Originally Posted by The Rani

What do think the Repub version of health care reform would look like?

Faith healing.

Originally Posted by The Rani

What do think the Repub version of health care reform would look like?

Do you remember what the Super Bowl used be like before unrestricted free agency? It always looked like two of six major teams were always playing in the Super Bowl with a new face popping in every now and then. Today, we can pretty much count on seeing a new face in the Super Bowl every year. As far as your question, I don't know the liberals won't let us hear it or see it. But, I assume that it would be more limited as far as Government and much more open as far as the market is concerned.

The NFL is the biggest welfare state imaginable! Not only does the team that finishes with the worst record in the league get an uncontested shot at acquiring the best college player in the country, but the teams that finish in last place in their respective divisions one year get an easy schedule (relative to the other teams in their own division, anyway) the following year.

No conservative should ever hold up the NFL as any kind of "ideal" organization.

from KIA on Republican health care

But, I assume that it would be more limited as far as Government and much more open as far as the market is concerned.

Not just one but two vague and meaningless ideological cliches in the same sentence. Well done!

Originally Posted by K-I-A 67

Do you remember what the Super Bowl used be like before unrestricted free agency? It always looked like two of six major teams were always playing in the Super Bowl with a new face popping in every now and then. Today, we can pretty much count on seeing a new face in the Super Bowl every year. As far as your question, I don't know the liberals won't let us hear it or see it. But, I assume that it would be more limited as far as Government and much more open as far as the market is concerned.

That's actually a great analogy.

NFL owners are billionaires. The teams in the Super Bowl change more frequently (although actually, not that much more frequently) because this year, one particular billionaire went on a spending spress and bought enough free agents to make it.

Under Republican health care, high-end health care is reserved for the rich.

It's unbelievable to me that anyone can even use the market as something to look for in health care as a debating point, much less actually believe it. We know what the market does in health care. It creates insurance companies whose purpose is to sell insurance to people who don't need it and refuse it to the rest of us--or drop them when they get sick. That's called profit maximization, and it is what private companies do.

I'm also amazed that anyone who could type a post could ask whether we want our health care to be limited by what the government can afford. There are two options for paying for health care--just two.

1. Each of us pays for ourself. 99% of us would not be able to afford any remotely serious illnesss.

2. We socialize the risk and pay out of one or more pools. In that case, OBVIOUSLY, treatment has to be based on what the pool, as a whole, can afford. Right now, you Republican lunatics, you get what your insurance company thinks it can afford. While it skims a huge profit off the top. Medicare patients (probably the single biggest part of the health care population) get what Medicare thinks it can afford. That's the only way the program can exist.

I am increasingly depressed that a few obstructionist conservatives, here as in the US Congress, manage to tie up the discussion day after day. My post, about a real person with real health care issues, didn't draw a single comment.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Like a kid waiting for Santa Claus.

Wow, I agree with Rani!

Originally Posted by playwrite

Point to Playwrite.

But, "kid waiting for Santa Claus"? WTH? That's not quite the old Rani edginess we've all come to expect.

Some disappointments have been creeping in here amongst your adoring audience of late.

Perhaps I actually did you a favor by chasing away that usurper. There can only be one Rani on any board. She was pretty young - and obviously pretty peppy. And well, darling, you're not getting any younger.

You really are a dumbshit. I am a male.

We do know what the market does in health care, but we have to look in third-world countries to find out.

It ain't pretty.

In case some here did not get it (or do not want to get it) my "I want to believe" comment was a X Files reference made to inject a bit of humor.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

You really are a dumbshit. I am a male.

You also don't post as "Rani". Playwrite was posting to Rani, not you.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

You really are a dumbshit. I am a male.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah, I had no idea what he meant there either.

Oh, a 'trans-gender' fight for the thrown - even more interesting!

I think it will break out from you two vying for the heart and mind of KIA
- the stakes saying as much about the competition as it does the trophy.

Glad to see your back, 8!
- I really don't mind the snidness - I've been know to throw some around, on occassion.
Its the mindless pandering to false memes that makes me bark.

Ruff-ruff!

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

We do know what the market does in health care, but we have to look in third-world countries to find out.

It ain't pretty.

You're making a pretty fundamental mistake. It's not pretty because they're third-world countries. The fact that health care is available at all in godforsaken places (I got my busted face stitched up a few years ago at a pay-clinic in the middle of ass-nowhere in the central mountains of Kalimantan Timur -- so I kind of know a little bit about what I'm talking about...) at prices accessible to impoverished people is a testament to the capabilities of people to deliver.

Of course, as Rani pointed out, the manifestation of insurance companies in the US today is hardly a market phenomenon.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

In case some here did not get it (or do not want to get it) my "I want to believe" comment was a X Files reference made to inject a bit of humor.

"Okay, Mulder, But I'm warning you if this is monkey pee you're on your own"
- Dana Scully

"Sometimes the need to mess with their heads outweighs the millstone of humiliation."
- Fox Mulder

Scully: "Should we arrest David Copperfield?"
Mulder: "Yes, but not for this"

Playwrite - the Copperfield line is a classic.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

... the middle of ass-nowhere in the central mountains of Kalimantan Timur...

In treker parlance: you were sportin a very thin umbilicord when you went thar!
(for you Irish trekers, that would translate as "sportin a wee umbillical")

But, face plant or not, you're still the handsome devil, right?!

Originally Posted by Justin '77

... the manifestation of insurance companies in the US today is hardly a market phenomenon.

... and even much less, a government one. Worst of both worlds, more or less.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You're making a pretty fundamental mistake. It's not pretty because they're third-world countries.

That's part of the reason. It's certainly worse because of that. But since I didn't explain what I was talking about, you actually don't know whether I'm making a mistake or not.

The fact that health care is available at all in godforsaken places . . . at prices accessible to impoverished people is a testament to the capabilities of people to deliver.

The prices are NOT accessible to impoverished people. That's what I was saying. One of the recurring sad stories from third world countries is the poor person whose kid dies because he can't afford to take him to see a doctor.

And that's pretty much what one should expect to happen from a genuinely market-driven medical system, no matter where it's located. Prices will be set so that enough people can afford the services for doctors, hospitals, etc. to prosper. Poorer people will be SOL. That's how ALL markets operate.

Now, if the consequence of that is that poor people can't afford to drive a Mercedes, big deal. But if it's that poor people can't afford life-saving medical treatment for their children, that's a problem. And as far as market dynamics is concerned, there's no difference between those two.

Of course, as Rani pointed out, the manifestation of insurance companies in the US today is hardly a market phenomenon.

I'm aware that insurance distorts the picture, which is why I brought up third-world countries. A free market in medical care, or anything else that necessary, is not a good idea.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... and even much less, a government one. Worst of both worlds, more or less.

Ain't that the truth.

This is one of the biggest things that worries me about gov solutions here in the states. Whenever the gov steps in to help the little guy, somehow after a few years we get all the corruption and inefficiency of gov solutions, and all the inequality and exclusion of market systems. I'm not sure how this works, or even if it's just because we're americans. My friends in Iceland love their system, but I'm almost certain that if we tried to do 1/10th of what they're doing, we'd end up with bloated rich wall streeters wallowing in public funds, health "care" insurance companies which provide little care and don't seem concerned with health, a gigantic welfare system revolving around policing the entire world mostly benefitting haliburton and monsanto...

oh wait.

Originally Posted by The Rani

The "she was pretty young" comment wasn't about me. That's why I got confused.

No, I was confused.
I should have realized the gender when he didn't use those OOOs and XXXs to sign off on each post! Or, the more ubiquitous, "You go, girl!"
Silly, dumbshit me!

I still think you two are destined to cross swords (or, whatever). But now, with 8's coming out, who knows where it might lead for you two?! KIA better stay on HIS toes!

Originally Posted by antichrist

Ain't that the truth.

This is one of the biggest things that worries me about gov solutions here in the states. Whenever the gov steps in to help the little guy, somehow after a few years we get all the corruption and inefficiency of gov solutions, and all the inequality and exclusion of market systems. I'm not sure how this works, or even if it's just because we're americans. My friends in Iceland love their system, but I'm almost certain that if we tried to do 1/10th of what they're doing, we'd end up with bloated rich wall streeters wallowing in public funds, health "care" insurance companies which provide little care and don't seem concerned with health, a gigantic welfare system revolving around policing the entire world mostly benefitting haliburton and monsanto...

oh wait.

I'm not looking at what is being proposed that way. I think Haymarket's analogy to utility governance in this country is not only brilliant in its insightfulness but is actually what is being proposed.

Generally, utilities in this country are pretty good. What most people complain about is cable, but where they have to compete with the phone companies (e.g., Verizon FIOS) as well as satelite, you can get some pretty good deals. And the competition really drives improvements if not costs. Heck, from the telephone sidie of things (cable, land lines, cells), you can now basically call any where in the country now for nothing - some day soon, kids are going to divide themselves from 'old people' by the latter being the only ones who know what "rollover minutes" use to mean.

In major metro areas, where most people now live, there will likely be more insurance choices than cable/telephone choices and certainly more choices than for water, electric and gas.

I think a hybird system can (obviously) go horrible wrong, but I think it can also go horrible right. Essentilally, this is what the French and Swiss have, and not too many of them complain about it.

Now, I've probable opened myself up to every complaint folks have about their utility bill or service, but out of providing to a few hundred million people, it really is just whinning - and don't we get enough of that here already?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Cheerleading and ass-kissing is what dumb liberals on this forum do.

You go, girl!

Originally Posted by playwrite

you go, girl!

!!!roflmao!!!:d:d:d

Well Ezra has now really laid it out there, i.e., this x-state lines and prudent exchange management thingee that nearly caused me to jump ship. Now lets see what responses this gets around netrootsland - its been intense the last couple of days already.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...nd_of_sta.html

Mailbag: Is this the end of state regulation?

A reader writes in:

One of Howard Dean's claims in arguing against the Senate bill on Morning Joe yesterday was that the bill enables insurance companies to operate across states lines -- is this true?

Sort of. The legislation allows states to form voluntary compacts with one another. California and Oregon, for instance, could decide that they want to allow insurers to offer products across both states, as that means a larger market for insurers to chase and thus more leverage for the California/Oregon exchange.

What it doesn't allow is for insurers to simply sell their wares in any state. Aetna could not, for instance, decide that Indiana's lax insurance regulation made it an appealing state to headquarter in, and then sell insurance that conformed to Indiana’s standards in New York. Thus, there's no race to the bottom unless states want to have a race to the bottom. But it's not clear why they'd want that.

And, of course, the answer to his question at the end is that it depends on how good the Social Darwinists are at bending over how many "cheerleading and ass-kissing" nimrod teabaggers in a particular state.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

You really are one-step from the looney bin, Playwrite. From one Mick to another, keep your head up.

An if that head be Guinness, I'm all in!
And shirley, you can you get the first round?


(Remember, I'm certain and Rani is Shirley)

Now that Ezra has kick the legs out from under Dean's rationale, he's turned to Markos demand to re-gain his support - the jettisoning of the individual mandate.

Wow, this Ezra kid is much more relentless than even me! Smarter too!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...ividual_m.html

Does this end the individual mandate debate?

States can choose to get rid of the individual mandate.

Whether you believe the mandate to be a good and necessary element of reform or a problematic and troubling gift to the insurance industries may not really matter. Section 1302 of the bill, "the Waiver for State Innovation," makes it easy to wait and see.

The waiver was inserted by Ron Wyden and it gives states considerable flexibility to walk away from parts of the bill if they believe they can better address cost and coverage on their own. The legislative language itself is complicated, but during the Senate Finance Committee's mark-up, Wyden clarified it with the committee's counsel. "My reading of what we have in the bill now," Wyden said, "is if a state can demonstrate that they can meet the criteria -- particularly on cost containment, improving the delivery system -- they can do it without an individual mandate. And can I ask, counsel, is that a correct reading of the Waiver Amendment that I offered?"

Counsel's reply was one word: "Yes."

More good stuff at the link.

Just hope netrootsland is paying attention and not just continuing with the death screams.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Hmm ... did you make this quote up? ...



Can't seem to find it when I click on the link. HM is going to kick your ass for misquoting.

LOL, It has a double meaning, Keep your Head up or Five across the Eyes.