We're already being forced to buy healthcare, only it's for people who won't buy it themselves.

Originally Posted by TnT

It will be interesting to see what happens to your health insurance group rate next time around as a result of this employee.

Some years ago it was commonplace for insurance companies to push risk down onto healthcare providers through contracts. For example, my clinical laboratory that I ran contracted with insurance companies based on "capitation agreements." This meant that we would bid against other labs for exclusive contracts. Under the terms of the contract we would be paid a dollar or a bit more per insured person per month ... getting therefore a check each month for the number of insured folks times the capitation rate. Our obligation then was to provide all the lab work that all these folks needed, no matter how much that turned out to be.

In this way the insurance companies are able to divest themselves of many of the components of risk, and the providers of the healthcare itself take on the risk.

In our case with one insurance company in Phoenix that had relatively few insured folks, a few of their folks got HIV which at that time required a lot of very expensive lab tests. These few patients wiped out the small payments that we received through the costs we suffered on their behalf.

I think that since I retired from that industry in 2006, that capitation has declined somewhat, though some still remains.

Interesting isn't it, how the insurance companies squeeze everyone? They'll complain to you, James, how much it costs them to have your cancer patient, while they raise your rates, and then perhaps they'll push the real risk of that patient's treatment down to the providers of the care via capitation agreements!

Gee, I know a story about a case like this too.

In 1999 a Boomer got pancreatic cancer. He had a complex operation at Johns Hopkins, which initially restored him to full health. It ran however to at least $100,000. He was a small business owner, in the entertainment business, in fact. They employed 20-30 people and had a group plan.

When the next bill came in, the insurer--I don't remember who it was--wanted to raise the premium by over $100,000 a year. It was an obvious attempt to recover costs. They relented, however, when the cancer-stricken business owner dropped out of the plan because he was able to get health insurance through his wife's policy--she worked for local government--despite his condition. That insurance paid for his care for the remaining seven years of his life.

For those of you who haven't figured it out, the patient/business owner was Bill Strauss.

And this, by the way, is why the Ryan plan will be an utter disaster that would bankrupt millions of seniors and some of their children. Today's insurance companies are in the business of providing insurance for people who very rarely need it. They benefit because they don't have to worry about the people who do--the elderly. Take away Medicare and our system will collapse completely.

Originally Posted by James50

Thanks PW. Good summary.

I am glad I am not one of the judges. From an outcomes point of view, the mandate is appropriate and necessary. Its just I don't like the government making someone buy a product with essentially no choice (this is where the analogy to car insurance breaks down). In my head I am for it, but in my heart, I am against it.

James50

James, if I remember rightly, you have expressed yourself in favor of single-payer, which, since it would come from taxes, is a mandate with a vengeance. Of course I support it too.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

James, if I remember rightly, you have expressed yourself in favor of single-payer, which, since it would come from taxes, is a mandate with a vengeance. Of course I support it too.

Taxes are a different animal from forced purchase. Like I said, I am torn.

James50

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Gee, I know a story about a case like this too.

In 1999 a Boomer got pancreatic cancer. He had a complex operation at Johns Hopkins, which initially restored him to full health. It ran however to at least $100,000. He was a small business owner, in the entertainment business, in fact. They employed 20-30 people and had a group plan.

When the next bill came in, the insurer--I don't remember who it was--wanted to raise the premium by over $100,000 a year. It was an obvious attempt to recover costs. They relented, however, when the cancer-stricken business owner dropped out of the plan because he was able to get health insurance through his wife's policy--she worked for local government--despite his condition. That insurance paid for his care for the remaining seven years of his life.

For those of you who haven't figured it out, the patient/business owner was Bill Strauss.

And this, by the way, is why the Ryan plan will be an utter disaster that would bankrupt millions of seniors and some of their children. Today's insurance companies are in the business of providing insurance for people who very rarely need it. They benefit because they don't have to worry about the people who do--the elderly. Take away Medicare and our system will collapse completely

I'm glad you pointed that out. I hadn't even considered that fact. It is true that a great percentage of the people requiring medical care on a regular basis are elderly people. Whenever I go to my doctor's office, which isn't very often BTW, almost every other patient sitting in the waiting room is a senior citizen. Same can be said when I go to pharmacy to pick up a prescription. Most of the other people standing in line are senior citizens. By requiring senior citizens to provide their own health coverage by going to private insurance companies, it would send all of our premiums through the roof. The insurance companies aren't going to just roll over take the hit. They will pass it along to everyone else.

Either you ration by dollars or you ration by government committee, take your pick. And when you ration by dollars these days you exclude more and more people every year as our economy inevitably finishes destroying itself. That's why the siren call of single payer is so insidious- it presents the only alternative in an untenable false dichotomy.

If we had real money and a real economy free of the corruptive force of the banker cabal and the masters behind what passes for politics these days, this wouldn't even be an issue. The problem is that so many people believe that freedom from the schemers is only an illusion, and spend their political thoughts choosing which slave master will be better rather than believing in themselves and their friends, family, and neighbors.

Our dire situation is an artificially created level of scarcity that wouldn't be happening if our monetary system wasn't being manipulated to benefit the few and the expense of the many. It's a vicious cycle of oppression and theft where people's work ethic and sense of shame are turned against them when they fail to gain purchase in an increasingly hostile economic climate. This fosters a climate of fear and desperation that grows as more people fall off the treadmill. And when people get more and more desperate, they are easier to bully and con.

Forcing people to buy insurance a la the Obama/Pelosi plan is not a solution to anything. The way these things are always set up, a working class person always makes too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford the things they need. Like mandated insurance. This will end up being yet another inescapable tax on people who have nothing. Given the choice between being forced to buy something you can't afford, and not being forced, what would the average person naturally choose? You don't get covered either way, but if Obamacare does end up going into full effect you will have to pay the tax penalty regardless. You get nothing for your money in that case, just another tax bill for nothing in return.

I think the people on this board must live in a bubble to not see what's going on out here, and to support these schemes. This country has unemployment like it has never seen, including the Great Depression. There are 129 million taxpayers according to the IRS, and at least 220 million people of working age. That is not a paltry 9.1% as is claimed.

And of those who are employed, how many are at dead end "service economy" jobs where they make $8 an hour and are taxed on the first penny? How do people make ends meet? This is not a trivial number of young students who are dealing with this either. Increasing numbers of people are falling directly into poverty.

We have major problems that are caused by the scheming of those who dominate the institutions that used to help this country work. And these neophyte amateur politicians can't even manage a good lie or scandal these days. This contributes to the lack of trust people have in them. We expect politicians to be professional liars at this point and these jokers manage to screw even that up. The crap they are shoveling lately is just insulting. And this health care business is just one more scam they are running on us. They have no answers, never did, and now its becoming clear they were the problem all along.

We'll get our solution to the mess created by the people with The Plan when those people are out of power for good, and the system changes to where this kind of destructive capacity doesn't rest in the hands of the few, or the lone man. And not before.

Oh, spare us, Seattleblue.

Or, tell you what. Take a look at the reality of health care in France, Germany, Japan, even Britain or Canada (whose systems are far from the best) -- anywhere in the advanced world except here -- and tell us how that represents "slavery."

You're making turnip ghosts out of nothing. Single-payer is nothing to fear.

Originally Posted by James50

Taxes are a different animal from forced purchase. Like I said, I am torn.

James50

On this one, I am tempted to agree, in a way, with Brian--things might have to get worse before they get better. If the courts indeed throw out the Administration plan, which I think is about a 50-50 shot, then single payer will emerge, maybe, as the only alternative, after a more or less sustained catastrophe. But if in the meantime the Republicans also gut Medicare, forget it.

Seattleblue, your free market fantasy is just that. The only way to afford health care for all is to socialize it. There's no other way.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

Either you ration by dollars or you ration by government committee, take your pick. And when you ration by dollars these days you exclude more and more people every year as our economy inevitably finishes destroying itself. That's why the siren call of single payer is so insidious- it presents the only alternative in an untenable false dichotomy.

The rationale for single-payer health care is that it would be less expensive than the current cost-loading system. Such would cut the costs of American goods that might be exported. Such would make the general cost of living lower. Such would make employers' costs of hiring workers lower without hurting the workers. Do nothing more than create "Medicare for All", and the most expensive system in the world becomes less costly. That is before any radical reforms.

If we had real money and a real economy free of the corruptive force of the banker cabal and the masters behind what passes for politics these days, this wouldn't even be an issue. The problem is that so many people believe that freedom from the schemers is only an illusion, and spend their political thoughts choosing which slave master will be better rather than believing in themselves and their friends, family, and neighbors.

I don't know whether you are Extreme Left or Extreme Right, but whatever it is it is nasty. Cartel better describes the American economy than does cabal.
We still have a choice between essentially a conservative party that has some room for liberals and a formerly-conservative Party going fascist. That choice is real.

Our dire situation is an artificially created level of scarcity that wouldn't be happening if our monetary system wasn't being manipulated to benefit the few and the expense of the many. It's a vicious cycle of oppression and theft where people's work ethic and sense of shame are turned against them when they fail to gain purchase in an increasingly hostile economic climate. This fosters a climate of fear and desperation that grows as more people fall off the treadmill. And when people get more and more desperate, they are easier to bully and con

.

It's more complicated than that. The George W. Bush Administration was pervasively corrupt, dishonest, and reckless, and while America got away with that for five years (long enough for Dubya to get re-elected so that he and his political cronies could cause even greater damage), the economic decisions that the 43rd Administration made undermined the American economy more severely. Rather than promoting thrift, enterprise, and business investment (the latter in plant and equipment that creates industrial jobs) as conservatives usually did before the 20th century, that horrible administration promoted a real estate bubble and consumer borrowing, the latter heavily of imports. It also pushed tax cuts designed to reward people largely for such contributions to our society as being born into the right family, getting high executive compensation for turning a manufacturer into an importer, making quick bucks on ruinous activities, and arranging business deals that would eventually go sour.

But crony capitalism is a topic best discussed elsewhere when it has nothing specific to do with healthcare.

Forcing people to buy insurance a la the Obama/Pelosi plan is not a solution to anything. The way these things are always set up, a working class person always makes too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford the things they need. Like mandated insurance. This will end up being yet another inescapable tax on people who have nothing. Given the choice between being forced to buy something you can't afford, and not being forced, what would the average person naturally choose? You don't get covered either way, but if Obamacare does end up going into full effect you will have to pay the tax penalty regardless. You get nothing for your money in that case, just another tax bill for nothing in return.

You are already compelled to pay into Social Security and Medicare if you earn income.

(rant snipped)

We'll get our solution to the mess created by the people with The Plan when those people are out of power for good, and the system changes to where this kind of destructive capacity doesn't rest in the hands of the few, or the lone man. And not before.

And who, pray tell, is the Man on the White Horse? Is it someone like Mao? Castro? Lenin? (Hugo) Chavez? Franco? Mussolini? Hit...?

...I hope that our political system can sort things out. Democracy works far better than tyranny. The alternatives are unspeakable.

I see hope in mass demonstrations against Governors who go too far in debasing the quality of their states on behalf of giant corporations. I see hope in the people who actively campaigned for Barack Obama in 2008, who will be back in 2012. I see hope in the harsh judgment that I see in polls against politicians who succeeded at bait-and-switch techniques once. We are catching onto the likes of Armey, Rove, and the Koch family. Viewership of FoX News is on the decline.

PM Cameron reassures the British they won't privatize. I guess the idea is political suicide there. Wish it were in the US, too.

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-fg-...,1237142.story

"If you're worried that we're going to sell off the NHS or create some American-style private system, we will not do that," he said. "In this country we have the most wonderful, precious institution and also precious idea that whenever you're ill … you can walk into a hospital or a surgery and get treated for free, no questions asked, no cash asked. It is the idea at the heart of the NHS, and it will stay. I will never put that at risk."

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...-pools/239833/

... the high-risk pools, which were meant to tide people over until 2013, have signed up just 18,000 people as of March.


There were supposed to be millions of people who were uninsurable because of pre-existing conditions... So where are all the uninsurable people?

...Since we don't seem to be able to find many of those people, HHS is using the money to cover anyone who lacks insurance and can get a doctor to attest that they've been sick in the last year. They will eventually no doubt claim that the high-risk pools were a success, relaxing the conditions until they can say they've covered 200,000 or so people. But the mystery will not have gone away. Where are the unsinsurables? And why didn't they want to buy insurance?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...-pools/239833/

... the high-risk pools, which were meant to tide people over until 2013, have signed up just 18,000 people as of March.


There were supposed to be millions of people who were uninsurable because of pre-existing conditions... So where are all the uninsurable people?


...Since we don't seem to be able to find many of those people, HHS is using the money to cover anyone who lacks insurance and can get a doctor to attest that they've been sick in the last year. They will eventually no doubt claim that the high-risk pools were a success, relaxing the conditions until they can say they've covered 200,000 or so people. But the mystery will not have gone away. Where are the unsinsurables? And why didn't they want to buy insurance?

OK, since you are personally on socialized medicine and hence unaware, let me use a bit of evidence, anecdotal though it is. First, let's agree that the cost to use the high-risk pool is high. We aren't talking $200/month here.

I know a couple my age who are out of the job market permanently. She worked very little over the years, but he was an executive-level guy for decades. Neither has insurance. Neither elected to get it ... until he needed gall bladder surgery. Now, they will get into the pool, reluctantly, and remain there until Medicare kicks-in. They tried to avoid the cost. Now, they can't afford to risk being uninsured with no avenue to get it again (you only get to enter the pool once).

I suspect this is a common theme for many uninsured families.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...-pools/239833/

... the high-risk pools, which were meant to tide people over until 2013, have signed up just 18,000 people as of March.


There were supposed to be millions of people who were uninsurable because of pre-existing conditions... So where are all the uninsurable people?

...Since we don't seem to be able to find many of those people, HHS is using the money to cover anyone who lacks insurance and can get a doctor to attest that they've been sick in the last year. They will eventually no doubt claim that the high-risk pools were a success, relaxing the conditions until they can say they've covered 200,000 or so people. But the mystery will not have gone away. Where are the unsinsurables? And why didn't they want to buy insurance?

There are thousands of uninsured out there with pre-existing conditions. As Marx and Lennon said, it's expensive and most people can't afford it. The cost in our state, for just me, is around $800 a month. That's bad enough, but the co-pays and deductables are a joke. When I calculated my expense for just one year, using the co-pay, monthly payment and $5000 dollar deductable required, it was somewhere in the ballpark of $15,000 a year out of pocket. Sound affordable to you?

Some states have attempted to lower the premiums, but it's still far from making it affordable for most people, especially in this economy.

All,
I use extracts of articles and posts to keep my posts brief and to focus attention to the specific issue I'm discussing. Those who wish to go in depth, or to comment, should click on the link for the entire article or post.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...I know a couple my age who are out of the job market permanently. She worked very little over the years, but he was an executive-level guy for decades. Neither has insurance. Neither elected to get it ... until he needed gall bladder surgery. Now, they will get into the pool, reluctantly, and remain there until Medicare kicks-in. They tried to avoid the cost. Now, they can't afford to risk being uninsured with no avenue to get it again (you only get to enter the pool once)...

...and...

Originally Posted by Deb C

There are thousands of uninsured out there with pre-existing conditions. As Marx and Lennon said, it's expensive and most people can't afford it. The cost in our state, for just me, is around $800 a month. That's bad enough, but the co-pays and deductables are a joke. When I calculated my expense for just one year, using the co-pay, monthly payment and $5000 dollar deductable required, it was somewhere in the ballpark of $15,000 a year out of pocket. Sound affordable to you? ...

...so in other words, the great Obamacare plan isn't so great?


Besides, the article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...-pools/239833/

...Suzy Khimm channels Nancy Pelosi to suggest that the political controversy over Obamacare has somehow prevented people from finding out about high-risk pools. I could certainly see how that would account for fewer-than-expected signups . . . but a 95% reduction?


Then there are those who claim that the problem is excessively stringent requirements. But the requirements aren't really all that stringent. You have to have been denied coverage by an insurer or offered insurance at a rate twice or more what a healthy person would pay...

The only argument that makes even a little bit of sense is that the premiums are high. But the people doing the projections knew that the premiums were going to be high. And besides, they're not, like, insanely high; the average monthly premium in North Carolina is $285 with a $3500 deductible, down from maybe $400 last year. I'm not downplaying that amount--it's a big hit on an ordinary budget--but for someone who's got a serious pre-existing condition, this should be money well spent...

...already covers your theories.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

OK, since you are personally on socialized medicine and hence unaware, let me use a bit of evidence, anecdotal though it is. First, let's agree that the cost to use the high-risk pool is high...

-Do you ever pay attention to anything? I've kindly provided you with plenty of background on your's truly over the past 3 years, and you still can't get the details right.

1) As USNR retired, I don't get any of that until age 60, and I've never used VA;

2) Getting a benefit as part of a contract is hardly socialist;

3) I think retirees have long since been put on Tricare, like dependents:

http://www.tricare.mil/

Apparently, it's not like going on sick call/bay. But if you don't get it, I guess that's OK, because I don't either. I've got a while to figure it out.

My understanding of you is that you were a electronics repairman in the ASA (4-year enlistment?) ca. '66-'70, and you are currently what some might call a War-Profiteering Merchant of Death with an affiliate of GE. Now I can understand Deb C screwing stuff up-- she probably thinks a 2nd lieutenat outranks a 1st lieutenant. You should be able to do better.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

All,
I use extracts of articles and posts to keep my posts brief and to focus attention to the specific issue I'm discussing.

Sure, that's it. And to think, we thought you just like the color schemes and the stalker note like quality

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...so in other words, the great Obamacare plan isn't so great?

And that is really just what you and that other bright light Megan McArdle (repeated winner of "world's worst economists") would like but just don't get. More clear with this from Megan -

They're changing the "high-risk pools" to something that looks a lot more like simply subsidizing insurance. But the goal wasn't to spend the $5 billion that HHS got in its budget; the goal was to provide insurance for people who want to buy insurance, but can't find a company willing to write it.

Yep, confusing tactics as goals. Gotta luv it!

High-risk pools come to an end in 2014 with the mandate that no one can be denied insurance due to previous condition. Now, it's only 2.5 years and counting until something is in place that will not only be as signficant but as invulnerble to you nasty idiots as SS and Medicare. The only way to stop this train is for the t-baggers to gain the Presidency, keep the House, and gain a filibuster-proof Senate.

tick, tick, tick...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...V9cH_blog.html

McKinsey releases methodology; firm concedes study not predictive

Under heavy pressure from Democrats and some reporters, McKinsey and Company has finally released the methodology of its study finding that many businesses are likely to drop insurance for employees (typo fixed) as a result of the Affordable Care Act.

There will be a lot to dig through here, but what’s immediately of interest is that in its statement, McKinsey repeatedly concedes that the study should not be seen as a predictor of future behavior. While McKinsey says it stands by the study’s methodology, the statement repeatedly stresses its lack of predictive value. This seems like a way of dealing with the fact that many other studies — unlike McKinsey — found that there would be minimal impact on employer-sponsored insurance:

We stand by the integrity and methodology of the survey.
The survey was not intended as a predictive economic analysis of the impact of
the Affordable Care Act. Rather, it captured the attitudes of employers and provided
an understanding of the factors that could influence decision making related to
employee health benefits.

As such, our survey results are not comparable to the healthcare research
and analysis conducted by others such as the Congressional Budget Office,
RAND and the Urban Institute. Each of those studies employed economic
modeling, not opinion surveys, and focused on the impact of healthcare
reform on individuals, not employer attitudes.


Comparing the McKinsey survey to economic estimates, such as the CBO’s,
is comparing apples to oranges. While the McKinsey Quarterly article about
the survey cited CBO estimates, any comparison is not apt. We understand
how the language in the article could lead the reader to think the research
was a prediction, but it is not.

Note the claim that the study only established factors that “could” influence employer decision-making on benefits later.

Of course, “readers” aren’t the only ones who saw the McKinsey study as a “prediction.” It has been widely cited by opponents of the Affordable Care Act as just that. For instance, GOP Senator Ron Johnson and Republican economist Doug Holz-Eakin claimed recently:

A recent employer survey by McKinsey & Co. found that more than
half of all American companies are likely to “dump” their workers into the
government-run exchanges. If half of the 180 million workers who enjoy
employer-provided care wind up in the exchanges, the annual cost of
Obamacare would increase by $400 billion by 2021.
One wonders if this clarification from McKinsey will do anything to stop
its study from being cited in this fashion.

In recent days it had become clear that questions about the question wording and sampling McKinsey used were not going away. So the company has now posted the questionnaire and survey results right here. Happy digging.

More soon.


UPDATE: As Jamison Foser points out, people might have thought the study was intended to be predictive because its initial headline was:

How US health care reform will affect employee benefits

Emphasis mine.


UPDATE II: I wonder how many of the news orgs that covered this study as a prediction will now cover the concession that it wasn’t intended to be a prediction.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...The only way to stop this train is for the t-baggers to gain the Presidency, keep the House, and gain a filibuster-proof Senate...

1) Overturning a bill doesn't require a filibuster proff majority. It just has to go through the process of a fiscal reconciliation bill (which is how Obamacare got passed in the first place). There's supposed to be a codicil which "prevents" that, but even the liberals on the USSC will rule against it.

2) It won't require a lot of Conservative or Libertarians to get rid of Obamacare as more progressives realize waht a train-wreck Obamacare is:

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/0...well-connected#

To lift "the fog of controversy" off the legislation, all Congress had to do, she explained, was "pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it."

As it's turned out, no small number of businesses in Nancy Pelosi's home district have opened the poke and discovered that it's filled with some real rubbish. Their response, increasingly, is "No thanks."

"Pelosi's district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide," waivers providing a year-long pass from Obamacare, reported Matthew Boyle in the Daily Caller last week.

"Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers the Obama administration approved in April," Boyle reports, "38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's Northern California district."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...es_109993.html

What do the following have in common? Eckert Cold Storage Co., Kerly Homes of Yuma, Classic Party Rentals, West Coast Turf Inc., Ellenbecker Investment Group Inc., Only in San Francisco, Hotel Nikko, International Pacific Halibut Commission, City of Puyallup, Local 485 Health and Welfare Fund, Chicago Plastering Institute Health & Welfare Fund, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee, Teamsters Local 522 Fund Welfare Fund Roofers Division, StayWell Saipan Basic Plan, CIGNA, Caribbean Workers' Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Health and Welfare Plan.

Answer: They are all among the 1,372 businesses, state and local governments, labor unions and insurers, covering 3,095,593 individuals or families, that have been granted a waiver from Obamacare by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.

All of which raises another question: If Obamacare is so great, why do so many people want to get out from under it?

Huge tax cuts bring in more tax revenue than any kind of tax increase. Its worked every single time its been done.

Originally Posted by Feripidgere

Huge tax cuts bring in more tax revenue than any kind of tax increase. Its worked every single time its been done.

Source?

The John Birch Society newsletter or a Rush Limbaugh transcript will not suffice.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

1) Overturning a bill doesn't require a filibuster proff majority. It just has to go through the process of a fiscal reconciliation bill (which is how Obamacare got passed in the first place). There's supposed to be a codicil which "prevents" that, but even the liberals on the USSC will rule against it.

2) It won't require a lot of Conservative or Libertarians to get rid of Obamacare as more progressives realize waht a train-wreck Obamacare is:

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/0...well-connected#

To lift "the fog of controversy" off the legislation, all Congress had to do, she explained, was "pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it."

As it's turned out, no small number of businesses in Nancy Pelosi's home district have opened the poke and discovered that it's filled with some real rubbish. Their response, increasingly, is "No thanks."

"Pelosi's district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide," waivers providing a year-long pass from Obamacare, reported Matthew Boyle in the Daily Caller last week.

"Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers the Obama administration approved in April," Boyle reports, "38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's Northern California district."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...es_109993.html

What do the following have in common? Eckert Cold Storage Co., Kerly Homes of Yuma, Classic Party Rentals, West Coast Turf Inc., Ellenbecker Investment Group Inc., Only in San Francisco, Hotel Nikko, International Pacific Halibut Commission, City of Puyallup, Local 485 Health and Welfare Fund, Chicago Plastering Institute Health & Welfare Fund, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee, Teamsters Local 522 Fund Welfare Fund Roofers Division, StayWell Saipan Basic Plan, CIGNA, Caribbean Workers' Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Health and Welfare Plan.

Answer: They are all among the 1,372 businesses, state and local governments, labor unions and insurers, covering 3,095,593 individuals or families, that have been granted a waiver from Obamacare by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.

All of which raises another question: If Obamacare is so great, why do so many people want to get out from under it?

The first part shows a complete and utter misunderstanding of the legislative process. Reconciliation was only possible AFTER the PPACA passed the Senate on December 24, 2009, by a filibuster-proof vote of 60–39 with all Democrats and Independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against.

The second part shows a complete and utter misunderstanding of the implementing stages of the ACA and how waivers and exemption were necessary given the step-by-step roll out of the various provisions. In 2014 with full implementation, there is no basis for the waiver/exemptions because the provisions for what the waivers/exemptions are for NO LONGER EXIST. Duh.

Try getting past the Right wing nut echo chamber and actually learn something, bonehead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYgVg...layer_embedded

I love Franken at the end -

PAUL: I appreciate the great and I think very collegial discussion, and we do have different opinions. Some of us believe more in the ability of government to cure problems and some of us believe more in the ability of private charity to cure these problems. I guess what I still find curious though is that if we are saving money with the two billion dollars we spend, perhaps we should give you 20 billion. Is there a limit? Where would we get to, how much money should we give you to save money? So if we spend federal money to save money where is the limit? I think we could reach a point of absurdity. Thank you.

FRANKEN: I think you just did.

We need more comedians in the Senate!

Originally Posted by playwrite

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYgVg...layer_embedded

I love Franken at the end -



We need more comedians in the Senate!

I so like having this guy as my senator.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... Reconciliation was only possible AFTER the PPACA passed the Senate on December 24, 2009, by a filibuster-proof vote of 60–39 with all Democrats and Independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against...

My apologies on the filibuster issue, but it will still not require 60 Elephants to overturn Obamacare, since there will be plenty of Donkeys to help by then.

Originally Posted by playwrite

... The second part shows a complete and utter misunderstanding of the implementing stages of the ACA and how waivers and exemption were necessary given the step-by-step roll out of the various provisions. In 2014 with full implementation, there is no basis for the waiver/exemptions because the provisions for what the waivers/exemptions are for NO LONGER EXIST...

-PW still hasn't explained why if Obamacare is so great, so many progressives are begging for waivers as long as they can:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/0...well-connected#

To lift "the fog of controversy" off the legislation, all Congress had to do, she explained, was "pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it."

As it's turned out, no small number of businesses in Nancy Pelosi's home district have opened the poke and discovered that it's filled with some real rubbish. Their response, increasingly, is "No thanks."

"Pelosi's district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide," waivers providing a year-long pass from Obamacare, reported Matthew Boyle in the Daily Caller last week.

"Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers the Obama administration approved in April," Boyle reports, "38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's Northern California district."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...es_109993.html

What do the following have in common? Eckert Cold Storage Co., Kerly Homes of Yuma, Classic Party Rentals, West Coast Turf Inc., Ellenbecker Investment Group Inc., Only in San Francisco, Hotel Nikko, International Pacific Halibut Commission, City of Puyallup, Local 485 Health and Welfare Fund, Chicago Plastering Institute Health & Welfare Fund, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee, Teamsters Local 522 Fund Welfare Fund Roofers Division, StayWell Saipan Basic Plan, CIGNA, Caribbean Workers' Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Health and Welfare Plan.

Answer: They are all among the 1,372 businesses, state and local governments, labor unions and insurers, covering 3,095,593 individuals or families, that have been granted a waiver from Obamacare by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.

All of which raises another question: If Obamacare is so great, why do so many people want to get out from under it?

...and getting them.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Here's what I'm seeing. The Republicans are making the same mistake you did above. They did not have a "big victory" in 2010. They had a victory by default. Very few people changed their minds between 2008 and 2010. What happened is that a lot of people who voted for Obama became disillusioned with him, but most of those people didn't vote Republican, they just didn't vote period. The Republicans received the votes of only a little more than 20 percent of the eligible electorate (given 41% turnout and the fact that they had a majority). Now, regardless, the law says that this means the Republicans control the House of Representatives and quite a few state houses today. Well and good -- but the meaning of the election still matters, and the Republicans have made a BIG mistake in interpreting that meaning.

The Republican victory means that the Republicans get to redistrict all over the place and make new baby Republicans.

Originally Posted by JonLaw

The Republican victory means that the Republicans get to redistrict all over the place and make new baby Republicans.

...or solidify seats:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

Huh:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ms_110397.html

Democrats are getting their clocks cleaned in the 2012 redistricting...

I'd always seen this [argument]:

Most redistricting analysis has focused on what you might call the "topline" number: Raw seats gained and lost. Using this metric, Stu Rothenberg estimates that Democrats are presently on pace to pick up one seat from redistricting, while Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report believes that Democrats will pick up two...

But:

...The topline isn't the whole story, however. As Rothenberg carefully notes (and as Wasserman has observed in interviews), there is also the question of how far Republicans are able to go in shoring up their remaining districts... This is where the "real" story is.

Let's use Ohio as an example. It is slated to lose two seats this decade due to stagnant population growth. Since Republicans control the redistricting process, we might expect them to eliminate two Democrats... If the national environment were to tilt even slightly toward the Democrats in a given year, the entire Republican delegation from Ohio could be wiped out. In other words, while the "topline" would show a nice Republican win in this scenario, the victory would surely become recognized as a Pyrrhic one at some point during the decade.

Now suppose that Republicans instead chose to eliminate two Republicans... any competent line-drawer could move the median district substantially rightward, and make it almost impossible for Democrats to expand beyond those five seats in the short-to-medium term.

The redistricting that has occurred so far looks a lot more like the second scenario above than the first one (Ohio Republicans actually look set to split the difference by eliminating both a Republican and Democratic district)...