Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditCan successful universal health care be achieved without a public option? Earlier this week, Jonathan Cohn pointed to the example of The Netherlands, a country that relies exclusively on private insurers while providing coverage to all citizens. Surveys indicate that the Dutch are extremely satisfied with the quality of their system; studies have ranked the Netherlands ahead of countries such as Britain and Sweden (and, of course, The United States) in deaths prevented through access to timely and affordable medical care.
In other words, the Dutch system works. But as Cohn notes, the system's success depends on something the United States lacks: "Private insurance in the Netherlands works because it operates more or less like a public utility. The Dutch government regulates industry practices tightly – more tightly than the reforms now moving through Congress propose to do in the United States."
Similar comparisons have been drawn with Switzerland, another country that has achieved universal coverage while relying mainly on private insurers. But here, too, the differences are as striking as the similarities – not least that the providers in Switzerland are nonprofits and that medical care is viewed as a social good, not a business. As the law professor and health care analyst Timothy Stoltzfus Jost told The Times earlier this week, "There is no government-run plan to compete with the private nonprofit plans. But health insurance is considered social insurance. It's not a for-profit enterprise."
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
i do not want to enrich the murderous parasites whose profiteering and opposition to progress has resulted in the untimely death and unnecessary suffering of millions.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/03/2009 @ 3:31pm
Wow. The Nation is trying to do a quick about face to get behind Obama. Don't put down the guns now. If you are going to support a public option don't give in now just because it's a him in office.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/03/2009 @ 4:36pm
Can successful universal health care be achieved without a public option?
Of course...we on the right have been screaming this at you dummkopfs on the right for months....
all you hear is the right doesn't want reform, when what we dont want is govt running it...
Keep in mimnd the Swiss and Dutch populations do not have 15% of another country living within its borders and expecting everything free because they work here...
plus scales of those countrys versers ours would need some twinking...but it can work.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/03/2009 @ 4:38pm
plus scales of those countrys versers ours would need some twinking...but it can work.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/03/2009 @ 4:38pm
So then you are for extreme government regulation like they have?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/03/2009 @ 4:46pm
"Keep in mimnd the Swiss and Dutch populations do not have 15% of another country living within its borders and expecting everything free because they work here..."
this statement pretty much encapsulates the mentality of the rural, uneducated, republican base.
not only is it blatantly xenophobic, it is also obviously illogical.
people who live, work and *pay taxes* in the united states could not possibly expect "free" healthcare.
if you pay taxes, you are essentially 'buying into' the system which protects you. which paves your roads, picks up your trash, provides fresh water, etc, etc.
so, if you live here and pay taxes, it is not exactly outrageous to expect that you could see a doctor, if you need to.
of course, for maasch, he would rather you give a great portion of your hard-earned dollars to overpaid insurance executives. because they earned it.
maasch is the reason why america sucks.
Posted by darladoon at 10/03/2009 @ 5:28pm
"So then you are for extreme government regulation like they have"
not only is there extreme government regulation in holland, they are also super left wing, in almost every measurable sense, compared to the united states.
the dutch are basically socialist, well educated, incredibly open minded, and they detest the united states' form of democratic capitalism.
they are the precise antithesis of the sort of christian, knuckle-dragging, capitalistic midwesterners embodied by the likes of maasch.
having said that, that maasch has shown a sort of de facto support for a dutch policy, with regards to healthcare, is pretty amusing.
Posted by darladoon at 10/03/2009 @ 5:36pm
Here's more from Jonathan Cohn:
"What makes private insurance work in the Netherlands? It starts with tradition. The Netherlands first extended insurance coverage to everybody during Germany's occupation of World War II. (It is, the Dutch like to say, the one good thing to come of that experience.) But, by the end of the century, frustration had set in. At the time, government provided insurance directly to people with incomes below a certain threshold; everybody above bought coverage on their own. The left found the system inequitable, since people with private coverage sometimes had better access to care; the right found it inefficient, since they thought public insurance interfered with the natural forces of competition. Eventually, they brokered a deal: Create a seamless system to cover everybody, regardless of income or medical condition, but do it all through private carriers.
The new system came on line in 2006 and, so far, the results are encouraging. Everybody picks an insurance carrier once a year, more or less the same way employees of large companies routinely do here in the United States, during annual open enrollment periods. By law, the coverage is generous, no matter which carrier somebody chooses. Plans cover all medically necessary services--as defined by the government, in consultation with independent experts and medical societies--and they pay for all but a tiny fraction of the bills. The government provides income-based subsidies, and roughly two-thirds of the population gets some assistance. In surveys of major countries by the Commonwealth Fund (which financed my own travel to the Netherlands), the Dutch were least likely to report forgoing care because they couldn't afford it."
"Private" and "public" are mere words. It's all in the details.
Posted by JakobFabian at 10/03/2009 @ 5:53pm
Another fact that can be gleaned from Cohn's article is that the Dutch had a strong public option BEFORE they moved to a system of heavily regulated private insurers coupled with generous income-based subsidies.
Cohn's proposal is "iffy" because it is by no means certain that we can bypass the public-option phase in recent Dutch history and jump directly into its present highly-efficient and socially progressive phase.
Posted by JakobFabian at 10/03/2009 @ 5:58pm
I undersand the Swiss system has the insurance companies cross insure each other so that a single company will not be saddled with a lot of "hard cases". I don't know how that actually works but it does.
Posted by pyeatte at 10/03/2009 @ 6:06pm
Posted by JakobFabian at 10/03/2009 @ 5:58pm |
I think the big difference is that the Dutch would culturally negotiate 'generous' coverage, as the means to satisfy both left and right in their ordained healthcare benefits package, but we can't guarantee any such niceties from our insurance lobby representatives du jour.
The same is true in Switzerland, where they have government-determined coverage by private carriers coupled with subsidies to offset premiums for the low-income folks with simple age-based actuarial bucketing, but they're paying 11% of GDP instead 6-8%.
Neither makes as much sense as single-payer with private top-up insurance for the well-off in need of fake boobs, boners, or wonder-drugs outside the formulary.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/03/2009 @ 6:23pm
Posted by pyeatte at 10/03/2009 @ 6:06pm |
Simple market econ; since everyone is required to have insurance, no one can be denied, and the amount they can charge is fixed by age, it ends up being up to the patient again (imagine that!).
Those oldies end up being cost centers again...ooooh...kidney stone...come this way.
Posted by snowball777 at 10/03/2009 @ 6:30pm
having said that, that maasch has shown a sort of de facto support for a dutch policy, with regards to healthcare, is pretty amusing. Posted by darladoon at 10/03/2009 @ 5:36pm
No, no... this is the kind of moment we need to treat respectfully. We desperately need to come to a consensus and succeed in creating a public option.
When someone like maasch shows support of something that resembles a solution that we can all get behind we need to acknowledge that. This could mean that we're getting close.
Even if he's said other things that you don't agree with. They are separate issues.
We need this.
Let the government regulate it, but not operate it. Let them control the pricing structure. It will create that competition that Obama talks about and also create JOBS.
End the rancor at moments like this and recognize an alignment as an opportunity to unite instead of divide.
Is this a ray of hope? That hopey/changey thing that HAPPY is so dismissive of?
Posted by ficheye at 10/03/2009 @ 6:34pm
maasch is the reason why america sucks.
Posted by darladoon at 10/03/2009 @ 5:28pm
Can we conservatives deny the superior intellect of leftists after this brilliant summation from Darla?
ROMFL!
Posted by antisocialist at 10/03/2009 @ 6:37pm
What Eyal Press and the leftist bloggers continue to leave out of this, is the fact that the EU Charter requires countries to have UHC.
As Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. has stated, we have no constitutional authority to implement UHC in this country.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/03/2009 @ 6:39pm
As Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. has stated, we have no constitutional authority to implement UHC in this country. Posted by antisocialist at 10/03/2009 @ 6:39pm
That much is pretty obvious. Isn't that what the whole argument is about? Gummit don'tell me what to doo? I'll die foist!
If you want to stay home and die of some strange illness because you yearn for the heavenly gates, that's your business. I yearn for UHC. The public option is just a watered down version of what could be if Americans weren't so psychotic when it comes to the specter of socialism.
I'd say that after all of the free market capitalist shenanigans with no one advocating too earnestly for reform OR regulation a little socialism may be just what we need.
Don't know what Darla's problem is... seemed like maasch was conceding to a small degree.
Posted by ficheye at 10/03/2009 @ 7:17pm
Anyone who thinks our government "representatives," partially funded as they are by insurance companies, is going to regulate insurance companies is... well, either naive or a "conservative."
How did we get so much stupider than Europe?
Posted by Citizen54 at 10/03/2009 @ 7:31pm
Posted by Citizen54 at 10/03/2009 @ 7:31pm
Get a gun then. That'll fix everything.
Or lay out your plan. I'll wait.
Posted by ficheye at 10/03/2009 @ 7:34pm
Anyone who thinks our government "representatives," partially funded as they are by insurance companies, is going to regulate insurance companies is... well, either naive or a "conservative."
How did we get so much stupider than Europe?
Posted by Citizen54 at 10/03/2009 @ 7:31pm |
I'll try this again.
A good number of states are controlled by the Democrats.
All Insurance companies must submit their health insurance plans to the State Insurance commission for approval.
Why haven't these states controlled by the Democrats required any of the reforms that Dems are now asking for at the national level?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/03/2009 @ 7:37pm
Why haven't these states controlled by the Democrats required any of the reforms that Dems are now asking for at the national level? Posted by antisocialist at 10/03/2009 @ 7:37pm
And I'll try THIS again.
Because they aren't Democrats in the traditional sense of the word. They are corporatists. They are owned. Liberals are ever so slowly starting to realize this. Even during the election many democrats remained mysteriously silent throughout the long debate when they could have lent their support. Only G-d knows what they were busy doing at that time. Probably just what their Republican 'foes' were doing. Stealing.
Democrats and Republicans - the system serves neither one in the sense one would normally expect. I understand why you call yourself a Libertarian. Is there such a thing as a progressive Libertarian?
Posted by ficheye at 10/03/2009 @ 7:53pm
"Let the government regulate it, but not operate it. Let them control the pricing structure. It will create that competition that Obama talks about and also create JOBS.
End the rancor at moments like this and recognize an alignment as an opportunity to unite instead of divide. Is this a ray of hope? That hopey/changey thing that HAPPY is so dismissive of?"
I don't want to be a gloomy storm cloud, "ficheye," but let me ask: Does the Baucus plan resemble the Dutch system in the following way (quoting Cohn again)?
"Plans cover all medically necessary services--as defined by the government, in consultation with independent experts and medical societies--and they pay for all but a tiny fraction of the bills. The government provides income-based subsidies, and roughly two-thirds of the population gets some assistance."
I don't see the part of the Baucus bill in which it is resolved that the government shall provide income-based subsidies that assist up to two-thirds of our population. I also don't see Senator Baucus welcoming citizen activists to participate in hammering out his proposals, though flacks from the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry are conspicuously honored guests. So pardon me for feeling a little cynical.
If it were reported that a generous income-based subsidy was presently being debated in Congress, then I might perhaps feel okay about no longer calling my Representative and Senators repeatedly with the demand for a public option. However, I have heard no such report.
I agree with "snowball777" that the most desirable goal would be a single-payer system "with private top-up insurance for the well-off in need of fake boobs, boners, or wonder-drugs outside the formulary." Very well put, "snowball777"!
Posted by JakobFabian at 10/03/2009 @ 8:08pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/03/2009 @ 4:38pm
Wow, what a totally debased and shameless attempt to disregard the issue. No immigration expert has ever suggested that illegals account for 15% of the population. In fact, the highest estimate put forth has been 20 million.
But more to the point: which proposal put forward by the right will actually reduce the # of uninsured. I've seen one plan put forward that relies on the free market: it was the plan John McCain proposed during the Presidential elections. The most optimistic of estimates predicted a 1.3 million decrease in the # of uninsured. Other than that, there simply hasn't been a plan proposed by the Republican party. Sure, they frequently mention things like HSAs which they would like to have as part of a reform, but unless the party decides to rehash the McCain plan, no alternative has been put forth.
Posted by nkurland at 10/03/2009 @ 8:37pm
posted by JakobFabian at 10/03/2009 @ 8:08pm
I'm not sure where I ever said that I wasn't for a public option.
Point that out to me, please.
I do tire of the rancor, however. Is it possible that our world would be a nicer place without it? I can be just as vile as anyone else. But I think that we can all do better.
On occasion this forum seems more like a place for unhappy people to spew. Pointing that out isn't a bad thing. Being a democrat (at this point) and pointing out that Democrats are sucking at their jobs isn't a bad thing either.
If you differ, please point that out as well, why you might support people that suck at their jobs while we pay them to do so.
Posted by ficheye at 10/03/2009 @ 8:38pm
Private insurance for health care is an oxymoron, especially since congress deregulated gluttony. Corporate America has no conscience witness KBR, Halliburton, etc... Imagine what the FBI, CIA, police departments, fire departments, armed services would look like under a private for profit regime. Most of the good medical schools are publicly funded colleges, most of the drug research is done by publicly funded labs.
Posted by julien38 at 10/03/2009 @ 8:47pm
The insurance industry and the drug companies spend $1, 400,000. a day to fight against a public option.
Olympia Snow, for example, gets at least $1 million in campaign funds from the drug and insurance companies. That's why she suggested the 'trigger.'
Enough said.
allenjud
Posted by JudithAllen at 10/03/2009 @ 8:51pm
Hey fisheye, pyette also sounds incouraging and needs to be recognized, hopey and changey come on down, getting consensus is good!
Posted by Denise29 at 10/03/2009 @ 9:09pm
I've lived in France, the Netherlands and England. I've been least impressed with the Dutch system. I had kind of crappy insurance and it excluded pre-existing conditions and mental health coverage. It also was reimbursement-only, so I had to pay cash for everything and wait for them to pay me back for what they would actually cover.
American xenophobes should note that there is a huge immigrant population in the Netherlands, many of whom are undocumented. To get documentation, they have to buy insurance. Doctors will still treat immigrants, but will demand cash up front. When I crashed my bike and walked dazedly into a doctor's office with blood dripping copiously from my face, the first question they asked me was if I had €50 in cash.
Undocumented people who are uninsured had financial disasters if they have a medical emergency.
I vastly prefer the French system, which has extensive price controls. I had no insurance in France, but their first comments to a bloody patient would not have been about money and the price at the end would have been lower (and free for somebody in their system). England is even more user-friendly, where doctors' offices don't collect any cash from patients at all.
Posted by Les1 at 10/03/2009 @ 9:11pm
The Netherlands and Switzerland have educated, literate populations and democratic governments. In the US, we have TV literate populations, with the sort of education available in our public schools, renowned for their baseball, basketball and football teams. Our "democracy" is a sham: elections are choices between two parties both of which serve the corporate capitalist class and its entrenched military economy.
Against this background of differences, it is not surprising that their non-governmental, regulated health insurance is a workable reality. How many "regulated" utilities in the US, electric, gas, telephone, water, are regulated for the benefit of the publics they serve. The regulators in the US are appointed by governors and/or legislators who, as elected officials, are beholden to the utilities for campaign funding.
Finally, our media are owned by the same corporate capitalists who own the politicians in the US. Europeans have far more newspapers, electronic media of quality, to keep them informed and to keep their democracies accountable.
If we had a democracy, we too could rely on regulated, private health insurers.
Posted by goedel at 10/03/2009 @ 9:29pm
maasch is the reason why america sucks.
Posted by darladoon at 10/03/2009 @ 5:28pm
People who work and earn under $25k a year, as does much of the illegals living here do not pay any taxes...and therefore would not pay for their health care in your plan..all subsidised everything.
they end up like you...
costing society money...as you say...you have a Canadian passport, so when you need medical you go to Canada...so the Canadians pay for your health care...
This explains your complete lack of understanding of the opposition to govt health care by those of us who will end up pay for yours here...no wonder you want govt health care, you dont pay for any of yours...you have others pay your share.......as would the illegals and others I refer to in my first post..
You are better off in Canada..go there and "help" them instead of helping the US so much.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/03/2009 @ 9:50pm
having said that, that maasch has shown a sort of de facto support for a dutch policy, with regards to healthcare, is pretty amusing.
Posted by darladoon at 10/03/2009 @ 5:36pm
Idiot.
When was the last timer you were in Holland? Do you know any Dutch people personaly? Have in depth discussions with them on their health care? If you did you would know something about the system, which obviously you don't. You dont understand the system here, so your opinion on me or mine verses the Dutch are way, way, way, over your stoned head.
Have another brownie.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/03/2009 @ 9:57pm
Why doesn't anyone here want to discuss tort reform, which saves at least a trillion over ten years which can be used to shore up Medicare instead of robbing it of five hundred billion like the democrats want to do, especially with the influx of baby boomers entering Medicare eligibility?
Why is no-one discussing catastrophic health insurance for anyone who wants it?
Why is no-one discussing our shortage of doctors which will be exacerbated with the passage of any kind of public option?
Will denial of health care because of prior condition be made illegal?
Unless all of these questions are resolved in any health care bill, lawmakers need to keep talking and stop worrying about their political hides.
Nancy Pelosi is on record as having stated that any bill coming to the floor without a public option will be defeated by the House. However the Senate will not pass any bill with a public option. So there you have it, two rams butting heads.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/03/2009 @ 10:05pm
Come on Jommama, get a grip, sounds like you could use a doob.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/03/2009 @ 10:05pm
"I don't see the part of the Baucus bill in which it is resolved that the government shall provide income-based subsidies that assist up to two-thirds of our population."....
Posted by JakobFabian at 10/03/2009 @ 8:08pm
Thats the scale I was refering to...1/3 of us can't cover the other 2/3 plus illegals and still cover all of our own bills of life...
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/03/2009 @ 10:07pm
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/03/2009 @ 10:05pm
No one will discuss those questions because the isssue is NOT health care reform, but CONTROL of resources..and control over resources is the definition of power..and the left want govt control over the resources instead of individuals or private entitys...therefore, want to the power....
which is why you will not see IRS reform either...or until we collapse from over taxation and the peole earning it just give up.
its that simple..
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/03/2009 @ 10:16pm
Come on Jommama, get a grip, sounds like you could use a doob.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/03/2009 @ 10:05pm
Gave it up after college.
Now I have to get a grip..... on what I have earned so it isn't all taken away and given to the "doobers" of the world...to be fair, of course...and for the children.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/03/2009 @ 10:19pm
The debate about health care reform in the US should be about the merits of public options, single payer or collectives or whatever, but it's not.
The priority seems to be how to maintain the profits of the insurance industry. So, the private plans of the Dutch and Swiss won't be on the table.
They may use them as examples of how the private insurers can provide universal coverage but their model won't be copied because it would cost the insurance companies too much.
Posted by koroviev at 10/04/2009 @ 12:01am
The priority seems to be how to maintain the profits of the insurance industry. So, the private plans of the Dutch and Swiss won't be on the table.
Posted by koroviev at 10/04/2009 @ 12:01am
That's right. And furthermore, it's no longer a 'left' or 'right' issue, even though people want to make it out to be. It's not.
That's one of the real misconceptions haunting these pages. The anger people feel about our government can easily be translated into left and right, which may have been correct years ago. But both sides have been in the pockets of corporate interests via the lobbyists for years. Both 'sides' are being duped. Glen Beck is now rich. If he's such a patriot, why doesn't he give all of his money to some 'cause'? You think he doesn't get a warm, fuzzy feeling about all the money he's made pissing people off? It's his job! Same with Ed Schultz. The wealthier they get the less credible are their points of view, the more inflammatory their talk. It sells, just like sex, and we should cast a healthy doubting eye on them because they are deep in the profit motive of their 'business'. Schultz called a caller a 'psycho talker' because he said Ed was doing a disservice to us all by not busting the Democrats for doing nothing. He was right. Ed was wrong, but also vehemently disrespectful.
When people wake up to the fact that we are ALL being duped, truly recognize it, we will be a united force and things will change to EVERYONES benefit. Sure , there will always be ideological concerns that need to be addressed, but the divide between us isn't as massive as some feel it is. If you are of the mind to cast a doubtful eye on any change whatsoever, and to just make jokes about Obama's hope and change policy, you are willing the nation into permanent polarization.
Posted by ficheye at 10/04/2009 @ 03:32am
'"I don't see the part of the Baucus bill in which it is resolved that the government shall provide income-based subsidies that assist up to two-thirds of our population."....
Posted by JakobFabian at 10/03/2009 @ 8:08pm
Thats the scale I was refering to...1/3 of us can't cover the other 2/3 plus illegals and still cover all of our own bills of life...'
Sure we can. If the Dutch can do it, then why can't we? And why have you soured all of a sudden on the Dutch system, "YourJomamma"? Is it because I've presented some of the fine print to you?
Thanks to "nkurland" and "Les1" for ironing out all the rest of what is wrong with "YourJomamma's" arguments, particularly in regard to health care for non-natives.
And "ficheye," I never accused you of apostasy against the public option. I merely believe you give the Democrats too much credit if you assume that Democrats who reject the public option secretly want to give us a Dutch-style system instead. I don't know where you and Jonathan Cohn get your notion that the Baucus plan is the first station on the way to a Dutch system, rather than - as I suspect - an attempt to get away with changing as little as possible about the US-American system of profit before people.
I don't go out of my way to be "rancorous." I refrained from ridiculing "YourJomamma's" praise of the Dutch system in the hopes that this might encourage him to become a little more Dutch himself. But as we have observed, "YourJomamma's" fondness for the Dutch system evaporated quickly as soon as it became clear to him how much it distributes wealth from the rich to the poor and how generous it is toward immigrants.
It is simply a poor strategy to try to create a "bipartisan" health care reform that even a conservative like "YourJomamma" could accept.
Posted by JakobFabian at 10/04/2009 @ 08:53am
"Glen Beck is now rich. If he's such a patriot, why doesn't he give all of his money to some 'cause'.."
What about the anti capitalist, Michael Moore?
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/04/2009 @ 09:03am
" And why have you soured all of a sudden on the Dutch system, "YourJomamma"? Is it because I've presented some of the fine print to you? "
I soured on it? Where?
"Is it because I've presented some of the fine print to you? "
You did? Where?
" I refrained from ridiculing "YourJomamma's" praise of the Dutch system in the hopes that this might encourage him to become a little more Dutch himself. "
I praised it? Where?
"But as we have observed, "YourJomamma's" fondness for the Dutch system evaporated quickly as soon as it became clear to him how much it distributes wealth from the rich to the poor and how generous it is toward immigrants. "
My fondness evaporated? Where? Did I have fondness for it? Where?
All govt programs distribute money from those who earn it to those who do not.
I re read my post...I suggest you do, too.
I said we could look at it, ours doesn't have to be govt run, ours may have to be "tweeked" because of our size and the fact we have 15% of Mexico living here working for low wages, therefore, we will subsidise their health costs...
"Thanks to "nkurland" and "Les1" for ironing out all the rest of what is wrong with "YourJomamma's" arguments, particularly in regard to health care for non-natives. "
They did? Where?
"It is simply a poor strategy to try to create a "bipartisan" health care reform that even a conservative like "YourJomamma" could accept."
They never tried..all the House pland from repubs never see the daylight or are discussed, because your girl Nanc burys them,so we will never know what the repubs offer.
Posted by JakobFabian at 10/04/2009 @ 08:53am
Try again.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/04/2009 @ 09:15am
Get a gun then. That'll fix everything. Or lay out your plan. I'll wait. Posted by ficheye at 10/03/2009 @ 7:34pm |
+++
Thanks for waiting. Here's my plan:
1. Get out of Iraq. 2. Take $10 billion per month being wasted there and apply toward funding of health insurance for every American citizen (except for those who like to support the insurance companies; those folks can maintain their "for profit" option).
Did you say a gun? Or gub? What's a gun got to do with it?
Posted by Citizen54 at 10/04/2009 @ 09:58am
It is simply a poor strategy to try to create a "bipartisan" health care reform that even a conservative like "YourJomamma" could accept. Posted by JakobFabian at 10/04/2009 @ 08:53am
I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe you have confused my posts with someone else.
I am not giving the Democrats credit for much of anything right now, besides being spineless.
But we ARE locked in a stalemate. No?
Posted by ficheye at 10/04/2009 @ 11:34am
Did you say a gun? Or gub? What's a gun got to do with it? Posted by Citizen54 at 10/04/2009 @ 09:58am
Your post wasn't very positive. I was being sarcastic.
Coffee?
Posted by ficheye at 10/04/2009 @ 11:35am
What about the anti capitalist, Michael Moore? Posted by YourJomamma at 10/04/2009 @ 09:03am
There's no reason to leave him out.
Ed Schultz is a liberal. I thought I'd gone far enough by mentioning him. Substitute Michael Moore if that works for you.
Posted by ficheye at 10/04/2009 @ 11:37am
Where was the repub plan for health care reform during the times they controlled both the presidency & Congress?
The answer? There was none. Their plan for those without coverage was to take second or third jobs, at minimum wage naturally, as that would reflect the very reason they couldn't support the for-profit system in the first place.
Those without adequate coverage who were bankrupted on release from hospital could move in with relatives after losing their homes. Those denied coverage or necessary treatment while holding a private plan could prepare to "meet their maker."
Posted by Sorelish at 10/04/2009 @ 11:38am
" But as we have observed, "YourJomamma's" fondness for the Dutch system evaporated quickly as soon as it became clear to him how much it distributes wealth from the rich to the poor and how generous it is toward immigrants."
this is precisely why i found jomamma's de facto support of a dutch policy to be so incredibly amusing.
people like maasch are such poor victims of our system. they do all the work, pay all the taxes, and get nothing in return; whereas the non-natives do none of the work, pay none of the taxes, and reap such an extraordinary menu of socialized benefits.
Posted by darladoon at 10/04/2009 @ 12:26pm
Max Baucus is determined to set up a sweetheart deal for his insurance industry contributors. If the free-market is always best for everything, what fear do they have of competing with a supposedly inefficient federal insurance option? -- found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth
Posted by reg373 at 10/04/2009 @ 12:44pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/04/2009 @ 09:15am
Ok, so what exactly is the free market healthcare reform that would expand coverage. No official plan has been put forth since McCain's campaign proposal. Not only is it an overly simplistic merger of two Republican credos: privatization and tax cuts, the most optimistic estimates predicted a 1.3 million decrease in the uninsured. Not to mention that the plan had a price tag of $1.3 trillion over the next decade.
Admittedly, the Obama proposal isn't very good. In fact, "the right" could easily put together a rather cohesive argument against it. Such as: 1) Employer mandates will drive down wages. 2) Employer mandates and fines for not having insurance are coercive. 3)By heavily subsidizing private insurance, the market is no longer "free"
Obviously I don't agree with all of these arguments, but the point is that I took 5 minutes and produced a more coherent rebuff of what will supposedly be "Obamacare" than any argument put forward by the right up to this point.
None of us are sure how you're coming to the conclusion that this amounts to a government takeover of healthcare either. For starters, the plan breaks down to $100 billion a year, or 4% of total healthcare spending in this country. Add to that fact that roughly $650 billion is being scraped out of the current system and the net increase in healthcare spending by the federal government is 1.4% of the $2.5 trillion this country spends each year. And just look at the "public option." Not only has it been designed like a private insurance plan, any significant cost saving mechanism has been stripped out. In actuality Congress is designing an incredibly weak option designed to fail soon after inception and destroy single payer as an alternative.
Posted by nkurland at 10/04/2009 @ 1:52pm
BUSTED! Government Healthcare Advocate Admits Public Option is Trojan Horse!
go to www.joeypanto.com look for the health bug 1 pickle at the bottom of the screen!
Posted by janetstorms at 10/04/2009 @ 2:29pm
Posted by janetstorms at 10/04/2009 @ 2:29pm
That isn't a government official or "government advocate" speaking, but nice try.
In any case, the "public option," by excluding the most significant cost savings mechanisms and setting eligibility guidelines that make enrollment unavailable to the middle class, Congress is ensuring that there will be zero support for any further expansion, let alone maintenance, of the "public option." In fact, the public option will probably fail in its first 5 years.
Posted by nkurland at 10/04/2009 @ 4:41pm
Did you say a gun? Or gub? What's a gun got to do with it? Posted by Citizen54 at 10/04/2009 @ 09:58am
I like your plan though. Makes sense to me.
Posted by ficheye at 10/04/2009 @ 6:39pm
go to www.joeypanto.com look for the health bug 1 pickle at the bottom of the screen! Posted by janetstorms at 10/04/2009 @ 2:29pm
This site is just a step away from 'rightwingnews.com'. Derision just for the fun of it. Helpful.
'Bugs' are parasites, which refers to people who are looking for a handout through government programs which could be construed as socialist. Makes Joey so mad.
Posted by ficheye at 10/04/2009 @ 6:44pm
If we had a democracy, we too could rely on regulated, private health insurers.
Posted by goedel at 10/03/2009 @ 9:29pm
But we are a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
Someday those on the left will actually read the constitution.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/04/2009 @ 8:46pm
What Eyal Press and the leftist bloggers continue to leave out of this, is the fact that the EU Charter requires countries to have UHC. As Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. has stated, we have no constitutional authority to implement UHC in this country. Posted by antisocialist at 10/03/2009 @ 6:39pm
--interstate commerce. done and done.
Posted by urmygyro at 10/04/2009 @ 9:29pm
I just hope we have the money to help pay for a public option in 4 years. This old republic is stumbling. The great capitalists on Wall Street have played the American public like a drum. They have had plenty of help from the politicians on both sides.I am bothered by the large profits being made by the banks and the large corporations and the lack of job creation. Obviously I am too stupid to think that profits and job creation goes together. Can you imagine that our forefathers did not envision the crooks of the present? They could not end slavery in 1791 so why would they include UHC. Get with it 2 sentence.
Posted by whatozz at 10/04/2009 @ 10:28pm
-- The U.S. Senate Finance Committee's Obamacare legislation is as interesting for what it lacks as for what it contains.
On Tuesday, Committee members rejected two amendments that would have created a government option for health insurance. These decisions -- in which five Democrats voted with Republicans -- lower the pulse on a full-scale federal takeover of the healthcare industry. However, the House or Senate suddenly could defibrillate this concept. So, advocates of limited- government healthcare reform must remain vigilant. Unfortunately, Finance Committee Democrats have rejected numerous GOP amendments that would have infused this bill with a modicum of fiscal restraint and common sense. As a group, the specific amendments that nearly all Democrats have dismissed preview how Obamacare might look in practice, if enacted.
*Rather than save taxpayers money by asking women to finance their abortions without federal dollars (as the Hyde Amendment has mandated since 1976), Finance Committee Democrats (minus North Dakota's Kent Conrad) rejected Utah Republican Orrin Hatch's amendment to prevent Obamacare's budget from funding elective abortions or health plans that cover feticide. In the Age of Obama, Uncle Sam pays for everything.
*Arizona Republican John Kyl offered an amendment to assure that senior citizens not suffer healthcare rationing under the Physicians Feedback Program. On a party-line vote, Democrats crushed Kyl's language and paved the road for rationing the treatment of elderly Americans under Obamacare.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/04/2009 @ 10:40pm
*Iowa Republican Charles Grassley's amendment offered great potential for reducing fraud and assuring that federal health dollars reach actual poor people, not those ineligible for assistance -- or outright thieves. Grassley proposed that individuals show government-issued photo identification when applying for Medicaid or SCHIP: the State Child Health Insurance Program. On a party line vote, Democrats killed Grassley's measure and helped the undeserving snatch everyone else's hard-earned tax dollars.
*Democrats enshrined waste, fraud, and abuse when their party-line vote squelched Texas Republican John Cornyn's amendment to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid.
*Democrats torpedoed Idaho Republican Mike Crapo's amendment to block any Medicaid expansion that imposes unfunded mandates on the states.
*Kansas Republican Pat Roberts tried to secure flexibility and choice for Americans with Health Savings Accounts, Flexible Savings Accounts, and other financial instruments that foster personal responsibility. He tried to remove a draft provision that prohibits reimbursing such accounts for purchases of over-the-counter medicine. Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D–Mont.) ruled Roberts out of order, and that was that. Democrats who whine about high-cost drugs stood by as Roberts' reform died. Americans who save their own money for their own healthcare may have to spend more of it on, say, pricier prescription cough syrup, rather than cheaper Robitussin.
*Democrats channeled Marie Antoinette as they sank Cornyn's amendment to require members of Congress to enroll in their own states' Medicaid programs.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/04/2009 @ 10:41pm
*Democrats killed Kentucky Republican Jim Bunning's amendment to require that the Finance Committee's website feature its ObamaCare bill with an official price tag for 72 hours before the Committee's final vote. Seizing 17 percent of the American economy apparently is too urgent a task to withstand a three-day wait.
"Every bill produced and every vote cast by Senate Democrats reveals that they want higher taxes, less choice, less competition, and government making your medical decisions," says Michael Cannon, the Cato Institute's Director of Health Policy Studies. "Nothing good can come of health reform in this Congress."
Democrats show zero interest in market-friendly, patient-centered ideas such as using refundable tax credits to make health insurance more affordable, granting universal access to health-savings accounts, or allowing Americans to buy health insurance across state lines (much as Democrats usually support the right of minors to cross state lines to receive abortions). Most Democrats spurn these ideas as threats to a gargantuan, bureaucratic system that will devour tax dollars and deliver sub-par care. Regardless of the government option's shaky prognosis, when it comes to lower-cost GOP healthcare proposals that actually could help patients, Democrats just say "No."
Posted by BigPasture at 10/04/2009 @ 10:42pm
So you have got to ask yourself; Are the Demoncrats really wanting to reduce defceit spending? Do they really want to keep from overburdening the taxpayers with 15,000,000,000 of them jobless and an unemployment rate of actual 16% counting those now off the rolls? Do they really care if NO new jobs have been created and NO new jobs will be forthcoming when they overburden failing small businesses of whom over 10,000 have already failed?
Wake up! Lower taxes, less regulation, reducing the cost and the size of government is the only way to get us out of this deep hole ,and improve healthcare simply by reforming it! We need MORE doctors not fewer per population and nothing is being done to encourage more of them to go into general practice where they are already needed and a shortage exists and grows!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/04/2009 @ 10:49pm
Well said Big Pasture....
Too bad the libs won't read it, and you will get no comments on your post. .... Except maybe from the resident genius on health care in Europe......Darlaloon in a cloud of smoke will meander some meaninglessness nonsense and then demand you document the above. Please.
And then proudly announce she debunkt your post completly.
And then ask where the Repub plans have been!!!!!
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/04/2009 @ 11:49pm
Maasch, mabye I missed it...
did you answer Cccom's question?
Does this mean you'd support the "massive government regulation" of health insurance as they have in The Netherlands???
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 07:27am
Well DuNcE I have to ask where the real benefit of those tax cuts are? The top 2 percenters have been helped immensely,our trade-off a larger child tax credit. Hooray,the tax cuts have causaed what to happen. The small businesses closed. Tax credits is all you can say or how about health care savings accounts. Keep talking while you shovel cash in the insurance companies pockets. You conservatives and conservative Democrats want to steer more people to private insurance companies. That's o.k.,when you finally realize that these guys own all the stock on your beloved Wall Street and you have a handful of rice you will realize you screwed up and were duped. At the rate Max and his band of corporate aiders are going the public option will be based out of Minnetonka,Minnesota at the headquarters of United Health.
Posted by whatozz at 10/05/2009 @ 08:22am
Maasch, mabye I missed it...
did you answer Cccom's question?
Does this mean you'd support the "massive government regulation" of health insurance as they have in The Netherlands???
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 07:27am
Obviously you missed it.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/05/2009 @ 10:29am
'Wow. The Nation is trying to do a quick about face to get behind Obama. Don't put down the guns now. If you are going to support a public option don't give in now just because it's him in office.' -- Cccomfo1
'For Democrats, it raises the legitimate question of whether his ideological shift from progressive populist to big business champion is indicative of where the entire party is headed after two successive electoral victories. For Washington, it exposes the rot at the core' -- Sebastian Jones -- The Nation -- http://www.then ation.com/doc/2009 1019/jones/3
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/05/2009 @ 10:51am
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/05/2009 @ 10:29am
Would you mind telling me what post/time-stamp shows your answer???
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 11:00am
Mask,
Here is a portion from the below post. I have never been for extreme govt regs..I did say the Dutch system WITH TWEEKS and still in private sector might be worth looking at...
I don't know how one can make the leao from my suggestion to CCCs extreme reg support.
I re read my post...I suggest you do, too.
I said we could look at it, ours doesn't have to be govt run, ours may have to be "tweeked" because of our size and the fact we have 15% of Mexico living here working for low wages, therefore, we will subsidise their health costs...
"Thanks to "nkurland" and "Les1" for ironing out all the rest of what is wrong with "YourJomamma's" arguments, particularly in regard to health care for non-natives. "
They did? Where?
"It is simply a poor strategy to try to create a "bipartisan" health care reform that even a conservative like "YourJomamma" could accept."
They never tried..all the House pland from repubs never see the daylight or are discussed, because your girl Nanc burys them,so we will never know what the repubs offer.
Posted by JakobFabian at 10/04/2009 @ 08:53am
Try again.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/04/2009 @ 09:15am
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/05/2009 @ 11:15am
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/05/2009 @ 11:15am
Maasch, is there a specific in that gobbledegook????
What EXACTLY are your "tweeks"? And if it's a system "worth looking at"...
and it's a system with a TON of Government regulation on private insurance....
aren't you endorsing that????
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 1:22pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/05/2009 @ 11:15am
So what is the right's plan for healthcare? That is, besides what McCain proposed during the presidential elections.
Posted by nkurland at 10/05/2009 @ 2:51pm
So what is the right's plan for healthcare? That is, besides what McCain proposed during the presidential elections.----Posted by nkurland at 10/05/2009 @ 2:51pm
TWEEKS!
(one of my favorite South Park characters...just behind Butters!)
Posted by Mask at 10/05/2009 @ 3:06pm
Who needs to make a healthcare proposal when maintaining the status quo is becoming more and more attractive to the public as they learn more about the Democrat proposal?
It is not the lack of a Republican proposal, or even Republican resistance to the Democrat proposal that is holding up the Democrat proposal. They don't have the numbers to do that.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/05/2009 @ 3:53pm
Who needs to make a healthcare proposal when maintaining the status quo is becoming more and more attractive to the public as they learn more about the Democrat proposal?
It is not the lack of a Republican proposal, or even Republican resistance to the Democrat proposal that is holding up the Democrat proposal. They don't have the numbers to do that.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/05/2009 @ 3:53pm
A strong Public Option must either exist in this nation, or all current and future health insurers have to become non-profits. Without one of those two things happening, this is all just a show.
Bread and circuses, indeed. Beginning to wonder where the bread is.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/05/2009 @ 6:27pm
But we are a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
Someday those on the left will actually read the constitution.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/04/2009 @ 8:46pm
Regardless of what you think, Liberals DO read the Constitution. Just because we don't agree with YOUR interpretation doesn't mean that we haven't read it. YOUR interpretations tend to be rigid and without room for interpretation; in other words, because you say a thing is true about the Constitution, then it must be true.
If that were ACTUALLY true, why then did the Supreme Court hold itself as the ultimate arbiter of interpreting what the Constitution actually means, instead of you? There have been liberal courts and conservative courts; the pendulum continues to swing back and forth. That's the way it was designed, by men much smarter than you or I. We currently have a predominately conservative court, so you should be happy.
Unfortunately for you, time marches on and we are not in the 18th or 19th century, but rather the 21st. I believe that to keep the Constitution a viable and living document, it must be flexible and interpretable; there is no possible way the Founding Fathers could have foreseen computers, spaceflight and a stupid Republican party that puts party before country, just like Orwell's "1984". You believe the Constitution is a static document; forever unchanging and uninterpretable (except for you). I feel sad for the future if people like you ever got real power because you only think of the past, not what the world might be like when your grandchildren are adults and you're only dust.
The Constitution LIVES and I am very happy about that!
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/05/2009 @ 6:52pm
The Constitution LIVES and I am very happy about that!
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/05/2009 @ 6:52pm
When liberals on this blog state that we are a democracy, it means they either don't know or ignore the constitution.
When liberals on this blog state that they dislike the 10th amendment which gives authority to both the states and the people, they are ignorant of the constitution.
to keep the constitution "flexible", the founders provided an amendment process (Article V) for just that reason.
At no time have I ever stated or suggested that only I can interpret the constitution. Just another ad hominem and strawman argument on your part rather than serious debate.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 7:04pm
I'm wondering if any of the righties posting on this website can explain how this plan amounts to a government takeover of healthcare.
Here's a quick breakdown: The $1 trillion breaks down to $100 billion a year, which is 4% of total healthcare spending. $650 billion will come from Medicare leaving $35 billion. This means the federal government will take on an additional 1.5% of total healthcare spending.
The funding simply isn't there for a government takeover of healthcare, even though we should be switching to single payer.
Posted by nkurland at 10/05/2009 @ 9:14pm
Here's a quick breakdown: The $1 trillion breaks down to $100 billion a year, which is 4% of total healthcare spending. $650 billion will come from Medicare leaving $35 billion. This means the federal government will take on an additional 1.5% of total healthcare spending.
The funding simply isn't there for a government takeover of healthcare, even though we should be switching to single payer.
Posted by nkurland at 10/05/2009 @ 9:14pm
can't even get basic facts right. Show me where any CBO projection or even the Dems budget proposal says that.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 9:29pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 9:29pm |
Have you been following the debate? This is why Republicans have been criticizing the reform as an attack on Medicare. Besides leaving the drafting of the bills entirely to Congress, this was the one part of the bill Obama himself defined. This isn't a CBO estimate, but every single bill put forth in Congress has used the $650 billion from a Medicare as a starting point for funding. In fact, the surtax proposed by the House some time ago was projected to raise $450. That was immediately rejected and was by far the largest tax put forth in the entire debate. Obviously its merely what's been proposed by the administration, but Obama actually proposed another $300 billion in cuts in June. The administration is attempting to make their reform deficit neutral so you can bet that Obama will push for that $650 billion in Medicare cuts.
Posted by nkurland at 10/05/2009 @ 10:09pm
The surcharge was actually expected to raise $544 billion over ten years, not $450 billion, my mistake. That being said, the Obama administration has been fairly cool to the idea.
Posted by nkurland at 10/05/2009 @ 10:12pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 7:04pm
So, now you've become the word police?
I believe that most of the liberals who post here know and understand that we are a Democratic Republic, regardless of whether they call it that or not.
Believe me, I have heard just as many Republican (conservative) Senators and Congress critters call us a "democracy" too, so it ain't just us lib'rals. I don't see you scolding them every time they do it.
You state that the Constitution does not allow for national heathcare. Others on this blog state that it does through the commerce clause. That's where interpretation comes into the equation. Your attitude is such that anyone who does not agree with you on that point, "obviously" has not read the Constitution. No, it just means they disagree with your interpretation of the Constitution.
And BTW, I have yet to see anyone post on here that they "dislike" the 10th Amendment. Personally, I like em all, although I strongly disagree with you on what many of them mean.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/06/2009 @ 12:24pm
So, now you've become the word police?
I believe that most of the liberals who post here know and understand that we are a Democratic Republic, regardless of whether they call it that or not.
Believe me, I have heard just as many Republican (conservative) Senators and Congress critters call us a "democracy" too, so it ain't just us lib'rals. I don't see you scolding them every time they do it.
You state that the Constitution does not allow for national heathcare. Others on this blog state that it does through the commerce clause. That's where interpretation comes into the equation. Your attitude is such that anyone who does not agree with you on that point, "obviously" has not read the Constitution. No, it just means they disagree with your interpretation of the Constitution.
And BTW, I have yet to see anyone post on here that they "dislike" the 10th Amendment. Personally, I like em all, although I strongly disagree with you on what many of them mean.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/06/2009 @ 12:24pm
1. We are not a democratic republic. That is simply false. Show me anywhere in the Constitution where it states that?
2. Any conservative who calls us a democratic govt is just as wrong.
3. The commerce clause ruling (Supreme Court Butler) is one of the worst rulings in SCOTUS history. A view shared by many constitutional scholars. It was an FDR court that ruled thus, ignoring precedent and the writings of the founders.
Even a liberal like Jesse Jackson Jr. acknowledges that UHC is not constitutional and that's why he has proposed a constitutional amendment. Obama himself has only stated that it should be a right, not that it is.
Several bloggers here have stated that they detest the 10th amendment and would like to see it eliminated.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 2:05pm
So what is the right's plan for healthcare?
Posted by nkurland at 10/05/2009 @ 2:51pm
Well, the Republicans have proposed bills and amendments...
John Kyl offered and amendment that shielded seniors from rationing under the Physicians Feedback Plan. Senate Dems crushed this, signaling their support for rationing senior care.
Grassley submitted an amendment requiring a government photo ID be shown when getting Medicaid or S-Chip care. This was to prevent fraud (like during elections). The Dems voted it down (like during elections).
Cornyn introduced a bill to reduce fraud, waste and abuse in Medicaid. Dems voted it down.
Mike Crapo introduced an amendment prohibiting Medicaid expansion that imposes unfunded mandates on the states. Dems voted it down.
Roberts proposed individual healthcare accounts and other financial instruments to foster individual responsibility. Guess who killed it?
Cornyn introduced a bill that would require Congressmen to enroll in their own state Medicaid programs. The Dems REALLY didn't like that one. Killed it.
Bunning's bill would've required the healthcare bill to be viewable to the public 72 hours before the vote online. The Dems didn't like that for some reason. Killed it.
"Every bill produced and every vote cast by Senate Democrats reveals that they want higher taxes, less choice, less competition, and government making your medical decisions." --Michael Cannon, the Cato Institute's director of health policy studies.
Source: Deroy Murdock "It's Not Just the Public Option"
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/06/2009 @ 4:07pm
So what is the right's plan for healthcare?
Posted by nkurland at 10/05/2009 @ 2:51pm
Well, the Republicans have proposed bills and amendments...
John Kyl offered and amendment that shielded seniors from rationing under the Physicians Feedback Plan. Senate Dems crushed this, signaling their support for rationing senior care.
Grassley submitted an amendment requiring a government photo ID be shown when getting Medicaid or S-Chip care. This was to prevent fraud (like during elections). The Dems voted it down (like during elections).
Cornyn introduced a bill to reduce fraud, waste and abuse in Medicaid. Dems voted it down.
Mike Crapo introduced an amendment prohibiting Medicaid expansion that imposes unfunded mandates on the states. Dems voted it down.
Roberts proposed individual healthcare accounts and other financial instruments to foster individual responsibility. Guess who killed it?
Cornyn introduced a bill that would require Congressmen to enroll in their own state Medicaid programs. The Dems REALLY didn't like that one. Killed it.
Bunning's bill would've required the healthcare bill to be viewable to the public 72 hours before the vote online. The Dems didn't like that for some reason. Killed it.
"Every bill produced and every vote cast by Senate Democrats reveals that they want higher taxes, less choice, less competition, and government making your medical decisions." --Michael Cannon, the Cato Institute's director of health policy studies.
Source: Deroy Murdock "It's Not Just the Public Option"
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/06/2009 @ 4:07pm
citizen_carrier, the cato institute, OK then, and the repubs are just stalling, I saw Bunning, and Kyle, they were killing time not doing the peoples biz.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/06/2009 @ 5:27pm
Maybe they were just buying more time for people to actually read the healthcare bill?
I don't consider trying to rush something many people haven't read to be "the people's biz".
And Pelosi and Reid are actively blocking any attempts to put bills up 72 hours in advance for people to actually read. Do you consider that to be in the public's best interest?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/06/2009 @ 5:43pm
Maybe they were just buying more time for people to actually read the healthcare bill?
I don't consider trying to rush something many people haven't read to be "the people's biz".
And Pelosi and Reid are actively blocking any attempts to put bills up 72 hours in advance for people to actually read. Do you consider that to be in the public's best interest?
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/06/2009 @ 5:43pm
You do know that the repubs plan is to delay, delay, delay, until they can just kill the bill, it obvious to anyone who watches cspan, or listens to npr.Your repubs just want the dems plans to fail and they will do it anyway they can, and one of those tactics is to DELAY!
Posted by Denise29 at 10/06/2009 @ 6:01pm
Hmmm, 72 hours huh, I think that is to delay the bill, where were you when the repubs were passing all those so called bills in haste with not a peep from the right, and the dems had no idea there was even a bill? Now you want to take your time huh? Just another delay tactic.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/06/2009 @ 6:06pm
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/06/2009 @ 4:07pm
Wow, just incredible. You essentially just took proposed amendments to a bill drawn up by Democrats, albeit a pretty crappy plan and dubbed each one as "bills." That's called deception.
So once again, what is the Republican plan. What is their proposal, save for the plan McCain ran on.
Posted by nkurland at 10/06/2009 @ 7:38pm
You do know that the repubs plan is to delay, delay, delay, until they can just kill the bill, it obvious to anyone who watches cspan, or listens to npr.Your repubs just want the dems plans to fail and they will do it anyway they can, and one of those tactics is to DELAY!
Posted by Denise29 at 10/06/2009 @ 6:01pm
So what is the right's plan for healthcare?
Posted by nkurland at 10/05/2009 @ 2:51pm
I don't want the Republicans to put up any plan. I want the Federal govt to quit meddling in service that is the authority of the states. Just to remind you that it is the states who currently regulate healthcare.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 8:40pm
BTW libs, what is your excuse for the lack of a bill out of the House? They don't need any Republican votes.
In the Senate, several Democratic Senators have noted that there are not even 50 Dem Senate votes for a public option.
Quit blaming the Republicans for the incompetence of the Democrats.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 8:42pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 8:40pm
Wait a minute, weren't you arguing earlier that insurance companies should be allowed to offer plans across state lines? That would require legislation by the Federal government. And promoting HSAs, wouldn't that also require some sort of legislation?
Posted by nkurland at 10/06/2009 @ 9:11pm
Wait a minute, weren't you arguing earlier that insurance companies should be allowed to offer plans across state lines? That would require legislation by the Federal government. And promoting HSAs, wouldn't that also require some sort of legislation?
Posted by nkurland at 10/06/2009 @ 9:11pm
No it doesn't. It only requires that each state recognize other state's plans.
HSA's have been in effect for over 5 years. They just aren't promoted much.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 9:32pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 9:32pm
You do realize that it was the Federal government that gave states the right to regulate health insurance? Sure, all fifty states could in theory recognize each other's plans, but is this really realistic? The one time this was attempted in 2005, a bill was put forth in Congress called the "Health Care Choice Act of 2005." But in spite of the obvious need for legislation by the U.S. Congress for any sort of plan, nothing has been put forth by the GOP.
Posted by nkurland at 10/06/2009 @ 10:16pm
You do realize that it was the Federal government that gave states the right to regulate health insurance? Sure, all fifty states could in theory recognize each other's plans, but is this really realistic? The one time this was attempted in 2005, a bill was put forth in Congress called the "Health Care Choice Act of 2005." But in spite of the obvious need for legislation by the U.S. Congress for any sort of plan, nothing has been put forth by the GOP.
Posted by nkurland at 10/06/2009 @ 10:16pm
No, the Federal govt did not give that right other than by the authority of the 10th amendment.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 10:38pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/06/2009 @ 10:38pm
Wrong again. In 1945 the U.S. Congress voted to allow states to regulate health insurance. Any proposed healthcare reform, left or right, is going to inevitably require action by the U.S. Congress. The GOP doesn't have a plan, let alone a good plan. In fact, after the beating they've taken in recent elections, its probably sound strategy not to release a plan.
Posted by nkurland at 10/06/2009 @ 11:47pm
It seems 2 Sentences will prevail ,the hider is out of the bag. That is the answer the 10th Amendment. It is interesting about what is not said is what is important. So when "states" chose not to not recognize people as citizens because of skin color or as being allowed to vote because of economics or sexuality it is o.k. Subjectivity is the credo of the 2 Sentence people. We have one here that uses the veil of spirituality to sponsor these narrow interests. This is radical conservatism at its best or worst .
Posted by whatozz at 10/07/2009 @ 07:55am
It seems 2 Sentences will prevail ,the hider is out of the bag. That is the answer the 10th Amendment. It is interesting about what is not said is what is important. So when "states" chose not to not recognize people as citizens because of skin color or as being allowed to vote because of economics or sexuality it is o.k. Subjectivity is the credo of the 2 Sentence people. We have one here that uses the veil of spirituality to sponsor these narrow interests. This is radical conservatism at its best or worst .
Posted by whatozz at 10/07/2009 @ 07:55am
Wrong because the constitution establishes citizenship, not states. Trying to ignore that the Constitution enumerates the powers and authorities granted to the Federal Govt. The 10th Amendment then states that all other power and authority is to the states and the PEOPLE individually.
So, are you against giving authority and power to the people?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/07/2009 @ 11:50am
Wrong again. In 1945 the U.S. Congress voted to allow states to regulate health insurance. Any proposed healthcare reform, left or right, is going to inevitably require action by the U.S. Congress. The GOP doesn't have a plan, let alone a good plan. In fact, after the beating they've taken in recent elections, its probably sound strategy not to release a plan.
Posted by nkurland at 10/06/2009 @ 11:47pm
Congress passes all sorts of legislation concerning authority that was never their's to give. This is just another example.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/07/2009 @ 11:52am
Posted by antisocialist at 10/07/2009 @ 11:52am
But here's the rub: if we were to remove the restriction on selling across state lines, health insurance would become a matter of interstate commerce. Therefore, it took an act of Congress for states to self-regulate. And again, whatever form the proposed reforms take, its going to require an act of Congress. This is why the "Health Care Choice Act of 2005." which dealt with exactly this issue was proposed in the U.S. Congress.
Posted by nkurland at 10/07/2009 @ 12:55pm
But here's the rub: if we were to remove the restriction on selling across state lines, health insurance would become a matter of interstate commerce. Therefore, it took an act of Congress for states to self-regulate. And again, whatever form the proposed reforms take, its going to require an act of Congress. This is why the "Health Care Choice Act of 2005." which dealt with exactly this issue was proposed in the U.S. Congress.
Posted by nkurland at 10/07/2009 @ 12:55pm
Then why do all Federal Employees have the right to buy health insurance across state lines?
It's only a matter currently of interstate commerce because of erroneous rulings by liberal Supreme Courts who expanded the definition of the commerce clause beyond the original intent.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/07/2009 @ 1:29pm
Conservatives, you were wrong about Bush, you were wrong about Iraq, you're a laughingstock because of your denial of Global Warming and Evolution, you lost big and your ridiculous arguments deserve no repsect whatsoever. The US Constitution allows that the President is ELECTED, Congress is ELECTED, you don't get to run around starting your stupid illegal wars based on lies anymore. You didnt listen to Good Americans who wanted to uphold the 8th Ammendment, why they H--- should anyone listen to your CRAP about how the 10th Ammendment means we have to continue payign Wealth Insurance to the CEOs. You had your chance, you did not lead, WE WILL. We had Surpluses under Clinton!!!!
Posted by DPGrassley at 10/07/2009 @ 2:26pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/07/2009 @ 1:29pm
It's simply becuase the FEHBP allows insurance companies to participate if they meet certain federal guidelines. Every single participating plan conforms to the same regulations and guidelines.
Posted by nkurland at 10/07/2009 @ 2:31pm
Then why do all Federal Employees have the right to buy health insurance across state lines?
It's only a matter currently of interstate commerce because of erroneous rulings by liberal Supreme Courts who expanded the definition of the commerce clause beyond the original intent.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/07/2009 @ 1:29pm
What arrogance to call a Supreme Court ruling "erroneous" just because you believe it expands the commerce clause.
That's called progress, pal. I know you hate it and wish we were all still living in caves, but c'est la vie!
And it is those rulings (among others) that give Americans the RIGHT of a national healthcare system. Why do you hate the American people so much Larry that you want them all to die? Actually, now that I think about it, I have that backwards....
Why do you love the American people so much Larry that you want them all to die?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/07/2009 @ 3:55pm
What arrogance to call a Supreme Court ruling "erroneous" just because you believe it expands the commerce clause.
That's called progress, pal. I know you hate it and wish we were all still living in caves, but c'est la vie!
And it is those rulings (among others) that give Americans the RIGHT of a national healthcare system. Why do you hate the American people so much Larry that you want them all to die? Actually, now that I think about it, I have that backwards....
Why do you love the American people so much Larry that you want them all to die?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/07/2009 @ 3:55pm
It all is very simple Stephen.
I love freedom and our constitution.
you love socialist massive central govt where the govt dictates your life.
My way gives far more respect for people since I respect their right to make good and bad decisions BECAUSE THEY ARE FREE TO DO SO.
You wish to limit the freedom of the American people as do all liberals with their big govt dreams.
I don't want anybody to die before their time. That's just your usual strawman to avoid serious debate.
BTW, do you think SCOTUS gets any decisions wrong?
Did you like Kelo v City of New London?
How about Plessy v Ferguson?
How about Baker v Nelson (ruled anti same sex marriage laws did not violate the constitution)?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/07/2009 @ 5:57pm
Posted by DPGrassley at 10/07/2009 @ 2:26pm
You need to spend a week end with DARLALOON so she can give you some herbs..you seem stuck in a bad place...your mind froze in a seminar paper given to true lib believers.
I think they only globe that is in danger of "warming'(overheating) is the one on your shoulders...
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/08/2009 @ 12:02am
Posted by antisocialist at 10/07/2009 @ 5:57pm
But you seem to consider yourself some sort of Constitutional authority when you make your Constitutional declarations.
I love freedom and our Constitution, too. Just because I disagree with you about specific interpretations of the Constitution does not mean you are right and I am wrong. There are shades of grey in our society and it is the Constitution, which helps us define where our ever changing limits will be. One of the most amazing things about the Constitution is that it is still a viable document over 200 years after it was written. We are no longer a nation of mostly white Christians and their slaves, yet the document holds true.
It's very flexibility is its true power, and in your limited and "strict" interpretations, you would deny that power to the very document you profess to love.
And of course there are times when the Supremes get it wrong. I think they get it wrong all the time. No need to throw specific cases at me. The Supremes are only human and are ALWAYS a reflection of the times in which they live; we just put the first Latina on the bench! If that's not a reflection of the times, I don't know what is. This goes even more to my point: it is a document that can withstand the worst our society has to throw at it, while still remaining flexible and strong. It bends; it doesn't break.
When things that are made to bend and remain strong are limited in their flexibility, they grow weaker, because the bending is necessary.
The Constitution was meant to bend and flex, and your rigidity about it simply shows you do not understand the very basic nature of the way the document was designed to work.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/08/2009 @ 12:30pm
You are right Stephen. Amazing to me that this 2 Sentence character has anything top do with his multiracial-cultural family. How does he side step all of the one sided decisions and positions through history of the 2 sentences. Easy, does it fit what the majority wants at the time? It's a states rights issue,was interesting to see Rehnquists fingerprints on Plessey-Ferguson. It seems the hiders have had a lot of success,are you sure about the liberal judges?
Posted by whatozz at 10/08/2009 @ 5:12pm