[QUOTE=herbal tee;280547]...and no public option to keep them honest.

-Government monopolies don't keep anyone or anything "honest", and once they become the monopoly, you'll be out of luck.

As for "competition", the pseudo-socialist plan doesn't have to worry about "competition", since it will have an apparently bottomless source of revenue: the US taxpayer. That source is not bottomless, but by then, it'll be too late.

Originally Posted by playwrite

CBO also found that the Democrats' bill reduces the deficit in the first 10 years.

...and then continues to balloon ever after. Besides, the historical record with the CBO is that it underestimates the cost of a government program, then overestimates the take of government revenues to fund it. Of course, since Obamacare won't be slated to take full effect until 2013, no one will notice until after the election.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...First, you may notice that he blows off 15 million people because, well, they can go to the emergency room....

-Looks like it.

PW thinks that socialized medicine will be a bargain in comparison. Ha Ha!

http://www.creators.com/opinion/ben-shapiro/myths-lies-and-stupidity-about-health-care.html

Originally Posted by playwrite

...he also blows off an additional 12 million people because they might be eligible for Medicaid and SCHCIP, but does he provide any analysis of what would it cost the taxpayer if they did all apply...

-But they haven't...

Originally Posted by playwrite

...And does he provide any discussion of how those 12 million coupled with the 9 million with incomes greater than $75K being out of the pool of insured makes the insurance for everyone else much more expensive...

-How dare those 21M decide to pay out of pocket!

BTW, I'm sure that PW would love to explain why 21M more people clogging the insurance system would have a lowering effect on the price of other people's insurance policies? I bet it won't make mandatory insurance or socialized insurance look good.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...One can go to the GOP's own website...

-Here, PW confuses "GOP" with "conservative" or "libertarian".

Originally Posted by playwrite

so now you oppose state rights?

-The people in individual states should be able to pass stupid laws if they desire, but they also get to suffer the results of those stupid laws (in this case, higher medical costs), and they are. The good thing is, we can learn from the mistakes of states (or countries) who screw around with the free market, and learn from their error. The correct answer is that those states should get rid of their stupid restrictions. I'm sure Rani can give examples:

Originally Posted by The Rani

Free market my ass:

Group Health Insurance Regulations State-by-State

Originally Posted by playwrite

You should be highly skeptical of anything Mr. Glick posts. He actually puts a disclaimer in every one of his posts - it a Freudian thingee...

-No. its a reminder that I take Progreesives' double-think and hypocrisy, and rub their noses in it:
---

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

-So cry many Boomers like Haymarket & Playwrite whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows.

Here's the thing guys -- or, let's see if you can figure it out -

- with a little info -
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/200...its-back.html#

Democratic sources tell me that Reid – after a series of meetings with Democratic moderates – has concluded he can pass a bill with a public option
.
.
.
1) Reid’s version would allow individual states to opt-out of the program, giving public option critics the chance to say that their states retain the right to scrap the idea

and a little more info-
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...-care-bill.php

Two high profile conservative Democrats are saying they hear that Senate and White House health care negotiators are leaning toward including the public option in the base bill that they bring to the Senate floor.

"I keep hearing there is a lot of leaning toward some sort of national public option, unfortunately, from my standpoint," said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE). "I still believe a state-based approach is the way in which to go. So I'm not being shy about making that point."

"What I'm hearing is this is the direction of the conversation," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND).

and some insight from mcjoan at DailyKos
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1...cus-Apoplectic

Carper, who had the original opt in idea, also says this is where the bill is headed. And the left flank of Senate Dems, Jay Rockefeller has indicated that he's not entirely opposed to an opt out. The outlines that Carper and Rockefeller have given for their understanding of it--that it would be a national plan that states could only opt out of a year or two after implementation--makes it more attractive for the majority of Dems who want the strong public option. If saying that down the road states can leave is enough to get moderates on board--and the public option in the Senate bill--it seems that many of them will be able to live with that

and a little more insight from Krugman -
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/200...ity-of-reform/

October 22, 2009, 3:32 pm
The irreversibility of reform
Aha. Somehow I missed this poll of Massachusetts residents on the state’s health-care reform. Interesting and important stuff.

What you need to know here is that Mass. is widely regarded as an example of how not to do reform: it’s a cobbled-together plan, with inadequate funding and poor cost controls. Conservatives have claimed that the plan is deeply unpopular — basing their views on, yes, a Rasmussen poll. Liberals have held up Massachusetts as a cautionary tale: pass a reform that isn’t really good, and the public will turn sour on the whole thing.

But what the poll actually finds is that public support for the plan is holding up pretty well, given the political environment. And what’s really telling is this finding:

"The poll found that 79 percent of those surveyed wanted the law to continue, though a majority said there should be some changes, with cost reductions cited as the single most important change that needs to be made.

Only 11 percent of state residents favored repealing the law, similar to last year’s finding.

What this suggests is that the really important thing, for reformers, is to get the principle of universality established. Once that happens, there’s no going back.

Have you figured out what "it" is?

For those a little slow on the uptake, "it" is related to the expanded list of what Glick will be whinning about 10 years from now.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

BTW, I'm sure that PW would love to explain why 21M more people clogging the insurance system would have a lowering effect on the price of other people's insurance policies? I bet it won't make mandatory insurance or socialized insurance look good.

To anyone with just a casual interest in the topic, this question of yours shows that your position is not just based on a different (and asinine) political viewpoint; it shows you are completely ignorant of the issue. I suggest you spend a little time educating yourself so that you can at least do the equivalent of rubbing-two-sticks-together on this issue.

Maybe start with googling the term "insurance pooling."

"A whole new world is waiting for the ignorant if they would just put a little effort into it." - Mom, October 22 2009

Originally Posted by playwrite

Maybe start with googling the term "insurance pooling."

...which brings me back to my original point:

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

-How dare those 21M decide to pay out of pocket!

We will force them into a plan they don't want! Why, to bail out a crappy socialist system.

And although PW took the time to explain his totalitarian plans to me, he really hasn't answered any of Rani's points.

Not that I care that much...

---

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

-So cry many Boomers like Haymarket & Playwrite whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah, I've been holding back. But I just thought of another obvious one. The regulation of prescription and non-prescription drugs by the FDA.

Can you expand on this?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Of course.

Will you expand on it?

Originally Posted by The Rani

...I'm not interested in a pissing contest.

-Wow. I think you came to the wrong place.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

We will force them into a plan they don't want! Why, to bail out a crappy socialist system.

And although PW took the time to explain his totalitarian plans to me,

You see, I try to educate you a little and you get all cranky. Typical, and I believe the root of much of the teabagging going on these days. You guys just can't stand to be informed!

Remember, what you ask was for me "to explain why 21M more people clogging the insurance system would have a lowering effect on the price of other people's insurance policies?" It is a different question to ask if that is appropriate measure for our government to take. So now that you are educated, you might be able to join an adult discussion of the upsides and downsides.

Unfortunately, lack of education is not you teabaggers only problem. There's that whole "wired for claptrap" (TM) thingee. Your assertion that this is just "to bail out a crappy socialist system" doesn't recognize that the political push for mandatory coverage comes primarily from one of the epitomes of our capitalistic system - the insurance companies.

But that is not the biggest obstacle in having rational discourse with you teabaggers or any of the movement conservatives since Ayn Rand wrote her various screeches. And that would be your getting lost in your self-created hyperbole -

"- his totalitarian plans"

You must think I am one hell of a persuasive playwright with daily audiences with the tops of all three branches of our government! Yikes, that would scare even me!

I think one reason 4T's happen is we don't have adult Heroes (in this case the GIs) to slap you guys out of your aggrandized self-pity.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

he really hasn't answered any of Rani's points.

Not that I care that much...

Be careful here, its a dangerous game to assume alliance with the unpredictable Rani!

I, for one, can't figure out what profound statement you are trying to make here -

-The people in individual states should be able to pass stupid laws if they desire, but they also get to suffer the results of those stupid laws (in this case, higher medical costs), and they are. The good thing is, we can learn from the mistakes of states (or countries) who screw around with the free market, and learn from their error. The correct answer is that those states should get rid of their stupid restrictions. I'm sure Rani can give examples:

People should live by the laws in their states? Well, duh. If your saying that states should not have laws related to insurance, well, that cherry-picking of where the states rights should and should not supersede federal purview, just makes apparent the typically confused Libertarian thinking (note, the Right's attack on FL's state rights in the 2000 election perhaps being the penultimate example). If your saying that medical care and insurance should be left only to the private sector, well, basically, you're just one of the 3T sheeple still victimized by the passing 3T - I would advise that you WTFU. Oh, wait, I forgot you ARE on the govt teet for health care. Nevermind.

Just today, Krugman has some interesting insight on the biggest bugaboo of state insurance approaches, the Massachusetts program -

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/op...26krugman.html

But the experience in Massachusetts, which passed major health reform back in 2006, should dampen conservative hopes and soothe progressive fears.

Like the bill that will probably emerge from Congress, the Massachusetts reform mainly relies on a combination of regulation and subsidies to chivy a mostly private system into providing near-universal coverage. It is, to be frank, a bit of a Rube Goldberg device — a complicated way of achieving something that could have been done much more simply with a Medicare-type program. Yet it has gone a long way toward achieving the goal of health insurance for all, although it’s not quite there: according to state estimates, only 2.6 percent of residents remain uninsured.

This expansion of coverage has tremendous significance in human terms. The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured recently did a focus-group study of Massachusetts residents and reported that “Health reform enabled many of these individuals to take care of their medical needs, to start seeing a doctor, and in some cases to regain their health and control over their lives.” Even those who probably would have been insured without reform felt “peace of mind knowing they could obtain health coverage if they lost access to their employer-sponsored coverage.”

And reform remains popular. Earlier this year, many conservatives, citing misleading poll results, claimed that public support for the Massachusetts reform had plunged. Newer, more careful polling paints a very different picture. The key finding: an overwhelming 79 percent of the public think the reform should be continued, while only 11 percent think it should be repealed.

Interestingly, another recent poll shows similar support among the state’s physicians: 75 percent want to continue the policies; only 7 percent want to see them reversed.

Originally Posted by Ghost Echo

Well, I'm probably stepping into territory unknown saying this. But I believe the option proposed allowing each state to accept or deny the public option was a smart move. It deflates a lot of the arguments against healthcare reform in general and allows the blue states to move ahead on the issue. However the most important is that it gives the red states a highly visible measure of power to exercise in what they see as an increasing federal government, hostile to their ideals.

Looks like we'll know in about 20 minutes -

At 3:15 p.m. today, Harry Reid will hold a news conference explaining what's in the Senate bill. Expectations are that he's going to announce the inclusion of a national public option that states can reject if they choose.

Pre-announcement announcement -

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this afternoon will announce his decision to include a government-run health care plan, or "public option," in the health care bill he brings to the floor, CBS News has learned.

Live press conference here -

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=1n&tag=watchnow

It's in -

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- A Senate health-care bill will include a government-run health insurance plan option, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday. However, states will have the opportunity to opt out of the plan, Reid told reporters on Capitol Hill. Reid said a public option isn't a "silver bullet" but he supports it as part of reform.

Reid is willing to forgo the faux bipartisanship of the "Snowe Trigger." Is this just Reid needing the Progressives in his corner for a tough election next year or is it showing that getting 'it' done is more important - or, are these two choices too intermingled to discern a difference?

Could this snowball into the Regeneracy or is it going to prove as a false start to it?

I think only time will tell, but its looking better now that it did just a few minutes ago.

This "state opt-out" significance could go beyond health insurance/care reform; it could be key to the political future of this country.

Perhaps the only thing that could be more divisive would be to allow states to opt out of Rov v Wade. Depending how the opt out mechanism is set up, this is going to be the litmus test from the far right for any govenor and/or state legislator.

Should states not have the opt-out until 2 years have past (2013 to 2015), then it may go away as a litmus test because much of their constituents will want it. However, if they can opt out right away, then th wingers may have some big 'wins' that will opt out several Red states. It will then be a few years before the comparisons between states in medical care and insurance prices become apparent. My money is on the states that don't opt out.

This could become a means to divide the Nation on several key issues and test, with major consequences, basic political theories. Imagine if certain states had opt-out of FDR programs in the 1930s. Where do you think the South would be today if they had?

For those who are honestly wrestling with the "individual mandate" with an open mind, here is an analytical take from a good econ man -

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...lth-insurance/

excerpt -

this really necessary?

As usual, an economist can answer this question with the profession’s unambiguous “It depends.”

Such a mandate would not be necessary, and not even desirable, if two conditions were met.

First, Americans were willing to deny care to uninsured or underinsured people who are critically ill, but who cannot pay for that care with their own resources – even if that meant those people would die for want of care.

Second, Americans were content to let health insurers set their premiums on “actuarially sound and fair” principles.

Actuarially sound and fair premiums are based on the prospective actuarial cost of the insured to the insurer. “Actuarial cost” refers to the insurer’s best estimate of the outlays the insurer will have to make in the period covered by insurance contract for that individual’s health care. Estimating these expected costs and basing premiums on them is called “medical underwriting.”

Is this how Americans want their health system to work?

Perhaps some do. But from opinion surveys over the years and the endless laments Americans offer in the media on the deficiency and sometimes cruelty of our health system, one gathers that the majority of Americans dream of a health system in which every American can afford “adequate” health insurance, and no American will be denied timely health care for want of ability to pay.

More, much more can be found there.

Originally Posted by playwrite

For those who are honestly wrestling with the "individual mandate" with an open mind, ...
.

The Opt out option is a bad idea. What we really need is every citizen in the same insurance pool( no exceptions). Then the insurance providers must take anyone ( or no one).

On a side front, yesterday 60 Minutes did a piece on Medicare fraud. It seems that if a medical supply company has minimal information on a Medicare patient, such as name, address and social security number, the government has 15 days to pay the bill. With recent cut backs in regulation and other forms of budget, there are not enough people to verify that the medical company in question is legitimate. One can hire a store front, put in a telephone line, acquire lists of patients and a book of expense codes, and one can bilk the government big time. It is prudent to shift stores and phone numbers every few months, but the fraud is causing a major hemorrhage in money.

It doesn't seem like it ought to be that difficult to block most of it. If the patient or primary health care provider were required to verify which companies are providing service, you could catch it. Some sort of licensing or registration of medical suppliers would also help. Right now, though, the system leaks money like a sieve.

Originally Posted by radind

The Opt out option is a bad idea. What we really need is every citizen in the same insurance pool( no exceptions). Then the insurance providers must take anyone ( or no one).

I think you are right, but will healthy people really move to red states while sick people move to blue states? If not, getting something passed in the short term while allowing the Red states to lay in their own soiled bed might not be too bad.

Originally Posted by radind

The Opt out option is a bad idea. What we really need is every citizen in the same insurance pool( no exceptions). Then the insurance providers must take anyone ( or no one).

The question is how to get there.
See "politics."

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

.. With recent cut backs in regulation and other forms of budget, there are not enough people to verify ...

Hey, come on! The Bush Administration realized sooner than the rest of us that they needed to move regulatory oversignt and manpower post haste to watching the mortgage, securitization, and derivatives markets! Otherwise, we could have faced a financial meltdown like you never....

Opps, wait a minute.

Ah, never mind.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I think you are right, but will healthy people really move to red states while sick people move to blue states? If not, getting something passed in the short term while allowing the Red states to lay in their own soiled bed might not be too bad.

Angry Bear's got some early question on that -

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/1...-commerce.html

Let's say I am from Washington State and have an individual plan through the Public Option and am visiting relatives in Indiana, an opt out state. And I fall down on the ice and break a bone. Under those circumstances I would think they would have to accept my insurance, opt out can't mean that you just become uncovered every time you fly over Mississippi. That's scenario one.

Scenario two. I move to Indiana temporarily for a contract job lasting more than a year. Surely I can maintain my coverage?

Scenario two A. I move to Indiana on that temporary contract and get engaged and marry my High School crush. (Hi LT!). Am I prevented from adding her to my plan?

Scenario three. I am an executive in Seattle for a company that buys insurance from the PO but maintain my full time residence in Coeur d'Alene Idaho (which as a live free or die red state opted out) and commute by plane. Is my Public Option plan affected?

Scenario four. I am a self-employed consultant based out of my lake front house in Coeur d'Alene but spend much of my time working for clients in Portland and Seattle. Whether or not I maintain a residence in either city what prevents me from stopping by the insurance office and signing up for the PO through the Exchange? Can one state actually prevent you from buying a perfectly legal product in another state and having your local doctor accept that product? What use then is the Commerce Clause?

Scenario five. I run a consulting shop incorporated in Idaho but with a small office in Portland and Billings and a larger one in Seattle. If Idaho has opted out I am actually prevented from buying a group plan on the Washington Exchange and including myself and my small Oregon and Montana staffs in it along with my larger Seattle group?

Like they do with countries, I'm thinking the State Department can issue traveler alerts to those entering Red States - warning tourist to carry a gun, don't talk politics and get temporary insurance. Sorta like traveling to certain developing countries. Maybe they can put up warning signs at the border - "Caution, here lies idiots majority. Take precautions. Buy special insurance and don't drink the water."

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I think you are right, but will healthy people really move to red states while sick people move to blue states? If not, getting something passed in the short term while allowing the Red states to lay in their own soiled bed might not be too bad.

It will at least be a start and I don't expect much moving. Although some extremely ill people may be forced to move for economic reasons.
Will be interesting to see if anyone actually does 'opt out'.

If a healthcare bill is passed with an opt out proposal, it may create pressure in unexpected places such as South Carolina. The reason why I suspect that this is so is because of the reaction that happened when Governor Mark Sanford, who hadn't yet been scandalized by his Argentine fling, thought that he was going to get the inside track to the GOP nomination by turning down stimulus money.
What he got instead was a angry populace. A lot of South Carolinians know that the state is poorer than average and needs the money. A lot of politicans seem to run on the basic assumption that the red state voters are as they are because of deference to the elite. That may not be as true as many assume. If opt out becomes the law I suspect that a large segment of the red state population will seek the same level of protection that the rest of the country has. It may well be one of the sparks that forces the state level Republicans to accept the emerging 4T consensus. Nothing moves a politican faster than the threat of being defeated by a political tidal wave.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

If a healthcare bill is passed with an opt out proposal, it may create pressure in unexpected places such as South Carolina. The reason why I suspect that this is so is because of the reaction that happened when Governor Mark Sanford, who hadn't yet been scandalized by his Argentine fling, thought that he was going to get the inside track to the GOP nomination by turning down stimulus money.
What he got instead was a angry populace. A lot of politicans seem to run on the basic assumption that the red state voters are as they are because of deference to the elite. If opt out becomes the law I suspect that a large segment of the red state population will seek the same level of protection that the rest of the country has. It may well be one of the sparks that forces the state level Republicans to accept the emerging 4T consensus. Nothing moves a politican faster than the threat of being defeated by a changing political landscape.

Putting away my snark (w/apolgies to my Silent friends), this is my thinking as well
- just much better stated, HT.

Damn, you Southern writers have always been tough to compete with!

Originally Posted by playwrite

...Remember, what you ask was for me "to explain why 21M more people clogging the insurance system would have a lowering effect on the price of other people's insurance policies?"

-And Playwrite thinks he has the right to tell them what to do.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...Your assertion that this is just "to bail out a crappy socialist system" doesn't recognize that the political push for mandatory coverage comes primarily from one of the epitomes of our capitalistic system - the insurance companies...

-Playwrite seems to be confusing the word "company" with "capitalist". Plenty of companies supported FDR's NIRA because it protected them from efficient competition. Honest enterpenuers despised it.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...Just today, Krugman has some interesting insight on the biggest bugaboo of state insurance approaches, the Massachusetts program -

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26krugman.html

-Who gives a flying crap what Krugman thinks?

---

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

WARNING: The poster known as jamesdglick has a history of engaging in fraud. He makes things up out of his own head and attempts to use these blatant lies to score points in his arguments. When you call him on it, he will only lie further. He has such a reputation for doing this that many people here are cowed into silence and will not acknowledge it or confront him on it.

Anyone who attempts to engage with glick will discover this and find out you have wasted your time and energy on an intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

-So cry many Boomers like Haymarket & Playwrite whenever they fail to explain their hypocritical self-justifications, their double-standards, and their double-think forays into evil. Perhaps their consciences bother them, perhaps not. Who knows.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

-And Playwrite thinks he has the right to tell them what to do.

I don't think I've made my postition clear on the "mandate," you only asked me to educate you on what was behind it. Again, while now educated, you need to move beyond the teabagging claptrap if you want an honest discussion.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

- -Playwrite seems to be confusing the word "company" with "capitalist". Plenty of companies supported FDR's NIRA because it protected them from efficient competition. Honest enterpenuers despised it.

"Honest enterrpenuers" are they like "real Americans" - you know the ones that only agree with you and that the rest (while being the majority of Americans) just hate America.

I rather enjoy these civil wars you guys come up with amongst yourselves as to who really is the true fringe. Just delightful! And most important, keep it up!


P.s. Why aren't you posting your warning any more? Did someone finally explain it to you - real slow.

Ugh...I don't really want to step into the battle, but I am interested in hearing what others have to say about the concern I have.

I support health care reform, and I'm insured. I think the current system is a mess that really, at the root, is due to greed. But here's what I fear:

I'd written elsewhere that our country has this on-going identity crisis. Are we capitalist or socialist? How much socialism can we participate in while still beating our chests to the rest of the world over our capiltalist successes?

Because of that conflict of ideals, I fear that our first steps into nationally-funded healthcare will be a blend of socialism and capitalism that will ultimately be a disaster. We won't want to anger the highly profitable insurance and pharmeceutical industries, who will, somewhat accurately, say that they need profits to continue cutting-edge research. But we need to somehow ensure that the sick child of underinsured waitress gets quality care for no other reason than that child is a human being. So our two-party system will create a plan that tries to please both sides.

However, I just don't think a successful plan will please both sides. I admit right now that I might be woefully wrong, but I'm beginning to think that, for national healthcare to be a success that doesn't require the insured to compromise what they currently have, we have to go fully socialist on this. Does the thought of relenquishing that kind of control to the government leave me unsettled? Yes, but I would be more unsettled if I thought lawmakers were trying to create a socialized plan with series of small compromises to keep those with an eye on profit happy. When dealing with helping those who need medical attention, I don't want the government to have conceded points in the name of pleasing a profitable industry.

I'm not a socialist. I'm not a Republican or a Democrat, so I don't have any political platform to which I'm trying to maintain an allegiance. I am just growing increasingly skeptical as I watch what I believe is our government trying to create a very significant plan of change that could very well include too many concessions for the wrong reasons.

Any input?