CBO says health care bill costs $829B over decade

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I think the calculus is that government run health care is such a game changer, the Democrats are willing to sacrifice 2010 and 2012 for decades of permanent rule and structurally shifting the entire country to the left. The minute you bring life and death to government, the discussion isn't whether or not the government should be involved, but how much they're going to give you. And that folks, is the ballgame.

I fully expect a public option and I fully expect it to be done via reconciliation. Elections have consequences, and this last one is going to have more consequences than any other in memory.

And that is the saddest part- if the government becomes the (eventually) health care provider, then it will be there for ever- regardless of the consequences to people and the country.

 

[PapaG]

I heard that when people are asked if they support Obama's plan, the majority say no. But when they are actually told exactly what he is proposing, but made to sound like its another plan, the majority support that plan. There is just a ton of misinformation out there.

Most people are going to disapprove of Obama's handling of healthcare, that is fine. But compared to how the other side is handling it? Those numbers are incredible, no?

What, exactly, is Obama proposing? The House bill? The Baucus bill? Some other bill?

 

[blazerboy30]

What difference does that make, really? You can easily find people who believe things vastly more absurd than that.

barfo

I'd say that it makes a difference because people are supporting a reform that they know nothing about, and could potentially harm our country in the long term.

If people knew what the reform actually meant and weren't told lies, it would be less likely that this reform was rammed down our throats.

 

[blazerboy30]

I think the calculus is that government run health care is such a game changer, the Democrats are willing to sacrifice 2010 and 2012 for decades of permanent rule and structurally shifting the entire country to the left. The minute you bring life and death to government, the discussion isn't whether or not the government should be involved, but how much they're going to give you. And that folks, is the ballgame.

This.

That is when the fat-lady has sung, and there ain't no goin' back.

 

[maxiep]

The fundamental issue to me is that it's none of the government's goddammed business what medical treatment I choose. I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This health care proposal is as un-American as it gets.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

The fundamental issue to me is that it's none of the government's goddammed business what medical treatment I choose. I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This health care proposal is as un-American as it gets.

That's one of the things I'l never really understand- how some people really feel it's the business of the government to dictate nearly every aspect of our lives and entirely remove choice.

 

[barfo]

I'd say that it makes a difference because people are supporting a reform that they know nothing about, and could potentially harm our country in the long term.

If people knew what the reform actually meant and weren't told lies, it would be less likely that this reform was rammed down our throats.

I disagree of course. But if that were the case, it would be incumbent upon your side of the aisle to explain to people what's wrong with it. I think the death panels/ immigrants/ teabagger nonsense shows a pretty big failure on the right to address the issue and educate the public.

I'm not saying there aren't conservatives who tried to make a rational case against it. I'm saying their voices were completely drowned out by the partisans on your side howling about teabaggery. It was a good diversion but ultimately made the party look a bit insane, and now people are going to take them less seriously.

Lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

barfo

 

[barfo]

The fundamental issue to me is that it's none of the government's goddammed business what medical treatment I choose. I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This health care proposal is as un-American as it gets.

Explain to me how this health care proposal - this proposal, not some wild-eyed slippery slope massively different proposal that could conceivably be enacted in the future - is going to change what medical treatment you choose.

barfo

 

[blazerboy30]

Explain to me how this health care proposal - this proposal, not some wild-eyed slippery slope massively different proposal that could conceivably be enacted in the future - is going to change what medical treatment you choose.

barfo

It will make it more difficult for some to keep the insurance that we currently have. My taxes will go up due to this proposal. But I'm definitely not rich living in the Bay Area, so something has to give somewhere. So my choice isn't gone, but they government is limiting my choices.

 

[barfo]

It will make it more difficult for some to keep the insurance that we currently have. My taxes will go up due to this proposal. But I'm definitely not rich living in the Bay Area, so something has to give somewhere. So my choice isn't gone, but they government is limiting my choices.

I'm pretty sure your choices aren't being limited, you are just saying you might make different choices for budgetary reasons? Or am I misunderstanding?

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Explain to me how this health care proposal - this proposal, not some wild-eyed slippery slope massively different proposal that could conceivably be enacted in the future - is going to change what medical treatment you choose.

barfo

Which proposal? You tell me which proposal we're talking about. I'm talking about the bill the leaders of each house is discussing. Sen. Baucus' bill is DOA. Everyone has admitted it. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have both stated (today and yesterday) that the final bill would have a public option. The Chicago Sun Times ran a story how President Obama is and always has been a public option supporter, and how his goal is to still pass a bill with a public option.

And if you don't see a slippery slope, then you're willfully ignorant. That public option--as admitted by Barney Frank--is the first step to a single-payer system.

However, since you're unwilling to see the strategy, I'll spell it out for you.

1. Establish a public option, one that's allowed to run at a loss.

2. Put in a set of rules that if your company doesn't choose the public option, you have to pay an 8% surcharge above what your private insurance runs. Furthermore, if you make any change to your policy, you're automatically put into the public option. And once you're in the public option, you can no longer choose a private option.

3. Put in a law stating that physicians, to be licensed as such, cannot turn down patients on the public option. In other words, if you wish to practice medicine, you must do so under the government's rules.

4. Private companies will be crowded out of the offering health care. Physicians will be unable to practice medicine in a manner inconsistent with what the government states.

5. De facto, you have a single payer system and socialized medicine. And one that will happen in short order.

It's the healthcare equivalent of "dumping": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)

Once again, it's obvious that you've never lived in a country with socialized medicine. Go ahead and correct me if I'm wrong. I noticed you never bothered to reply when I called you out on Chicago, so we know how much personal insight you brought to the table on that one.

Did you know Medicare turns down 6.85% of its claims? That was the highest among major insurers: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-bl...-who-has-highest-medical-claim-rejection-rate

When you are denied a claim by your insurance company, you have several choices. You can work with the hospital to finance the procedure and sue the insurance company. You can appeal to the insurance company. You can find another physician to offer his/her opinion as evidence against the insurance company.

When you have a single-payer system, there is a board that makes those decisions. Those decisions are final. And there's nowhere else to go once the government controls how health care is administered.

Now, let's apply a little cost accounting to the process, shall we? There is a concept known as "the theory of constraints", which means your process only works as fast as your slowest function. If you cover more people and offer more medical service at the same cost, what's the constraint? Time. Welcome to the wait list. How can I be so sure? Go to any country with socialized medicine and check their treatment times.

And that's how they choose the medical treatment you receive.

 

[blazerboy30]

I'm pretty sure your choices aren't being limited, you are just saying you might make different choices for budgetary reasons? Or am I misunderstanding?

barfo

oh, you mean like those who don't currently have healthcare?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Which proposal? You tell me which proposal we're talking about. I'm talking about the bill the leaders of each house is discussing. Sen. Baucus' bill is DOA. Everyone has admitted it. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have both stated (today and yesterday) that the final bill would have a public option. The Chicago Sun Times ran a story how President Obama is and always has been a public option supporter, and how his goal is to still pass a bill with a public option.

And if you don't see a slippery slope, then you're willfully ignorant. That public option--as admitted by Barney Frank--is the first step to a single-payer system.

However, since you're unwilling to see the strategy, I'll spell it out for you.

1. Establish a public option, one that's allowed to run at a loss.

2. Put in a set of rules that if your company doesn't choose the public option, you have to pay an 8% surcharge above what your private insurance runs. Furthermore, if you make any change to your policy, you're automatically put into the public option. And once you're in the public option, you can no longer choose a private option.

3. Put in a law stating that physicians, to be licensed as such, cannot turn down patients on the public option. In other words, if you wish to practice medicine, you must do so under the government's rules.

4. Private companies will be crowded out of the offering health care. Physicians will be unable to practice medicine in a manner inconsistent with what the government states.

5. De facto, you have a single payer system and socialized medicine. And one that will happen in short order.

It's the healthcare equivalent of "dumping": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)

Once again, it's obvious that you've never lived in a country with socialized medicine. Go ahead and correct me if I'm wrong. I noticed you never bothered to reply when I called you out on Chicago, so we know how much personal insight you brought to the table on that one.

Did you know Medicare turns down 6.85% of its claims? That was the highest among major insurers: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-bl...-who-has-highest-medical-claim-rejection-rate

When you are denied a claim by your insurance company, you have several choices. You can work with the hospital to finance the procedure and sue the insurance company. You can appeal to the insurance company. You can find another physician to offer his/her opinion as evidence against the insurance company.

When you have a single-payer system, there is a board that makes those decisions. Those decisions are final. And there's nowhere else to go once the government controls how health care is administered.

Now, let's apply a little cost accounting to the process, shall we? There is a concept known as "the theory of constraints", which means your process only works as fast as your slowest function. If you cover more people and offer more medical service at the same cost, what's the constraint? Time. Welcome to the wait list. How can I be so sure? Go to any country with socialized medicine and check their treatment times.

And that's how they choose the medical treatment you receive.

I'd say that answers that question.

 

[barfo]

Which proposal?

Wow, way to not answer the question.

This health care proposal is as un-American as it gets.

So are you now saying that by "this health care proposal" you meant the end result of your slippery-slope fantasy?

As long as you are just talking about a hypothetical, then sure. Someone might someday enact a law that changes your healthcare. There are an infinite number of laws that might someday be enacted.

Personally, I've very concerned that the bailout of GM means that we will inevitably bail out the Bastu Prostitution Outpost on the 7th planet in the Modong system, and thus bankrupt the entire galaxy. Because, after all, we have no free will. One tiny step in one direction means we must continue to the logical extreme in that same direction.

barfo

 

[barfo]

oh, you mean like those who don't currently have healthcare?

Yes, exactly like that, assuming your income level is the same as theirs.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

Wow, way to not answer the question.

Actually, I was asking which proposal for clarification, not to avoid a question. In the absence of that information, I chose the most likely one.

So are you now saying that by "this health care proposal" you meant the end result of your slippery-slope fantasy?

As long as you are just talking about a hypothetical, then sure. Someone might someday enact a law that changes your healthcare. There are an infinite number of laws that might someday be enacted.

Nope. I used the law most likely to pass and then followed the obvious and well-worn path. It's no fantasy. All it takes is a basic following along of the health care debate. I'd be interested in an example where a government program was established that didn't expand. If you have a realistic alternate scenario--and not your snarky example below--I'd love to read it.

Personally, I've very concerned that the bailout of GM means that we will inevitably bail out the Bastu Prostitution Outpost on the 7th planet in the Modong system, and thus bankrupt the entire galaxy. Because, after all, we have no free will. One tiny step in one direction means we must continue to the logical extreme in that same direction.

barfo

I think this paragraph highlights how your mind works vs. mine. Speaking of GM, you may find this article interesting. The breakup of GM is now resulting in the transfer of technology to the Russian auto industry: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14506376

 

[barfo]

Speaking of GM, you may find this article interesting. The breakup of GM is now resulting in the transfer of technology to the Russian auto industry: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14506376

Thanks, that was interesting.

barfo

 

[barfo]

I'd be interested in an example where a government program was established that didn't expand.

You are quite correct that government programs intended to be permanent do tend to expand over time. [Obviously there are lots of examples of temporary programs, from WPA to TARP, that shrank or disappeared altogether]. However, I disagree with the notion that that is inevitable and pre-ordained. They expanded because, rightly or wrongly, people chose to expand them. People can choose not to expand programs, it is possible. It doesn't happen very often, I agree.

If conservatives wanted to reform healthcare in their own way, they should have done something about it when they were in power. An astute conservative would have recognized that it would be a hot topic for the Democrats when they regained power, and made a preemptive strike. I personally think that a lot of the non-Democratic proposals have merit, but there is not, and has not been, anyone willing to champion them. Too bad.

I don't see any of the Democratic proposals causing the sky to fall, however.

barfo

 

[maxiep]

You are quite correct that government programs intended to be permanent do tend to expand over time. [Obviously there are lots of examples of temporary programs, from WPA to TARP, that shrank or disappeared altogether]. However, I disagree with the notion that that is inevitable and pre-ordained. They expanded because, rightly or wrongly, people chose to expand them. People can choose not to expand programs, it is possible. It doesn't happen very often, I agree.

If conservatives wanted to reform healthcare in their own way, they should have done something about it when they were in power. An astute conservative would have recognized that it would be a hot topic for the Democrats when they regained power, and made a preemptive strike. I personally think that a lot of the non-Democratic proposals have merit, but there is not, and has not been, anyone willing to champion them. Too bad.

I don't see any of the Democratic proposals causing the sky to fall, however.

barfo

There hasn't been a mainstream party interested in limiting government in my lifetime. And while the Bush Administration and the accompanying Republican majority may have called themselves conservatives, they weren't fans of limiting government. It's not surprising they didn't do anything.