation.

This may be one of your "two occurances" but is there any doubt that it took the government to implement affirmative action and it would not have happended if left to the private sector (or not nearly as quickly)?

Its debatable if affirmative action is still needed today, but there is no doubt it was needed back in the 60s and would not have been done without the government "program" vs the private "program".

My point is, even outside of defense, there are times when government needs to take the lead because the private sector is unwilling or unable.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Its debatable if affirmative action is still needed today, but there is no doubt it was needed back in the 60s and would not have been done without the government "program" vs the private "program".

May not be any doubt in your mind, plenty of people would beg to differ.

[Edward64]

Thanks for the healthy debate on the role, if any, that government should play in healthcare. Just to level set everyone, here is my understanding of what is being proposed and what my opinions, so far expressed, are based on.

Sorry if not complete or accurate at this point.

1. Private option to healthcare will still be available. If a private company does not offer healtcare, some sort of tax will be levied on them where their employees can go for private healthcare or participate in the public option.
2. Some form of government public option will be offered. This will, in all likelihood, adversely impact the private option.
3. Universal healthcare for all legal residents. This means that legal resident will be allowed to get some sort of subsidized healthcare and an insurer cannot refuse them, regardless of preexisting conditions.
4. Obama claims increased taxes on individuals make $200K or more.
5. Obama claims some providers will help pay for cost by charging what medicare will pay.
6. For the people unable to pay, they will be subsidized somehow.
7. The price tag I read somewhere was $1T to implement for the un(der) insured. Not sure if this includes the public option for those not un(der) insured. I've read somewhere other estimates putting this at $2-$3T.
8. I would think implementing this reform would take some pressure of Medicare but have not seen an analysis. Although SSN is an issue, Medicare is a bigger and more immediate of an issue.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

May not be any doubt in your mind, plenty of people would beg to differ.

Help me understand this statement. Are you saying (1) there was no need for affirmative action or (2) affirmative action was already well underway before the Kennedys pushed for it?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So the fact that Medicare and VA are cheaper and the people with those plans are more satisfied doesn't matter. Again, how do you measure an effective program? Is it just assumed that because it's a government program it must be worse than a similar private program?

No, The fact that medicare and VA are FREE to their users and fully supported by everyone else makes them hard to not like.

It would be like if 10% of the population was given a Hyundai for free, then polled and asked if they liked the free car program. Its a hyundai and all, but it IS a free car, so yeah they like it.

Originally Posted by Edward64

My argument is that CIA, FBI and NSA are more efficient as a whole than private companies, albeit this is highly subjective as we do not have comparative, quantative comparisons.

There are some aspects where private companies are more efficient such as $ because there is a profit motive. However, when factoring scale and public good, private companies cannot really be trusted to "do the right thing" as evidenced by our financial, insurance industry equivalents.

Do private companies want all the public school students? Probably not, because they probably cannot serve them all efficiently and profitably.

Do private companies want to gather intelligence on all the countries that the CIA, NSA currently do? Probably not because they would would be strongly guided by the cost-benefit ratio, ROI etc.

There are just some things that are better left to the government to handle.

What I think you are missing is my comparison to the CIA....in their role as a body guard. They cost MILLIONS annually. Private companies would do it for a fraction. The gov't doesnt allow private companies to conduct espionage, but they do hire private defense contractors, such as Blackwater because they determined they could protect US interests in War areas cheaper than our military.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Help me understand this statement. Are you saying (1) there was no need for affirmative action or (2) affirmative action was already well underway before the Kennedys pushed for it?

To me, it was an ill conceived idea bandied about to give the image of equality without any real substance.

"Society bound by color, why hold down one to raise up the other. Affirmative may be justified; to take from one and give to another. but if the goal is to be unified take my hand and be my brother."

[Young Drachma]

Yeah, I liked affirmative action better when it works the other way.

I think the whole thing is a bit silly, but so are people griping that their victimized by policies that have nothing to do with them, is a bit comical.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Are you saying (1) there was no need for affirmative action

An unjustified intrusion into the private sector afaic.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

An unjustified intrusion into the private sector afaic.

Can't the same be said about slavery?

I viewed affirmative action as a way of helping blacks "catch-up" when they had been not allowed to function in society for so long.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So the fact that Medicare and VA are cheaper and the people with those plans are more satisfied doesn't matter. Again, how do you measure an effective program? Is it just assumed that because it's a government program it must be worse than a similar private program?

Gee, I remember how in a recent survey that most veterans were dissatisfied with the quality of healthcare in the VA system. I guess the pamphlet they sent me talking about how they are going to improve the system must be my imagination.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Can't the same be said about slavery?

We're getting pretty far afield from the topic of health care reform, but I don't refer to it as The War of Northern Aggression without being completely serious. The policies of Lincoln et al were the turning point toward federal tyranny and away from the notion of a willing union of sovereign states that was at the heart of the Union in the first place.

That's largely why I roll fight the urge to roll my eyes when I hear people try to rant about the Constitution as having much meaning today beyond being a useful tool that can be wielded by a variety of actors for a variety of purposes. It lost much of it's validity with the conclusion of the war with the annexation of the occupied territories.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

We're getting pretty far afield from the topic of health care reform, but I don't refer to it as The War of Northern Aggression without being completely serious. The policies of Lincoln et al were the turning point toward federal tyranny and away from the notion of a willing union of sovereign states that was at the heart of the Union in the first place.

That's largely why I roll fight the urge to roll my eyes when I hear people try to rant about the Constitution as having much meaning today beyond being a useful tool that can be wielded by a variety of actors for a variety of purposes. It lost much of it's validity with the conclusion of the war with the annexation of the occupied territories.

Well that and they were afraid Lincoln would let the black guys spoil their white women. You can call it state's rights, but much of the secession ambassador's speeches are filled with fear of racial equality.

From Apostles of Disunion:

Mississippi's commissioner to Georgia closed his statement with,
"Sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish, the part of Mississippi is chosen, she will never submit to this Black Republican Administration.
She had rather see the last of her race, men, women, and children, immolated in one common funeral pile, than see them subjected to the degradation of civil, political and social equality with the negro race."

Alabama's commissioner to Delaware said that Lincoln sought,
"the establishment of an equality of races in our midst."

Georgia's commissioner to Virginia stated the reason for Georgia's secession,
"This reason may be summed up in a single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a seperation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of slavery."

Prominent Southern orator John Preston Smith said in 1861,
"the conflict between slavery and non-slavery is a conflict for life and death."

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

We're getting pretty far afield from the topic of health care reform, but I don't refer to it as The War of Northern Aggression without being completely serious. The policies of Lincoln et al were the turning point toward federal tyranny and away from the notion of a willing union of sovereign states that was at the heart of the Union in the first place.

Yes, we are. But I think this discussion is worthwhile and should be continued in another thread. Its probably pretty sensitive subject but I find it interesting that there are those who do not believe affirmative action was needed in the 60s.

Anyone, feel free to start a thread. Otherwise, give me a day or two to do some research (and level-set) and I'll do it.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd call believing any study that showed that as one hell of a leap of faith. And that's putting it mildly. It took me several minutes to stop giggling when you mentioned it the first time around.



Based on the available evidence, that seems like an extremely reasonable assumption. Is it conceivable that government could manage to do something efficiently? Yeah, based on the two occurrences per day for a stopped clock. But I honestly can't imagine how any rational person could reasonably expect it to happen, it's just too rare a situation.

I could post survey's, but what's the point? This isn't an argument about evidence, it's about faith. If you believe that government is always more inefficient and less capable any evidence to the contrary won't matter.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Edward64

However, when factoring scale and public good, private companies cannot really be trusted to "do the right thing" as evidenced by our financial, insurance industry equivalents.

Well the trick is to tie the "right thing" into the profiit-making. Corporations aren't good or bad, they're ammoral. If the goal of a corporation is the "right thing", they'll do it better than government.

Government is scarier to me than corporations because they're not necessarily ammoral - they can have their own, seperate political agendas. Give me an organization chasing money over an agency chasing power, some secret political agenda, (and maybe money we don't know about) any day. The first one is like the monster you can tie up and control and set loose on problems. Of course, the scariest monster is the one that's a corporate/government hybrid.

There's definitely certain areas of life that are just harder than others to utilize corporations this way, definitely.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by revrew

I couldn't disagree with you more - on universal health care, Obama's plan, or movement towards socialized medicine. I am equally surprised, however, at how effective Obama has been at moving his agenda forward. I just happen to disagree with his agenda.

Even if we were limited to only two choices (and we're not, and we won't be under Obama's plan), Socialized Medicine is still better than Medicine for the Rich Only.

Originally Posted by revrew

I. cannot. believe. you said that. That is way, way too rich.

There is a significant difference between public school and public education; as your comments clearly demonstrate. Yes, people who are "schooled" quickly accept government as the solution to our problems, but an education on the subject clearly reveals that a socialist form of government does not, never has, and in fact cannot solve social or economic ills.

No, given your political opinions as expressed so far, I would argue that socialized public school has not worked out so well for you so far.

Wow. I know you have your sacred cows, revrew, but I have never seen you so vitriolic and personally offensive before.

Not to mention so unfocused and just plain wrong, of course.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by molson

Well the trick is to tie the "right thing" into the profiit-making. Corporations aren't good or bad, they're ammoral. If the goal of a corporation is the "right thing", they'll do it better than government.

My assumption and what I've learnt, for right or wrong, is that corporations are to maximize shareholder value e.g. stock price. But you bring up a good point, what if there is a CIA, FBI, NSA equivalent of non-profit corporations? If that's your argument you may have a point. My prior arguments were based on maximizing shareholder value.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Edward64

My assumption and what I've learnt, for right or wrong, is that corporations are to maximize shareholder value e.g. stock price. But you bring up a good point, what if there is a CIA, FBI, NSA equivalent of non-profit corporations? If that's your argument you may have a point. My prior arguments were based on maximizing shareholder value.

Shareholder value is definitely a complication that would point the goal of a corporation away from what you're trying to accomplish. That's definitely one way a corporation wouldn't be properly tied to what you want it to do.

I guess to use a super-simplified example involving the military, if you paid a private company X million dollars to accomplish a specific millitary objective, they'll be able to do it cheaper than the government will.

[flere-imsaho]

Presumably someone can dig through the following and determine if we have any agencies that are models of efficiency: http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/...iativeID=36072

I would hesitate, however, to make the case that private industry is all that efficient. Anyone who's worked for a big corporation knows there's a ton of waste to throw around.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Shareholder value is definitely a complication that would point the goal of a corporation away from what you're trying to accomplish. That's definitely one way a corporation wouldn't be properly tied to what you want it to do.

I guess to use a super-simplified example involving the military, if you paid a private company X million dollars to accomplish a specific millitary objective, they'll be able to do it cheaper than the government will.

You do you explain the fact that we pay firms like Blackwater much more per person?

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You do you explain the fact that we pay firms like Blackwater much more per person?

Private pays employees better than government.

Are you saying that the US Military is more efficient than a private security company? I can't believe this is even a discussion.

With security though, without knowing the insides and outs of these companies, I'm sure they're more corporate/government hybrids than pure corporations.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Anyone, feel free to start a thread. Otherwise, give me a day or two to do some research (and level-set) and I'll do it.

You're welcome to start one if you're so inclined, but I'll definitely pass on doing so. Since we're largely all adults here & I'd guess 95% of FOFC'ers in the the thread would have plenty of time spent living in the U.S. and have had ample evidence in front of their own lying eyes with which to form an opinion, I can't really see it changing any minds or anything of that nature. I find plenty of opportunities to be railed at by the social left, no sense in me going out of my way to gin up another one

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Private pays employees better than government.

Are you saying that the US Military is more efficient than a private security company? I can't believe this is even a discussion.

With security though, without knowing the insides and outs of these companies, I'm sure they're more corporate/government hybrids than pure corporations.

Given the mission of the military, absolutely. I don't think you can privatize a nation's defense because the mission is too broad and in some cases demands inefficiency. No corporation would sit in Korea for fifty years basically doing nothing, but it has very much been in the nation's interest to do so.

As for security firms operating as contractors in Iraq, I don't think I've ever heard the argument that it's more efficient to hire out. Th rational has always been a lack of ground forces and in some cases a decision to have people not really bound by US or Iraqi law. If we had enough troops I'd be very surprised if it wasn't cheaper to have Marines guarding State Department employees rather than private firms.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Are you saying that the US Military is more efficient than a private security company? I can't believe this is even a discussion.

Define efficiency.

Given the remarkable array of Blackwater security fuckups in Iraq especially it's not hard to conceive that the regular Army might have been better at those jobs.

And then there's KBR. Sure, it may have cost less to have them set up facilities than when the Army did it itself, but when the Army did it, people didn't get electrocuted in showers.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

No corporation would sit in Korea for fifty years basically doing nothing, but it has very much been in the nation's interest to do so.

If you paid them to, they would. But I agree that it can't be up to them to make that decision. That's kind of the distinction I was talking about earlier.

And as efficient, I don't mean just cheaper. I mean better quality relative to cost. Which can manifest itself in higher salaries, and thus higher quality workers. An experienced domestic policeman wouldn't want to become a US army soldier, but I've known a bunch that have joined private security companies in Iraq.

And that efficiency isn't just because they're private, it's because there's competition for those roles. If you have an open and fair bidding process (which is an iffy assumption because of government corruption), you're going to get the very best of dozens or hundreds of private agencies who apply for the job. Which the government, we just have the government. If they suck, we're stuck with suck.

And I totally agree in general, that a lot of the national security function is a whole other kettle of fish, because there's stuff government can do that corporations can't, since they're above the law. Which of course carries it's own issues as well.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

If you paid them to, they would. But I agree that it can't be up to them to make that decision. That's kind of the distinction I was talking about earlier.

And as efficient, I don't mean just cheaper. I mean better quality relative to cost. Which can manifest itself in higher salaries, and thus higher quality workers. An experienced domestic policeman wouldn't want to become a US army soldier, but I've known a bunch that have joined private security companies in Iraq.

And that efficiency isn't just because they're private, it's because there's competition for those roles. If you have an open and fair bidding process (which is an iffy assumption because of government corruption), you're going to get the very best of dozens or hundreds of private agencies who apply for the job. Which the government, we just have the government. If they suck, we're stuck with suck.

And I totally agree in general, that a lot of the national security function is a whole other kettle of fish, because there's stuff government can do that corporations can't, since they're above the law. Which of course carries it's own issues as well.

I think your flaw is that you're assuming a perfectly functioning market. There aren't that many security firms that could handle national security missions, so their won't ever be true competition. In most states that's the big problem with health insurance.

I wouldn't argue that private industry does a better job in well functioning markets, however, much of what government does happens outside of a well functioning market. I think that's where we often are at loggerheads. I'm all for well functioning markets as they are the best humanity has come up with, but I do think it takes regulation to ensure markets function properly and that there are services that don't respond well to a market structure.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Even if we were limited to only two choices (and we're not, and we won't be under Obama's plan), Socialized Medicine is still better than Medicine for the Rich Only.



Wow. I know you have your sacred cows, revrew, but I have never seen you so vitriolic and personally offensive before.

Not to mention so unfocused and just plain wrong, of course.

Yep. You're right (about the offensive part), and I hereby extend to Edwards64 a public apology for the pointed and mocking tone of that post. Over the top to be sure.

I do maintain that the public education system is a clearly flawed to the point of being a failed system. I do maintain that it remains more about "schooling" children to fit a mainstream worldview, as opposed to actually educating their minds. And I believe the failures of socialism - whether in medicine, economics, or education - are a matter of fact, not opinion.

I do find it ironic that one would defend a historically ignorant viewpoint on socialism by saying that socialist schooling "has worked out so far," but ironic and humorous or not, there's a difference between quietly chuckling at the irony of a comment and publicly mocking and deriding the person who said it. I strayed into the latter, and I apologize.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think your flaw is that you're assuming a perfectly functioning market. There aren't that many security firms that could handle national security missions, so their won't ever be true competition. In most states that's the big problem with health insurance.

I wouldn't argue that private industry does a better job in well functioning markets, however, much of what government does happens outside of a well functioning market. I think that's where we often are at loggerheads. I'm all for well functioning markets as they are the best humanity has come up with, but I do think it takes regulation to ensure markets function properly and that there are services that don't respond well to a market structure.

True, we don't have the luxury of a perfectly functioning market for analysis, but we also don't have a government we can know will always be motivated by what's good for the American people. As someone said before, it comes down to what you have faith on. For me, that's never the government, just because they're the more complicated, powerful entity, and can do far more damage, and one can never know, from issue to issue, what their goal really is.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There aren't that many security firms that could handle national security missions, so their won't ever be true competition.

But we'll never know because the government would never allow it to be so. On a smaller scale (Africa comes to mind as the most obvious example) there have definitely been instances where private forces proved to be at worst equally effective to national armies.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by revrew

Yep. You're right (about the offensive part), and I hereby extend to Edwards64 a public apology for the pointed and mocking tone of that post. Over the top to be sure.

I do maintain that the public education system is a clearly flawed to the point of being a failed system. I do maintain that it remains more about "schooling" children to fit a mainstream worldview, as opposed to actually educating their minds. And I believe the failures of socialism - whether in medicine, economics, or education - are a matter of fact, not opinion.

I do find it ironic that one would defend a historically ignorant viewpoint on socialism by saying that socialist schooling "has worked out so far," but ironic and humorous or not, there's a difference between quietly chuckling at the irony of a comment and publicly mocking and deriding the person who said it. I strayed into the latter, and I apologize.

Hey, I accept your "blended" and "nuanced" apology. Thanks.

Once again, to be absolutely clear, I am not saying socialism as a government works well. I am saying that the US PS eduction is doing okay (and we are certainly better for it). Lets move this over to the other thread if you care to prove your point or offer any other plausible alternatives.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

True, we don't have the luxury of a perfectly functioning market for analysis, but we also don't have a government we can know will always be motivated by what's good for the American people. As someone said before, it comes down to what you have faith on. For me, that's never the government, just because they're the more complicated, powerful entity, and can do far more damage, and one can never know, from issue to issue, what their goal really is.

And I think never having faith that the government can do something is as wrong as never having faith in private industry. There are limited things that I really believe the government can do better.

That being said, where I agree with you is in the crafting of legislation. While things are getting worked out, there is a tremendous risk of fucking it all up. For me I'd rather there be no healthcare legislation than one without a public option. I think we'd end up with something similar to Medicare D where Congress finds new and exciting ways to shovel more money risk free to industry.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

Well the trick is to tie the "right thing" into the profiit-making. Corporations aren't good or bad, they're ammoral. If the goal of a corporation is the "right thing", they'll do it better than government.

Government is scarier to me than corporations because they're not necessarily ammoral - they can have their own, seperate political agendas. Give me an organization chasing money over an agency chasing power, some secret political agenda, (and maybe money we don't know about) any day. The first one is like the monster you can tie up and control and set loose on problems. Of course, the scariest monster is the one that's a corporate/government hybrid.

There's definitely certain areas of life that are just harder than others to utilize corporations this way, definitely.

But the goal will never be to do the "right thing". For an insurance company, they are better off having you dead than having you battle cancer for years. The system will always have them rooting against you and not getting the best treatment. I don't know how you can fix that.

I think the private sector is great in most industries. But in health care, you're pitting profits of a company against the health of human beings. It's just a bit perverse. While the government may not make a good program, at least their interests will be in keeping people healthy.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But we'll never know because the government would never allow it to be so. On a smaller scale (Africa comes to mind as the most obvious example) there have definitely been instances where private forces proved to be at worst equally effective to national armies.

The other problem is cost control. Much like defense appropriations the mission has to get done and cost overruns would be the norm. I don't think there's any way to contract national security at a cheaper and/or more effective rate.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Once again, to be absolutely clear, I am not saying socialism as a government works well. I am saying that the US PS eduction is doing okay (and we are certainly better for it). Lets move this over to the other thread if you care to prove your point or offer any other plausible alternatives.

Which thread? I'd love to jump in on a debate about public education in the US given the hell Wake County is putting parents through...

[RainMaker]

Another thing too. If you are for a free market health care system, you have to be for removing the restrictions on buying drugs from other countries. The health care industry wants it both ways. They want free markets so they can make a profit but government forcing you to only by within the U.S.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

While the government may not make a good program, at least their interests will be in keeping people who they believe will vote for them healthy enough to do so and doing it in a fashion that creates jobs beholden to the government, with as much control of everything possible resting with the government as possible.

Fixed that for you.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Fixed that for you.

That works too though. If I don't like the health care system, I can vote out my representative. I can't do that with my health insurance company.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Which thread? I'd love to jump in on a debate about public education in the US given the hell Wake County is putting parents through...

The discussion below was how to reform PS Education.

Education Reform........ - Page 4 - Front Office Football Central

My take was

I tend to believe the American Public Education system is fine. Of course there is room for improvement but overall its good.

And then we got off into how much teachers should be compensated ...

[Edward64]

Some additional information on the financing part and "blue dogs". Its still up for discussion and confusion between House, House "blue dogs", and the Senate.

House Dems to tax rich for health care - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com

WASHINGTON - House Democrats plan to pay for a sweeping health care overhaul by boosting taxes on the wealthy.

The taxes will hit households with incomes of $350,000 a year and above.

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel of New York said the tax would raise $540 billion over 10 years.

In combination with cuts to Medicare and Medicaid that would pay for a comprehensive health bill in the range of $1 trillion.

The proposal to extend the current 1.45 percent Medicare payroll tax to capital gains earned by high-income taxpayers would bring in an estimated $100 billion over 10 years.

The proposal to extend the current 1.45 percent Medicare payroll tax to capital gains earned by high-income taxpayers would bring in an estimated $100 billion over 10 years.

Conservative Democrats had demanded significant changes before they supported a sweeping health care overhaul, forcing the House to join the Senate in stalling ABM's top domestic priority.

Blug Dog demands
The "Blue Dog Democrats" group released a list of demands on the eve of House Democratic leaders' planned unveiling of their final bill Friday. The bill release was pushed back to next week and Democratic leaders spent part of Friday meeting with the fiscally conservative Blue Dogs to work through their concerns.

"The message that was sent was heard loud and clear," Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., a member of the group, said Friday. The group's concerns were the need for more cost containment measures, protections for small businesses and a focus on rural health care.

"We cannot support a final product that fails to" address these issues, members of the group wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Opposition from the 52-member group could imperil House passage of a bill.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Incidentally, I think the Blue Dogs are playing their hand beautifully to this point. I don't really expect their changes to eventually amount to a lot frankly but they've gotten themselves in front of the public as a force doing something (on the surface at least) that should play quite well in the majority of their districts.

[rowech]

Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan.

From an AP report. It's just amazing to me that people believe this is okay. Can't wait to see what other penalties will be instituted in the next 10-15 years for not following government ordered items. Just sad to be seeing this and people thinking things like this are okay in the name of whatever cause they're involved in.

[SteveMax58]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Another thing too. If you are for a free market health care system, you have to be for removing the restrictions on buying drugs from other countries. The health care industry wants it both ways. They want free markets so they can make a profit but government forcing you to only by within the U.S.

A little late to the discussion here...but I think this just makes the case even more for the anti-government interventionist philosophy. If the government didnt try to prod and poke it's collective nose into such topics in the first place, perhaps we dont have these unaffordable industries.

Because, on one hand, you might argue that this saves jobs for the US workers...but on the other hand it just adds to the cost of supplying health care. When we start discussing ways to trim down costs of health care (whether socialized or not), we quickly get to the crux of the matter which is...reducing HC costs means putting US workers out of work, or at a minimum reducing their income levels. All while we (collectively) pay some bureaucrats to ponder such concepts.

That's why I really can't stomach the whole advocacy of "government to the rescue" on nearly any topic. Yes, government "can" occassionally be a reasonable stop gap mechanism for such topics, but by in large, it just adds to the cost...creates unecessary dependancies...does not ever "go away" once it serves its purpose...and in the end always requires "reform" on any topic it points it's nose to.

[kcchief19]

Having studied universal health care for 20 years, I can say unequivocally I'm 100 percent in favor of a universal health care system. There is little doubt in my mind that it would work, and evidence worldwide supports that.

The challenge to me has always been to develop a system that doesn't supplant privately owned companies. I don't think it is in our best financial interest to create a system to replace what we have, only overlay a safety net that will protect people with jobs without insurance, elderly, children and even people in between jobs.

The system Obama is advocating makes the most sense for me. I work for a small business, and insurance is a killer cost for us. You would be hard pressed to argue to me that the insurance industry is not highly collusive. We shop around every year and it's amazing how consistent the rates are from company to company. Periodically you'll find a company who will offer you a savings to switch but will immediately jump your rates as quickly as possible to the same level you were at before. Having an efficient public entity that could compete with private insurance would be help lower costs for everyone.

I do believe a government run insurance company would work. In fact, it already does. Medicare provides insurance coverage for the federal government and including Congress. If it's good enough for them, it should be good enough for us. Are there problems with Medicare? Sure. Are there problems with private insurance? Absolutely. I love the commercials saying that universal health care would put a bureaucrat between you and your doctor. Um, I have that already. Frankly, when it comes to health care I don't care if it's a tax or a premium -- I just want to know which one is cheaper.

For the conservative types, I say two things:

One, the current system of employer-based health care is notoriously discriminatory toward younger workers and men. My employer picks up the tab for our premiums. My annual premium is less than $2,400. Women my same age have a premium at least twice as high because they are of child bearing age. I work with one guy whose annual premium is just under $11,000. But we get treated the same. In essence, my office has it's own "socialized" medicine program. However, if my company could save money by going with a government plan, it's a win/win for us.

Secondly, I don't see how you can be a social conservative and not be in favor of universal health care, unless you just don't read your Bible. Matthew 25:40 says, "And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done unto me." I'm not highly religious. I was raised Catholic but not inside the church. It would be more fair to say I was raised with a Catholic ethic. I think it's a good moral system to have. Tending to the least among us is one of them ost basic and essential tenants of the teachings of Jesus. If you believe in the Bible but don't believe in basic health care for all, to me you're a hypocrite.

Obama's proposal is the most sensible plan I've seen come along in my lifetime. Yes, we'll have to pay for it. But we're paying for it already. The most expensive health care service we have is emergency room care. The biggest burden of emergency rooms are people ending up there because they didn't get preventive care. It's a huge economic boom for the nation -- we save money on health care, people don't get as sick, we boost productivity. Plus, you would completely eliminate Medicad, which I would argue is much more inefficient and maligned than Medicare is.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But we'll never know because the government would never allow it to be so. On a smaller scale (Africa comes to mind as the most obvious example) there have definitely been instances where private forces proved to be at worst equally effective to national armies.

Yes, and those private forces are usually used to overthrew the government and commit the occasional acts of genocide.

I believe our armed forces do a helluva job protecting the nation and they do it much better and with safeguards you couldn't get with private armies. If we had private armies, we would have coups and revolutions left and right.

I simply don't get maligning government programs like the postal service, the army, Medicare, etc. I've yet the see a private program that's better. FedEx offered up great competition for the USPS and the USPS responded. Today, the postal service is incredible efficient and affordable. Medicare's administrative costs are much lower than private insurance, mostly because Medicare doesn't have a ton of management pulling down eight figure salaries. Every private insurance company I've worked with has been just as bad if not worse than Medicare.

Same with public schools. The biggest knock against public schools is that it's they are the safety net for kids who private schools wouldn't touch with a 10-foot-poll. Magnet schools and public schools like Bronx Science and Boston Latin are better than any private school. But public schools can't cherry pick their students.

We've turned over some schools here in KC to charter schools and they've pretty much proven to be just as corrupt and poorly run as the public schools they replaced were.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by rowech

Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan.

From an AP report. It's just amazing to me that people believe this is okay. Can't wait to see what other penalties will be instituted in the next 10-15 years for not following government ordered items. Just sad to be seeing this and people thinking things like this are okay in the name of whatever cause they're involved in.

Any context to the quote?

As it is, it doesn't raise an eyebrow to me. If the goal is to make health insurance available to all at an affordable cost AND imrove overall healthcare costs/expenses, it makes reasonable sense to penalize those who opt out and purposely expose themselves to the financial and health risks of failing to carry insurance (since taxpayers would often end up covering the costs and/or the healthcare providers would have to eat their costs). 2.5% of your income seems like a substantial deterrent to folks that would rather roll the dice, pocket the money, and hope for the best.

[JPhillips]

Auto insurance is already mandated in most states. I get the general libertarian argument, but how do you deal with the costs to the rest of us for those that get hurt/sick? Why should those that choose to pay for insurance have to pay for those that don't? It's not as simple as saying this mandate is the only infringement on people's finances.

[SackAttack]

I haven't spent a lot of time following the health care debate. I didn't expect it to come up this soon in his term.

But one thing I have heard in soundbites and in passing on the radio is this idea that government-sponsored health care would drive private insurers out of business because they wouldn't be able to compete with the lower costs the government would be able to achieve on behalf of a much larger volume of insured.

Is that really a problem? Is the health and well-being of the general public really an area where the profit motive should be the primary motive?

[rowech]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Any context to the quote?

As it is, it doesn't raise an eyebrow to me. If the goal is to make health insurance available to all at an affordable cost AND imrove overall healthcare costs/expenses, it makes reasonable sense to penalize those who opt out and purposely expose themselves to the financial and health risks of failing to carry insurance (since taxpayers would often end up covering the costs and/or the healthcare providers would have to eat their costs). 2.5% of your income seems like a substantial deterrent to folks that would rather roll the dice, pocket the money, and hope for the best.

You can read the article on any website...the context is that it's talking about penalties for employers and workers for not getting insurance.

As for your 2nd part, it is my right to not take health insurance if I don't want it. Period.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Auto insurance is already mandated in most states. I get the general libertarian argument, but how do you deal with the costs to the rest of us for those that get hurt/sick? Why should those that choose to pay for insurance have to pay for those that don't? It's not as simple as saying this mandate is the only infringement on people's finances.

Difference being that those are state fees. If the state of Ohio chooses to get into this mess of health care for all, develops a plan, passes, etc. I'd still be upset but I would accept it because it comes from the state I live in and not the federal government.