The President spent his weekly address on health care and small business. He cites a letter received from a small firm that provides health care for eight employees but continues to struggle to keep up with double digit increases in premiums. With the current system unchanged the firm will need to lay off help or drop coverage entirely. That is the crux of the argument across the board, whether it be small business, municipalities, or even large business. The rate of inflation in health care is bankrupting the country. And that premium inflation rate, if left untouched, will lead to millions of additional uninsured on an annual basis, creating further strain on the already cratering system. Meanwhile House Democrats ended up in open warfare, with Henry Waxman and the Blue Dogs breaking off negotiations in acrimony, and then kissing and making up a couple of days later. A key area of dispute was over the potential for allowing an independent commission to set rates for medicare without congressional approval. From the Post:
Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), the lead negotiator for the conservative “Blue Dog” Democratic coalition, has pushed for creating a new commission that would set Medicare’s payment rates for health-care providers, rather than leaving it in the hands of lawmakers, who frequently try to push up the rates for their regions. In addition, the conservative Democrats have pushed to prevent a new government-run public plan for insurance to peg its payment rates to Medicare, because they say there are regional disparities in the amounts given to providers.
Liberal Democrats, however, have balked at turning over the payment plan to an independent commission.
Yes this is a tough slog, and there will be a lot of infighting. But to say that just leaving the status quo in place is sustainable is just so much nonsense.
Bill Manzi.com 
Your Honor,
The issue is simple, this pig does not deservr to see the light of day. It is part of a takeover of the Government that leads to socialism. Nothing is worth that. I don’t want feds climbing all over me and my family.
The political class is no more capable of solving this problem than the insurance companies. The difference the insurance companies can’t take my freedom away.
Jules
Jules
LikeLike
Jules:
But those same insurance companies can and have taken people’s lives away, by eliminating or denying coverage. I think that’s the very definition of “taking your freedom away”, no?
These insurance companies thus have the power to take your freedom away, I don’t recall electing any of them, and there is very little in the way of holding them accountable.
I think you’re aimed at the wrong evil here.
-FM
LikeLike
By the by, for any of you having trouble sleeping … here is a link to the House version of the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act.
http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/07/americas-affordable-health-choices-act.shtml
From the synopsis I’ve seen, and I’m nowhere near knowledgeable yet, I’m beginning to think that the Blue Dogs are right: there has to be much more focus on the cost containment aspect. I’m also suspicious that the some of the entrenched interests are supportive of the current bill (kind of like when the Mayor noticed at one point when the Boston Carmen weren’t screaming when the Mass Lege was talking about transportation reform).
If the entrenched interests aren’t screaming, it’s not going deep enough yet. But I have some faith that while the final result won’t be perfect to my tastes, it’s on the right track.
I’d like to see the public plan being more affordable than the quotes I’ve seen, to see if private insurers will miraculously find a way to respond in order to compete.
-FM
LikeLike
http://www.gop.gov/media/weekly-republican-address/09/07/24/weekly-republican-address –>Rep repsonse to Prez Weekly address given by Rep Cathy Rodgers of WA
Gerard
LikeLike
Fred,
From your reply, it sounds like you do not understand the concept of freedom. Freedom are choices (among a whole bunch of other things).
Obama’s program will ration health care and sets up a board that will create a set of standards which will determine the amount of procedures that can be applied to a patient’s quality of life based on cost/ benefit formula. You will have no alternatives. Your doctors will have no alternatives.
This is only one of many things that are troublesome.
I agree with you about Insurance Companies Managing health care. It makes no sense to me. Insurance is a means to manage risk, life, shipment by sea, etc. It’s truly intended to be used occassionaly.
Health insurance is used all the time, making the risk harder to control. If you have a large elderly population your payments will be made more often.
This would be the right time to create a new type of entity.
Fred, if the Obama/Pelos/Reid plan is enacted you won’t have to worry about insurance companies. Your only choice of provider will be the federal government. No more Insurance companies.
I’m glad you see the cost problems.
80% of the population are happy with their health care provider. The rest need some form of assistance. This would be a good place to put the money. About 80 billion dollars.
Jules
LikeLike
Jules:
I think I understand my concept of freedom: what I don’t seem to get is yours … and I say this in all seriousness.
Are we a free people today? My answer is no, we are not a free people. We are coerced each and every day of our lives, in both good ways (those that overall benefit society: stopping for red lights, for example) and in bad ways (those that line the pockets of financial industry executives, for example). I am not free to drive a car without a license or insurance, I’m not free to own a dog without a license. I pay whatever the oil or cable companies say I should. I could go on for paragraphs on this topic. I’ll mercifully cut it short.
Insurance IS used to manage risk, you’re mostly correct, but I think you’re stopping short. Think about life insurance: the one sure thing you can bet on is that you will eventually die, so it’s not risk that’s getting managed. Rather, it’s an expected value calculation: a bet, if you will. The company is betting that it can take more in premiums from you, invest them profitably, and eventually pay out the policy’s value when you die, retaining the profits gained. The more people they sign up, the larger the potential payout pool is, and the more risk is mitigated from anomalous behaviour (like, you happen to live longer than they expected).
Social Security is a similar bet. By taking a premium from every US worker (documented, legal worker, that is), SSI builds a pool of money from which they can pay current retirees. It is in their interest to sign up as many payers as possible, in order to mitigate the risk of not having the cash to payout when it comes due (like my generation is going to run into unless something is done soon).
I view this new plan in the same way, and you’re hearing some of the same arguments as you did when the MA plan was enacted. It is incredibly important to get everyone signed up and paying in for at least two reasons: one, if they are generally healthy, they won’t be using much of the system and their premiums can be used to pay for those who use proportionately more of the system, or two, those that have no insurance still need care, and are going for the most expensive emergency room care (which the pool must pay for) instead of a primary care physician. You’re paying for that care in increased premiums to you, when they are not paying in.
The system we built is demonstrably not as effective as the rest of the developed world: we spend the most, but we do not get the best care (in fact, in some areas of the country, there are third world countries doing better than we are).
There is no part of any plan where you can make the case that doctors will not be making decisions about your care. They will be challenged to make the most cost effective choices, certainly, but as a member of the pool you would expect them to do that anyway, otherwise, you’ll pay an increased premium. It’s in your best interest that they do so, as long as you’re paying.
Insurance companies won’t die: in fact, if I read it right, they will be bidding to administer the plan (something that I’m not sure I as a progressive like). Social Security did not kill the life insurance business, Medicare did not kill the medical insurance business. This bill will not kill insurance companies. What they will (or should) be forced to do is be more efficient, which means reducing costs. I’m not sure what I’m reading does enough to guarantee this.
I’ll ask you as I’ve asked you before: read the bills, comment on the bills, not on what you’re reading on Republican blogs or hearing on Fox News: they’re not telling you the truth, again. They have another agenda.
Where we are is bankrupting both families and the country. 14,000 families are losing their health care PER DAY. A large number of personal bankruptcies occur after a families incur a medical event. Status quo is not good enough.
You have complained that taxes are too high, and that all you’re doing is working for the government: I say wake up. In the not too distant future, you could be waking up every day to work for your health care system. You won’t have to worry about giving your children an inheritance: your care will eat everything you have until your wallet is dry. And that to me is the wrong time to be in a game involving a profit motive, because it’s you that will lose.
Besides, I want you around for a good long time to argue with.
-FM
LikeLike
Fred,
I need a while to read and unwrap this entry to understand it.
Best realization: you declare yourself a Progressive. Very telling. Like a GPS reading.
Be back at you, Fred.
Jules
LikeLike
Fred,
I read your entry above. First I do understand your concept of being free. If you combine your Progressive political position and the complete disregard you have for the concept of profit, socialism is your final destination. Generations of education by Progressive teachers and a media that mostly portrays businessmen and their corporations as as evil have ingrained that thought into whole generations, preparing them for increased government intrusion without regard for the consequences. They take it as an inevitable and welcome direction.
This where I put your concept of freedom.
You also do not understand the difference between freedom and minimal society laws necessary for safety. The problem is when Progressive take over and add law to transform society. Your 2nd paragraph makes this perfectly clear. A traffic light law and health bill are two separate things.
In you third paragraph you begin to respond to my points regarding insurance with substance. You are right when you liken insurance is a peculiar gamble. I bet the Insurance company I will die (I will eventually win), and the insurance company bets I will live long enough(They will lose). Of course you are right, statistically they will win enough times to make a profit.
A definition of profit: profit is the income to the investors who have taken the financial risk. More than not, the profit will yield no much more than a bank saving account. I notice the phrase you used you said, “retaining the profit gained” sounding like they held up the bank and got away.
At this point we part ways on the issues. I approach the Healthcare effort as a way to for the government to intrude deeply into our lives. Remember the success of the state plan is based on having enough money (there isn’t) and having a guy show up at you house with a gun to collect the fines.
So to wind this thing up:
1. This thing will cost trillions
2. It will end up as a single payer system.
3. You will have no say in any of your healthcard
4. The government will ration to make this thing work. Good By mother.
5. Anything your Progressive buddies and the President say to the contrary is a LIE.
6. 80% of the population are happy with their existing plans.
7. 40 million without healthcare is an exaggeration; many don’t want to buy health insurance; any are illegal aliens.
8. If plans are put in place for those truly in need, it would be a justifiable act.
9. The present health system is not crashing.
10. We have a superior cancer servival rate than Canada and Europe.
So I guess it’s where we stand that makes a difference. I want no government interference, especially from the guy in office.
Fred, old boy, I see you are into “my source is correct yours is a liar” thing. Hmm..you told me you did not listen to fox. Well do you or don’t you? If you don’t how do you know if they are lying?
I wish you well. And I want to be around for a long time also to keep you honest.
Jules
LikeLike
By the way Fred,
Would you check page 17 of the healthcare take-over-act and see what it says about insurance companies right to write new policies?
Jules
LikeLike
Fred,
Just read Today’s Tribune. Check out the editorial page and read the ‘Socialism is ok’ letter to the editor. This guy could be taking classes from you. In fact, I thought it might be you when I first began to read it.
Jules
LikeLike
Jules:
I am so far around the left hand side of the circle, sometimes I meet Pat Buchanan from the right. Hopefully, not too often, though. His lucid moments are getting fewer and farther between.
Surprised after a year of postings that you’d be surprised.
-FM
LikeLike
On today’s Tribune story …
http://www.eagletribune.com/puopinion/local_story_209023805.html
Amen.
The question should be: is capitalism here to serve us, or are we here to serve it?
-FM
LikeLike
Jules:
Page 17 of the .pdf I posted doesn’t seem on point. What are you referring to?
-FM
LikeLike
Jules:
Your concept of my concept of freedom I’m not sure I get. You’ve conflated more than one concept there.
My single statement is that I do not believe that we are a free people today, and have not been for some time. I stand by that statement. There are many reasons for that observation, none of which I think you’re getting in your paragraph.
I think you’re also missing the essential point I’m trying to make with the traffic light argument. I point out that freedom is not absolute: there are reasons to give up absolute freedom to benefit society as a whole, and on this, you seem to agree.
Everything else is a matter of degree, on where you wish to draw the line. So, when you say “if this bill passes, no more freedom”, I think I should point you to a wide open barn door … and to the agreements you’ve made little by little to live in society as we have it.
Societies advance when they transform themselves to meet the problems they face. Every generation confronts different issues, every generation comes up with their own solutions. The problems the country had on founding are not the problems we face today. They gave us, however, a blueprint of an idea that we’ve followed, sometimes with missteps, towards an ideal. 235 years, and we’re not quite home, yet.
Let me try this on the concept of profit, capitalism, and democracy.
I believe that people come first, profits second. I believe the economic system we chose should serve people first. There was a time during the post war period right up through the 80’s where that was true: the economic system required a large, stable, colocated workforce, which also aligns well with what a society needs to survive. Taxes were paid by both corporations and individuals to maintain society. Both democracy and capitalism worked very well, hand in hand, and the country prospered as a whole.
Since the 80’s, with the advent of “government is evil”, and “global capitalism is great”, the two worlds have diverged. Corporations no longer need large, stable, colocated workforces. They are no longer aligned with the needs of the citizens of any one country (save China, because their form of capitalism is more akin to your definition of socialism). Corporations do what they do well: they chase profit. Corporations have sucessfully lobbied to push the tax burden away from them and on to individuals. Thus, that profit is no longer used to the benefit of society as a whole. Tax law has allowed wealth has been concentrated at the top. Corporations have grown by mergers and acquisition, and the largest of them have become monopolies, and in some cases as we heard last fall, “too large to fail”. Jobs for the rest of the 90% of us are no longer stable, and most can be moved offshore to countries that may or may not share our own ideals (or our mortgage payments) which hurts communities, commonwealths, and countries, and the democracy you claim to love.
What needs doing is a rethink of what we need to do as a democracy to sustain ourselves, or the sure path is not socialism as you say, but autocracy and fascism. We came as close as I ever want to come to that during the Bush years. Any closer, I may seek another democracy to live in a little closer to my own ideals.
Do I believe in profit? Absolutely. Lived my livelihood on them. Do I believe in monopoly? Absolutely not. Monopolies are meant to be broken. And broken by our elected representation, government. Do I believe in taxing profit to provide societal good? I think you know the answer to that. In fact, that’s why I want companies to be very, very profitable: as long as they are being taxed at a sufficient rate so that we all derive some benefit.
You’re going to have to work on your explanation of profit: “no more than a bank savings account” doesn’t seem to jive with the financial statements I’ve seen … go take a look at Goldman Sachs 10q. I don’t know where you’re doing your banking, but if you’re making that, please, do share!
I could go on and on about investors and risk, how you can get in and out of a stock in a millisecond, and how I believe that the broad market is for suckers like you and me, while the big money is moving on inside information, but I’ll leave that to another day.
On the balance of your healthcare post later …
-FM
LikeLike
And the rest:
“1. This thing will cost trillions”
Yep, and the status quo will cost at least as much, and very probably more, for a lesser result. You like paying more and getting less? You sure you’re American? Can you post your birth certificate?
“2. It will end up as a single payer system.”
I’d be happy if that were the case: I think of all the hospital billing departments that would no longer be necessary and the resulting cost savings, but I don’t think that will come to pass. This time.
“3. You will have no say in any of your healthcard”
Bollocks. You might have more, if doctors own the relationship more than the insurance companies currently do. You live today at the whim of your insurance company, try not to forget that.
“4. The government will ration to make this thing work. Good By mother.”
You mean no more wheeling dead people under CAT scanners so that the hospital can tag Medicare for one more bill? Damn.
News Flash: you’re ALREADY BEING RATIONED.
“5. Anything your Progressive buddies and the President say to the contrary is a LIE.”
Uh huh. So sayeth Fox News? 😉
“6. 80% of the population are happy with their existing plans.”
Ask the 14,000 per day that are losing their plans if they’re happy. Ask the 40 million that aren’t a part of the plan. Why do 72% of the US population back a public heath care option to compete with private insurance? When do you get 72% of America to agree on anything (unless it’s that Sarah Palin is a moron)?
“7. 40 million without healthcare is an exaggeration; many don’t want to buy health insurance; any are illegal aliens.”
Yep, all those people just don’t WANT to see a doctor and not have to go bankrupt. You’ll have to do better than that.
“8. If plans are put in place for those truly in need, it would be a justifiable act.”
That’s one good justification. The other is that if we continue to allow heathcare costs to rise at double or triple the level of inflation (who do they think they are, cable companies?), we’ll go broke. As a nation and as individuals.
“9. The present health system is not crashing.”
That’s because you’ve got a socialist plan protecting you.
I think the idea is to fix it before it crashes. We can’t all act like Republicans, and deficit spend forever.
“10. We have a superior cancer servival rate than Canada and Europe.”
Fantastic! But we are 45TH in life expectancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
Look at all those damn socialists ahead of us!
On Fox: when you come to this board spouting what you do, and I read the same things being brought up and debunked on my own sources, I see your guilt by association … fair enough? 😉
One of the reasons I’m all for unbundling of cable services: Fox would have its TV revenue drop in half overnight. I wonder how their programming might change … unless they could get you to pay double. But I’d be OK with that.
-FM
LikeLike
And on that note …
http://www.hulu.com/watch/85839/the-tonight-show-with-conan-obrien-shatner-does-palin
-FM
LikeLike
Fred,
Let’s summarize: Your a socialist and I’m not, and there is no reason to continue the discussion.
Best thing to do right now is to print out my numbered list and your and watch what happens.
Your fox conversation is incomprehensible. I like it, so you watch what you want and I will do the same.
Jules
LikeLike
Jules:
Still cashing the socialist security checks?
😉
-FM
LikeLike
Fred,
I will talk slowly and loud;
EVERY CENT IS MINE AND MY EMPLOYER’S CONTRIBUTION.
NONE OF YOUR TAXES GO TO ME. ALSO NOW THAT I AM IN BUSINESS FOR MYSELF ALL THE MONEY IS MINE.
On top of that the Government never put the money in interest bearing accounts so no growth.
Jules
LikeLike
Jules:
So, I guess the answer comes in two parts:
1) Yes, and
2) You don’t understand how the Social Security System works.
I gave you links on how to get out of it and Medicare so that you wouldn’t have to be a hypocritical Socialist, why don’t you take them?
-FM
LikeLike
Fred,
Why should I get out and leave my money for you?
Jules
LikeLike
Comrade Gordon:
Because, as you say, you’re not a Socialist.
Unless, of course, you are …
-FM
LikeLike
Nice article for why we obviously don’t need health care reform …
http://www.newsweek.com/id/209817
-FM
LikeLike