What If, Instead of Fox, Team Obama Tackled Insurance Profiteers

Suppose President Obama and his aides had decided to take on the worst offender among the big insurance companies this fall.

Suppose the White House had highlighted the failure of the company to provide quality care, the abuses in which it has engaged and the behind-the-scenes campaigning by a self-interested corporation to influence the health-care debate in a manner that helps it while harming Americans.

Suppose presidential aides highlighted the initiative in broadcast and cable interviews and reinforced the message with carefully crafted talking points that said the insurance company's top officers were not helping Americans to get medical care but rather engaging in self-interested profiteering.

Suppose activist groups such as MoveOn.org leapt in to help advance the cause by urging Democratic members of Congress to denounce and boycott the insurance company and its products.

There would, undoubtedly, be complaints from those who make it their business to defend the indefensible.

But there would, as well, be cheering from Americans who would finally have a sense that the Obama administration was ready to fight as hard as was necessary to change a system that leaves tens of millions of Americans without the insurance they need and tens of millions more with inadequate insurance.

And the administration would not have to peddle a scheme that allows states to opt out of reform -- by rejecting the option -- as some kind of victory for what was supposed to be national health care.

By any measure, time spent assaulting the worst of the insurance companies would be well spent.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has not chosen to wage a fight that might matter.

Rather, the president's aides continue to wrangle with Fox News, griping about the network's Republican-friendly reporting and commentary. MoveOn is urging members of Congress to join in the charade. And Obama himself is getting dragged into the discussion, telling NBC that: "I think what our advisers have simply said is that we are going to take media as it comes. And if media is operating basically as a talk radio format then that's one thing, and if it's operating as a news outlet that's another but it's not something I'm losing sleep over."

Obama should be "losing sleep" over the fact that he is engaged in this absurd diversion of resources and attention from the real fights his administration ought to be engaged in.

There's no question that Fox commentators can and will continue to be ridiculous in their Republicanism.

But not all Fox personalities are cut from the same cloth as Glenn Beck.

More significantly, the network has a significant viewership and surveys show that a good many of those viewers are independent-minded Americans who tune in as much for the entertainment value of particular shows as for conservative cheerleading.

Obama and his Cabinet members don't have to do the network any favors. But they should recognize the value of appearing on Fox programs that they are responsible (or, at the least, tolerable). And, above all, they should stop making statements that only help Fox run up its ratings as the networks most dim-witted hosts claim they are under attack for "asking the tough questions."

Helen Thomas, the veteran White House reporter who knows a thing or two about the relationships between presidents and the press, counsels that the administration should "stay out of these fights."

Just as when she courageously challenges the excesses of the Bush-Cheney administration – a fight that put her on the wrong side of the Fox blowhards – Thomas is right to challenge this administration's wrongheaded approach to the media.

Thomas is not alone.

ABC News Senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper challenged Obama administration spokesman Robert Gibbs on the issue last week.

It was a telling exchange:

Tapper: It's escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations "not a news organization" and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it's appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one -

(Crosstalk)

Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that's a pretty sweeping declaration that they are "not a news organization." How are they any different from, say -

Gibbs: ABC -

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o'clock tonight. Or 5 o'clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I'm not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I'm talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a "news organization" -- why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That's our opinion.

Of course, Gibbs has a right to that opinion – as do other members of the administration's communications team.

But they really might want to ponder Washington Post writer Ruth Marcus' observation that the fight with Fox – which Marcus "has a distinct Nixonian -- Agnewesque? -- aroma at worst" – "distracts attention from the Obama administration's substantive message."

That ought to be what concerns the White House – not whether Glenn Beck throwing tantrums.

When presidential aides are going to other networks to talk about Fox, when press briefings focus on the question of whether the White House is trying to define what is and what is not news, the Obama administration is off message – way off message.

And it is wasting time that could be better spent.

Seriously, just imagine if all this energy from the Fox fight was going into a discussion about insurance company profiteering.

Then, Obama and his aides would be steering the debate in a direction that would dramatically enhance the prorspects of securing a robust public option -- without "trigger" and "opt-out" gimmickry. (And, despite what Majority Leader Harry Reid may say: The Senate compromise that allows states to reject the public option -- via an opt-out clause -- is a politically and morally flawed approach.)

As it is, the president and his team still sound whiny when they should be projecting an image of focused and functional strength as they enter the most critical stage of the fight over health care reform where the unanswered question remains: Will the administration and the Congress really call the insurance industry to account?

The answer to that question is going to matter a lot more than the resolution of the wrangling with conservative media outlets that may or may not deserve a few minutes of the president's time – but which certainly do not deserve the attention that comes from being targeted for condemnation by the White House.

Comments (176)

1. But Mr Nichols, apparently Fox doesn't seem to like it when attacked...and get ...shall we say "snippy".

   Note Gregg Jarrett's recent performance.

   Frankly, few on the Right even defend FNC as "fair and balanced" anymore if you get into it with them. Mostly their "defense" is "So? MSNBC and all the other Media is liberal and in the bag for Obama...so why can't Fox represent us?!?!?"....thus actually contradicting Fox's own defense by admitting they DO have a bias.

   Aside from their few "news reports" segments, the majority of it IS the opinion shows. Even "Special Report" always features a "panel discussion" comprised of a right-wing friendly host....two right-wingers...and a moderate/centrist.

   I wouldn't make it a slugfest....but no reason to treat them as anything but the cable news outlet of the Republican Party and give it as much credibility for journalism.

   Posted by Mask at 10/26/2009 @ 2:48pm

2. NICHOLS: "Unfortunately, the Obama administration has not chosen to wage a fight that might matter."

   Maybe.......their `Enemies' List' is just getting, too long.....like, longer than their Friends' List?

   LOL!

   Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 3:01pm

3. In a sense I agree with the premise that fighting fox is a waste of time as all it does it give them more exposure and something to rant about. But I also see a benefit to calling them out for biased coverage, as letting their subjective and biased coverage go without comments only serves to legitimize it.

   This said Fox news is not all politics. Their are legitimate and good news stories that come from the agency.

   Posted by Extraneous at 10/26/2009 @ 3:13pm

4. Suppose President Obama and his aides had decided to take on the worst offender among the big insurance companies this fall. -- John Nichols

   Then they would be as misinformed as you are.

   Here is an article making the points that Larry and I have made before: The profit margin of health insurance companies is tiny compared to other companies in the healthcare field.

   ********

   "Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better - drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10."

   "HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers."

   "The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent."

   http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091025/D9BI4D6O1.html

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/26/2009 @ 3:20pm

5. States can opt out?

   Does this mean an individual state can prohibit its residents from choosing the public plan? Which prohibition presumably would end when the resident becomes eligible for Medicare. Or would the individual states under this bill, if it becomes law, be enabled to prevent residents from being covered by Medicare as well?

   Might cause quite an exodus from some states, rather the way the lack of de jure segregation & the availabilty of welfare programs were added reasons for southern blacks to move out & up.

   Posted by sloper at 10/26/2009 @ 3:24pm

6. A quick anecdote. My oldest son's best friend broke his knee last spring.

   I saw the itemized bill last Friday. The doctor put in two titanium screws that were too small and removed them and replaced them with two larger screws. He also used two washers. These were removed last week.

   The washers cost $400 and the four screws cost $3800.

   To all of you Kool Aid drinker who complain that health insurance is the problem I'd like to extend a hearty invitation to go fuck yourself.

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/26/2009 @ 3:25pm

7. Here we go again! Mr. Nichols, has it ever occurred to you that the Obama intentionally used the confrontation with FNC as a smoke screen to take the heat off Obama's dithering on Afghanistan or on his inability to get any form of HC passed? It's the old bait an switch, the slight of hand. Glenn Beck made the point clearly last week on one of his hard hitting segments. He actually performed slight of hand tricks (never see that on Olbermann), to illustrate his point.

   When the WH gets into it with FNC, they are biting off more than they can chew but it is a calculated gamble. Everything is timing with the WH and election day is right around the corner.

   Now, Gibbs is entitled to his, or at least his representation of the WH opinion that FNC is not a news network. Well, that's going to take an awful lot of convincing when they are the only network breaking stories such as the corrupt ACORN and the Communist Van Jones. All of the other 's0-called' news organizations have been asleep at the switch while they cater to that tingle that runs up their leg every time Obama speaks.

   The news audience has learned that FNC, despite it's slant to the right, is always a better choice than watching CNN, MSNBC or any of the other left leaning networks. It's Fox against everyone else. And guess who's winning big time?

   But I do agree that the WH should be able to rise above the media squabble and actually lead. Unfortunately, an inexperienced President who surrounds himself with inexperienced people with their own agendas, can not lead because their is NO direction.

   FNC and talk radio will continue to make mince meat out of the present administration unless they grow up and send someone worthy to do battle with Hannity, Beck or O'Reilly. They'll get the last word.

   Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/26/2009 @ 3:32pm

8. Posted by Extraneous at 10/26/2009 @ 3:13pm

   If that's the case, why doesn't the WH call MSNBC out for their slanted coverage? Can't have it both ways when you are the President of ALL the people.

   Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/26/2009 @ 3:34pm

9. Here are some more facts about America's health care:

   http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/25/wheres-the-benefit/

   Americans have the best survival rates from cancer and most serious diseases, and the most rapid decline in breast and prostate cancer deaths despite being hindered with severe obesity and the largest burden of smokers over 50 of any Western nation.

   Americans have the most successful, most available treatment for chronic diseases like high blood pressure and high cholesterol.

   Americans have the shortest wait times for life-changing surgeries, like cataract and hip replacements, that may not increase survival but greatly impact quality of life.

   Americans have the best access to the newest, most effective drugs.

   Americans have the quickest access to the safest, most advanced medical technologies.

   Americans have the easiest access to specialty doctors, doctors of their choice, doctors who lead the world in health care innovation, regardless of what metrics are assessed.

   *********************

   America doesn't have a healthcare problem: it has an access to care problem.

   Yet, progressives aren't trying to improve access to the best care in the world, they are trying to remake the system to promote collectivism. Invariably this will reduce the effectiveness of care for all.

   Capitalism: the unequal happiness of the many.

   Collectivism: the perfectly equal misery of all.

   Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/26/2009 @ 3:36pm

10. I'd like to extend a hearty invitation to go fuck yourself.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/26/2009 @ 3:25pm

    you'd better not do that if you've got no insurance -- you could end up in hospital and then you'd be really fucked.

    we in canada, however, can fuck ourselves all the time. that's why we're so much happier.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 4:10pm

11. .....we in canada, however, can fuck ourselves all the time. that's why we're so much happier.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 4:10pm

    The pervert I am, can I ask when did you last fuck yourself and, since you're "so much HAPPIER", when do you plan to Re-Fuck yourself? No age limit, right? Guess that means your family wants to be HAPPIER, too?!

    Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 4:15pm

12. "Glenn Beck made the point clearly last week on one of his hard hitting segments"

    i'm not sure "glenn beck" and "hard-hitting" should be in the same sentence, unless of course you're talking about hitting your head against a brick wall.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 4:39pm

13. Obama intentionally used the confrontation with FNC as a smoke screen to take the heat off Obama's dithering on Afghanistan or on his inability to get any form of HC passed?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/26/2009 @ 3:32pm

    TERRRRRRORRRRR ALERT FUCHSIA!!!!!!!!!!

    another pawn caught in the partisan trap.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 4:41pm

14. Bring out more of the Demoncrat and Obamanation LIES! I'll be glad to proclaim YOU LIE!

    In the healthcare debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up."

    But in pillorying insurers over profits, the critics are on shaky ground. Ledgers tell a different reality.

    Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

    Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

    Insurers are an expedient target for leaders who want a government-run plan in the marketplace. Such a public option would force private insurers to trim profits and restrain premiums to compete, the argument goes. This would "keep insurance companies honest," says President Barack Obama.

    The debate is loaded with intimations that insurers are less than straight, when they are not flatly accused of malfeasance.

    The insurers may not have helped their case by commissioning a report that looked primarily at the elements of health care legislation that might drive consumer costs up while ignoring elements aimed at bringing costs down. Few in the debate seem interested in a true balance sheet.

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/26/2009 @ 5:22pm

15. Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th of 53 industries on the Fortune 500 list. As is typical, other health sectors did much better; drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

    The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

    HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers.

    The star among the health insurance companies did, however, nose out Jack in the Box restaurants, which only achieved a 4 percent margin.

    UnitedHealth Group, reporting third quarter results last week, saw fortunes improve. It managed a 5 percent profit margin on an 8 percent growth in revenue.

    Van Hollen is right that premiums have more than doubled in a decade, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study that found a 131 percent increase.

    But were the Bush years golden ones for health insurers?

    Not judging by profit margins, profit growth or returns to shareholders. The industry's overall profits grew only 8.8 percent from 2003 to 2008, and its margins year to year, from 2005 forward, never cracked 8 percent.

    The latest annual profit margins of a selection of products, services and industries: Tupperware Brands, 7.5 percent; Yahoo, 5.9 percent; Hershey, 6.1 percent; Clorox, 8.7 percent; Molson Coors Brewing, 8.1 percent; construction and farm machinery, 5 percent; Yum Brands (think KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), 8.5 percent.

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/26/2009 @ 5:23pm

16. And it is wasting time that could be better spent.

    Seriously, just imagine if all this energy from the Fox fight was going into a discussion about insurance company profiteering.

    Here we have the core of the leftist argument.

    Profits or capitalism, call it either.

    Nichols and the left, and Obama it seems based upon some of his recent comments, declare war on the right of businesses in this country to actually make a profit. They would rather have them follow the govt model in which the enterprises lose money.

    This hatred of the system that created the greatest nation in the history of the world seems to be growing into a piranha style feeding frenzy. We can look forward I'm sure to the nightly news media in the MSM dutifully regurgitating the leftist spin about how profits are destroying America and the American dream. "If we just get rid of the evil profits made by big corporations (healthcare, food, drugs, you name it), all Americans will lead happier, more successful lives"..

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 5:47pm

17. Evil companies make a profit, expand, hire people, unemployment goes down, and the Demoncrats and Obamanation have no one left eligible for their entitlement voter block they are busy creating! That is why one of the first thinks done was to get the "welfare state" roaring again after Clinton and the Republicans shut it down!

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/26/2009 @ 5:50pm

18. You make a good point, Mr. Nichols...

    However... Though insurance providers have definitely occluded and eclipsed the thorough, ongoing, and affordable health maintenance of the American public... Obama has set the parameters... and turned over the issue to the legislative branch of our democracy... where it belongs.

    And... that FOX is a partisan promoter of bias under the guise of being a 'fair and balanced' news service... is a statement of plain fact... and the fact is... by plainly mentioning this... the Obama administration encourages an increase in credibility... which will serve us well.

    Is "The Nation" fair and balanced?;^)

    Posted by ttr at 10/26/2009 @ 6:12pm

19. you'd better not do that if you've got no insurance --

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 4:10pm

    No worries. I've got one of the Cadillac plans.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/26/2009 @ 6:14pm

20. Fox is a parody of its former self. when I was a kid, the movies ran a weekly news program, Fox Tönende Wochenschau. this was pre-television.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/26/2009 @ 6:30pm

21. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/26/2009 @ 3:20pm

    Darin, I've worked in several industries that make huge money and yet never seen to make huge profits (unlike the oil companies that are at least honest about their profits [as obscene as they are]). One is the film industry out here in La La Land.

    Did you know that the biggest film in recent history (Titanic) never made a profit? How about E.T? According to the studio E.T. never made a profit, either (until they were sued by one of the writers demanding their share of the profits). "What profits," said Universal Studios. BTW, the writer won the suit.

    My point is this: any industry that does not have outside regulation can say that it's "profits" were eaten up by all sorts of "administrative costs" including things like junkets to Vegas, corporate travel to Europe, marketing costs (a big bag o nuthin!), and all sorts of costs that would simply not exist if a single payer or public option were the norm.

    So your profit figures for the health insurance industry actually mean nothing, except that it's another strategy the industry is using to try to change the subject from their lousy healthcare (making money off sick people is immoral in my book) and excessive waste, to something (anything!) else.

    "Oh, pity us the healthcare insurance industry...we didn't make hardly ANY profit off the sick and dying people of this nation last year! We need more of you to make more money, or (gasp!) we might go out of business!"

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/26/2009 @ 6:38pm

22. Is "The Nation" fair and balanced?;^) Posted by ttr at 10/26/2009 @ 6:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    has it ever claimed to be?

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/26/2009 @ 6:39pm

23. ......I've got one of the Cadillac plans.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/26/2009 @ 6:14pm

    Does it match up w/the GM/Chrysler UAW's gold-plated plan with NO deductibles and NO co-pays (pre-Gubber takeover)?

    Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 6:41pm

24. Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 4:10pm

    ROTFLMAO!

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/26/2009 @ 6:42pm

25. .....all sorts of costs that would simply not exist if a single payer or public option were the norm.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/26/2009 @ 6:38pm

    And, in the La La Land of Carver, where the poor/old are in the MediCaid/MediCare "single payer" system, all money are used wisely and frauds "would simply not exist" except as inventions of Fox News.

    Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 6:46pm

26. Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 5:47pm

    Larry, while not all of the liberals on this blog will agree with me, I think the point is somehow not profits per se, but the concept of "excessive profits" versus the welfare of the majority of the people.

    Regardless of what you'd prefer, we live in a society of people. Most of those people would agree that laziness is to be frowned upon; we are a worker's society. And while those lazy people are frowned on by most of us (either publicly or internally), so too are the ultra-rich frowned upon by the majority, because it seems like that the people at the top do nothing (or next to nothing) and yet somehow garner not just wealth, but FANTASTIC wealth to shame Midas.

    I like capitalism. I think it's the best thing to come along to provide the most opportunity to the most people willing to work for it. However, capitalism's weakness is greed. Our nation has gotten to the point where people like you seem to believe that not only "greed is good," but that "unlimited greed is better" due to the Reagan revolution of the 80's.

    Economies are cyclical and I would argue that our current recession is due to the fact that capitalism was consumed by greed. The public good was forgotten by the ultra-rich. The pendulum swings to be a more "people centric" and less "person centric." Yes, that is a move away from standard Republican and libertarians ideals, but there's a reason for that movement: greed. The vast majority of Americans didn't get to take part in the greed revolution of the last 30 years; families are literally starving on the streets; yet the business elite care more about profits than starving people; that's where the disconnect from reality is, not in some liberal's viewpoints about capitalism.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/26/2009 @ 6:57pm

27. by emile duBois at 10/26/2009 @ 6:39pm...

    Yeah... you got it in one...;^)

    You may have noticed that FOX did make that claim...

    Posted by ttr at 10/26/2009 @ 6:58pm

28. And, in the La La Land of Carver, where the poor/old are in the MediCaid/MediCare "single payer" system, all money are used wisely and frauds "would simply not exist" except as inventions of Fox News.

    Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 6:46pm

    No. I didn't say that at all. There will be some waste, and some mismanagement; that is true of any system.

    However, administrative expenses for a public option are about 5%. Administrative expenses for a for profit health insurer is about 30%. That's a savings of about 25% right there.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/26/2009 @ 7:02pm

29. So your profit figures for the health insurance industry actually mean nothing, except that it's another strategy the industry is using to try to change the subject from their lousy healthcare (making money off sick people is immoral in my book) and excessive waste, to something (anything!) else.

    "Oh, pity us the healthcare insurance industry...we didn't make hardly ANY profit off the sick and dying people of this nation last year! We need more of you to make more money, or (gasp!) we might go out of business!"

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/26/2009 @ 6:38pm

    So, you believe that Doctors should be slaves and not allowed to make money?

    who else should not be allowed to make money?

    What gives you or anyone else the right to determine whether someone's enterprise returns a profit?

    And yet you say you like capitalism.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 7:09pm

30. by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 7:09pm...

    You are confusing Doctors with insurance companies... but I don't believe that Stephen Carver1 is. Thus... a misunderstanding.

    Posted by ttr at 10/26/2009 @ 7:13pm

31. "HealthSpring, the best performer in the health insurance industry, posted 5.4 percent. That's a less profitable margin than was achieved by the makers of Tupperware, Clorox bleach and Molson and Coors beers."

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/26/2009 @ 3:20pm

    and you want these idiots running your health care plan?!?!?!?!?

    i say you let the folks at hersey run it -- they're way smarter and they'll give you kisses, too.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 7:14pm

32. "Nichols and the left, and Obama it seems based upon some of his recent comments, declare war on the right of businesses in this country to actually make a profit. They would rather have them follow the govt model in which the enterprises lose money"

    just imagine the mind of someone with such a ridiculously simplistic and narrow understanding of....well.....everything.

    "This hatred of the system that created the greatest nation in the history of the world seems to be growing into a piranha style feeding frenzy"

    that wouldn't be a completely paranoid overstatement or anything.......

    Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 7:19pm

33. You may have noticed that FOX did make that claim... Posted by ttr at 10/26/2009 @ 6:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    they are lying.

    Posted by emile duBois at 10/26/2009 @ 7:19pm

34. Several posts here seem to state that 'the left' and progressives in general are against capitalism, period.

    And these posters are the folks who accuse others of not listening, or that they aren't well informed enough.

    Let's clarify.

    The beef that a lot of people have with capitalism as it currently stands is that there are obscene and unfair profits made by those with bad judgement and unrestricted greed as their modus operandi. Some health care insurers seem to fit this description. Obscene and unfair profits.

    But to say that people don't want businesses making any profit is just stupid talk coming from folks who feel threatened. Yes, this may curtail your ability to steal when the opportunity arrives, a sad failing of many 'patriotic' Americans. Boo-hoo.

    But get real... no one is saying that all capitalism is bad. It's just that there needs to be some regulations put back in place (not a new government branch), and maybe repeal that tax cut for the rich.

    As for FOX news, they are a tabloid operation with right wing inclinations. 'Fair and Balanced' is like Alfred E. Neumann saying 'What, me worry?". Their commentators are calling the current administration 'socialists', 'Racist' and many other things. I think they need to actually step up the pressure.

    Posted by ficheye at 10/26/2009 @ 7:20pm

35. i just love how conservatives, whose ideas have dominated national politics for almost 30 years, are always playing the victim. like their lives are soooo difficult now because obama, a centrist technocratic capitalist, has strong words (nevermind the lack of action) for certain corporations whose motives just might be dubious (gee, i wonder why?).....

    i'm sure life under obama must be oh so difficult for anti, bigpasture, happy, jomamma, et al.

    after all, we're "the greatest nation the world has ever known", right? er wait, now with obama, we're not the greatest.

    but under bush? clearly! so great!

    Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 7:23pm

36. that wouldn't be a completely paranoid overstatement or anything.......

    Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 7:19pm

    Not at all. We are seeing the left as they have always been, except they now have some power behind their whining.

    The US may be irreparably damaged by the left's power grab and Obama's "pragmatic incrementalization".

    With ownership of the automakers, the planned destruction of the banking industry (not that they aren't self immolating on their own), the move to destroy right to work laws, the healthcare agenda is the rubicon from which it may be impossible to resurrect the US.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 7:25pm

37. "Some health care insurers seem to fit this description"

    yeah, like if you're a woman, your premiums are (magically) 50% higher.

    and if obama says something "strong" about that (nevermind if he actually does anything), he just wants to destroy american capitalism!

    another conservative hypocrisy: they bemoan the bailouts, and then wonder why obama has strong words for those companies who took our money....and did something dubious with it....

    Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 7:25pm

38. "the healthcare agenda is the rubicon from which it may be impossible to resurrect the US"

    even though the facts demonstrate the EXACT OPPOSITE.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 7:27pm

39. so if anti claims that the US needs to be "resurrected" he's obviously implying that bush destroyed it (aka the greatest country on earth).

    Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 7:28pm

40. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 7:09pm </i>

    <i>Posted by ttr at 10/26/2009 @ 7:13pm </i>

    I don't think there's any confusion. "Making money off of sick people" describes a doctor just as much as an insurance company. Who pays the doctor?

    Now admittedly, a doctor does actually cure people, but you could similarly argue that a cost-sharing scheme (which is what an insurance company optimally is) can also help people by making sure they don't have to go into bankruptcy when they get surgery. It's worth noting that most people don't hate insurance companies per se, they dislike the way they're currently being run and operated.

    But yeah, if you try to wipe out all "profiting from sick people"...there won't be much left. Including doctors.

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/26/2009 @ 7:31pm

41. "the healthcare agenda is the rubicon from which it may be impossible to resurrect the US"

    even though the facts demonstrate the EXACT OPPOSITE.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 7:27pm

    Right Darla, and good is bad and bad is good, I understand leftspeak.

    Instituting totalitarian control of people-making them buy healthcare coverage under threat of govt penalty. You call that increasing freedom?

    Seizing control of our automakers (and you never hear anything about releasing back control) is not totalitarian?

    Calling companies who make profits evil-that is totalitarianism.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 7:32pm

42. except they now have some power behind their whining.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 7:25pm

    "You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," he said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet."

    "We have sort of become a nation of whiners," he said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline" despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said."

    phil gramm

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 7:33pm

43. the planned destruction of the banking industry

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 7:25pm

    larry,

    even though what you say is usually totally wrong,

    this is just absolutely the most ridiculous thing you've ever written.

    planned destruction?!? is that why mr. obama hired mr. geithner, mr. summers and mr. bernanke?

    por favor.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 7:38pm

44. Laughably the guy who made $30,000 last year is the biggest defender of the guys who make the most money. Somebody tell me that United Health's profit margin the last 5 years was 5%. Troll man or Droopy or Santi. Then tell me how Steve Helmsey's $700 million in stock options fits into the picture. Please stop all the B.S. about Doctor's making money. They are not the question in this debate. The insurance companies figure their profit like the movie studios. I am insulted by Santi and the rest of the conservatives who continually have told us that it is O.K. for millions of Americans to not have health insurance but O.K. for insurance executives to make $20+ million a year to be the money changers in the health field.Why do I have the right to determine someone's profit percentage? Honestly I don't but someone who sticks his supposed spirituality in my face at every opportunity should show the semblance of caring more about people than money and the profit margin. It is a shame that I seem more concerned about the literal theft of my tax money by the Big Banks than the Obama Administration. I have yet to find which huge closet is housing the toxic derivatives that caused the financial meltdown.Now billions are being made and bonuses are going to be thrown around again. Why aren't the Big Banks like NWA. They forced labor and pilots to take pay cuts so executives could get bonuses.That is after they screwed Minnesota to give them a bailout. Then they merged with Delta and are selling old corporate headquarters. Okay fellas give us some more examples of good businesses to support.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/26/2009 @ 7:38pm

45. i still can't believe what you wrote.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 7:40pm

46. Posted by whatozz at 10/26/2009 @ 7:38pm

    uh, larry sells insurance.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 7:42pm

47. Posted by whatozz at 10/26/2009 @ 7:38pm

    uh, larry sells insurance.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 7:42pm

    I don't sell health insurance nor do I represent any health insurers for other products.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 7:49pm

48. planned destruction of the banks?!?!??

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 7:56pm

49. I don't think anyone wants companies to stop making money.

    They just want them to stop STEALING money.

    Capitalism is good if there are regulations controlling the greedy and larcenous participants.

    Stealing is always bad.

    That's what people are annoyed about.

    Posted by ficheye at 10/26/2009 @ 8:14pm

50. I am a critic of Obama and his administration because of continuing mixed messages being sent on multiple fdronts. It is mind blowing to me that I continually read posts of conservatives that are speaking of doom. Not because of unemployment ,the foreclosure mess, or our current health care mess. Nope it is the specter of government takeover.What is worse and I have said it before is the people commenting here are backers of Communist China's role as "chief" war bond buyer and principal product supplier to the U.S. The Dulles brothers would role over in their graves. What should we do,sell all of G.M. to China? Let's exhort ourselves to be the best "middle man" the world has ever known. Also,the top weapons maker,that is our manufacturing base. We also can continue to build bases and embassies in trouble spots around the world. It is cost effective to do so. At the rate we are going they are going to get auctioned off to pay our bills.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/26/2009 @ 8:20pm

51. However, administrative expenses for a public option are about 5%. Administrative expenses for a for profit health insurer is about 30%. That's a savings of about 25% right there.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/26/2009 @ 7:02pm

    Let's say you're right, about the 5% & 30%....now, what do you suppose such admin expenses go for?

    Maybe salaries for millions of workers, rent to gobs of landlords, jobs for armies of janitors and other building service workers, utilities, local taxes, local charities and sponsorships.....you know, all kinds of wastes and all.

    Be careful what you wish for in order to `help' that 5~10% of folks (Americans) w/out insurance......the Law of Unintended Consequences are never accounted for by all the bleeding hearts (or environmentalists).

    Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 8:21pm

52. "What If, Instead of Fox, Team Obama Tackled Insurance Profiteers?"

    is this an either/or dealio? why not multitask and attack both?

    both are repugnant, after all, and team O seems to be gifted with the boundless energy of youth, so tackle two vultures with one stone!

    sorry vultures. you provide a useful if nasty service. did not mean to insult...

    Posted by dexter666 at 10/26/2009 @ 8:24pm

53. I appreciate the Democrats in here that stand up to the insane, mindless bull that rebublicans spew at will. The health insurance industry is a criminal organization. Anyone stupid enough to go to town hall meetings to stand up for them is a jackass!!!! And a traitor and should jump off a bridge!!! We need low cost, affordable health care... NOW!!! Lets all make an effort to toss all rebublicans out of office and the blue dog Democrats who do not listen to us!!!! This is a DEMOCRACY !!!!!

    Posted by Tiger2Lover at 10/26/2009 @ 8:24pm

54. Posted by ficheye at 10/26/2009 @ 8:14pm

    TA DA!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 8:25pm

55. At the rate we are going they are going to get auctioned off to pay our bills.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/26/2009 @ 8:20pm

    the chinese really, really wanted to buy gm.

    anyhoo:

    INVESTORS BUZZING OVER STATE LEASEBACK PLAN

    by Matthew Benson - Oct. 25, 2009 12:00 AM

    The Arizona Republic

    Phone calls have been pouring in to Arizona state government in recent weeks from investors inquiring about the state's plan to sell nearly three dozen buildings and facilities as it tries to generate some fast cash.

    Thirty-two buildings were on the initial list of those to be offered for sale, including the Arizona State Hospital, the fairgrounds complex and the House and Senate buildings at the Capitol.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 8:31pm

56. "There's no question that Fox commentators can and will continue to be ridiculous in their Republicanism."

    posted by JOHN NICHOLS on 10/26/2009 @ 3:21pm

    That is precisely what and why the WH should call out Fox for what it is 24/7. Fox is an integral component of the Republican "perpetual campaign". It is perfectly OK and within Obama's RIGHT as a citizen to free speech and DUTY as president to tell like it is.

    MSNBC an CNN are not for the Dems 24/7 like Fox. Lockup is hardly a libberral statement.

    I think Obama should continue to pound Fox for claiming "Fair and Balance" while attacking all things Obama as cataloged by: http://foxattacks.com/videos.php

    If Fox is half as fair as they claim, they would give Obama credit for his accomplishments at least 50% of the time:

    1. For instance why doesn't Fox run a "Rags to Riches" story of Obama's humble beginnings to becoming the most powerful man in the world?

    2. How about a "Trash Obama" moratorium for Glen Beck?

    3. How about a "Bullying Liberals" moratorium for Sean Hannity?

    4. How about Bill O explaining what kind of Socialized Health Care that he would vote for?

    5. How about Fox saying something nice about Michelle Obama? How about letting her give a tour of the WH without fear of HOOLIGAN conservative HIJINKS?

    Obama has proven his willingness to reach out to moderates, while the foxes continue to trash all things Obama. Obama got it right. They are not a news organization, but opinionated and greedy blow hards fighting for ratings. They do not care about progress, and I would call them out.

    YES Obama can single out the insurance companies but that would become an endless discussion of Profits vs Needs, or Capitalism vs Socialism both mutually required.

    FOX is simpler to attack and define as BOGUS.

    Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 10/26/2009 @ 8:32pm

57. give Obama credit for his accomplishments at least 50% of the time:

    Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 10/26/2009 @ 8:32pm

    uh, what accomplishments?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 8:38pm

58. China bought Hummer for the technology and thought process of that "military"vehicle. They are great capitalists sitting at the Central Committee Table. Droopster you said what I have been waiting for to see for months. It is going to cost jobs at the insurance companies.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/26/2009 @ 8:53pm

59. give Obama credit for his accomplishments at least 50% of the time:

    Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 10/26/2009 @ 8:32pm

    uh, what accomplishments?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 8:38pm

    He got the Nobel Peace Prize for apologizing for America, repeatedly......that's "accomplishments" in thanks' eyes surely!

    Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 8:54pm

60. by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 8:54pm...

    You're just jealous... but then... you don't care much for Peace, do you...?

    Especially now... that your stocks are rising under the influence of every government trick in the book... careful there big guy... big gov is your party animal...

    Posted by ttr at 10/26/2009 @ 9:39pm

61. "Calling companies who make profits evil-that is totalitarianism"

    oh, really? i hadn't read that definition before. you must have found it......in your arse.

    the most recent CBO study concluded that a public option would save billions annually.

    that's not "totalitarianism." that's pragmatism.

    by anti's definition, france, sweden, canada, new zealand, etc, are all totalitarian.

    that's the glenn beck mind. group-think.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 9:43pm

62. "But yeah, if you try to wipe out all "profiting from sick people"...there won't be much left. Including doctors."

    all of the empirical data on this (i.e. other countries) proves otherwise.

    but you're free to say whatever you want, thrawn.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 9:44pm

63. It's happening, folks! More and more, I am finding opinions from the prominent Left that is flawless:

    http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=lessons_overlearned

    Lessons Overlearned

    Affordable health care is important, but right now making a living is more urgent.

    Robert B. Reich | October 26, 2009

    ...most Americans will not see any appreciable decline in the cost of health insurance nor clear improvement in the efficiency or quality of the health care they receive, and those who will benefit from the bill won't see it for several years....The Obama White House bought off the medical-industrial complex by promising it...

    That...will make the resulting reforms far more costly. These extra costs will be borne by those Americans who will be required to buy insurance but won't qualify for federal assistance, along with Medicare beneficiaries who will be paying more and receiving less. These people may not know they're indirectly paying the costs of buying off these industries, but they'll know they're getting shafted...

    It's possible that Obama can...launch some new initiatives that palpably and quickly spur job growth. The worry is that there aren't any....a new jobs tax credit can help, but they won't make much of a dent. Even with a larger stimulus, a jobs recovery would still be far off. The tangible benefits of health-care reform are likely to be so elusive in the meantime that the public may...blame Democrats for the insecurities that bedevil the nation next November.

    If Obama and the Democrats lose Congress in the midterm elections, which is not a small possibility.......Health-care reform is critically important. But when one out of six Americans is unemployed or underemployed, getting the nation back to work is more so.

    Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 9:44pm

64. ....Especially now... that your stocks are rising under the influence of every government trick in the book... careful there big guy... big gov is your party animal...

    Posted by ttr at 10/26/2009 @ 9:39pm

    Not today or Friday....but overall, can't complain about the results. I hope someday, sincerely speaking, you will benefit immensely from policies you oppose; if you didn't do well while Bush 43 was in office.

    I can't tell a lie....doing well under policies and spendings I oppose, is truly sweet! Inflation, you're next.....a sure policy of the current Chicago regime and it will help me!

    Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 9:49pm

65. wow, happy posted something from reich.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 9:50pm

66. ...happy posted something from reich.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 9:50pm

    Since I only blog here, I didn't think posting Nichols, who has penned a couple of worthy pieces, made much sense.....;)

    Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 10:10pm

67. However, administrative expenses for a public option are about 5%. Administrative expenses for a for profit health insurer is about 30%. That's a savings of about 25% right there.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/26/2009 @ 7:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Bwahahahaha..... what a pipe dream! A government program that returns more than it costs??? What are you smoking??? Must be a Demoncrat congressmans nightmare.

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/26/2009 @ 10:23pm

68. by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 9:50pm...

    Yeah... but don't get your hopes up... hap is the emotional equivalence of a three year old when it comes to socio-economics...

    Reich is assuming that Americans will blame Obama for the lame economy... and The President is way ahead of him...

    ...There's probably at least 50 ways to put America back to work... but most all of them will not be touched by republican patricians... though they were indeed created by republican 'ideologies' and policies. They can't admit they were wrong... so they are going to break all the toys... upset the game they refuse to concede... and, still unable to admit that Bush catered to a bill of goods that had little to do with conservative economic values, Christian values, or Democracy...

    ...they just can't relate to a truly effective president.

    Would the right just be more comfortable with a King?

    Posted by ttr at 10/26/2009 @ 10:30pm

69. ....they just can't relate to a truly effective president.

    Posted by ttr at 10/26/2009 @ 10:30pm

    You're right.....no Repub President would have the balls to stand mute as jobless goes to 10%......in that respect, Magic is "truly effective" and has got a set of balls, and spine.....I admire that! Now, don't ever say that I never compliment him.

    Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 10:36pm

70. "You're right.....no Repub President would have the balls to stand mute as jobless goes to 10%"

    i thought it wasn't the government's role to create jobs.

    "let the market handle it", as you might say.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 10:46pm

71. "Calling companies who make profits evil-that is totalitarianism"

    oh, really? i hadn't read that definition before. you must have found it......in your arse.

    the most recent CBO study concluded that a public option would save billions annually.

    that's not "totalitarianism." that's pragmatism.

    by anti's definition, france, sweden, canada, new zealand, etc, are all totalitarian.

    that's the glenn beck mind. group-think.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 9:43pm

    Your beloved Marx called profits evil and he was totalitarian.

    All those countries as long as they remove freedom of choice (which they all do) are at some level of totalitarian control.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 10:51pm

72. "You're right.....no Repub President would have the balls to stand mute as jobless goes to 10%"

    i thought it wasn't the government's role to create jobs.

    "let the market handle it", as you might say.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 10:46pm

    It's the govt's job to get out of the way and not be a hinderance to job creation.

    From a real President

    <"Our party must be the party of the individual. It must not sell out the individual to cater to the group. No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex, centralized society. Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business ... frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite. Our party must be based on the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people. Any organization is in actuality only the lengthened shadow of its members. A political party is a mechanical structure created to further a cause. The cause, not the mechanism, brings and holds the members together. And our cause must be to rediscover, reassert and reapply America's spiritual heritage to our national affairs. Then with God's help we shall indeed be as a city upon a hill with the eyes of all people upon us."

    Ronald Reagan>

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 10:54pm

73. Did it occur to Nichols to first establish that the profits of the insurance companies actually are egregious? If he had he would have flourished the numbers with a grim grin. But he hasn't, because he never found our what they are, or found out that they are a quite modest, 3%.

    That is what Robert Samuelson cites today, as their profits, in his Oct 27 Washington Post column. It is a very interesting column for anyone interested in the realities of the medical cost crisis.

    But the truth of the matter does not interest Nichols. What interests him is helping Team Obama replace the counterproductive demagogy of attacking Fox News with the more popular and less productive demagogy of attacking the insurance companies.

    Posted by Pirovano at 10/26/2009 @ 11:12pm

74. by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 10:46pm...

    "Magic" is Hap's rabbit out of a hat when he's got nothing but a foul disposition to broadcast...

    by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 10:51pm...

    Most leftists agree... that though Marx came up with a competent critique of Capitalism in particular... he failed miserably when it came to creating an alternative. I think you and I and most of us agree, antisoash...

    ...but calling people Marxists because they find the widening discrepancy between the wealthy and the 'broke' disheartening... is hardly in the spirit of our founders, now is it?... especially now...

    Common sense reforms are conservative economics in action.

    Posted by ttr at 10/26/2009 @ 11:16pm

75. Correction:

    ... with the more profitable demagogy of attacking the insurance companies.

    Posted by Pirovano at 10/26/2009 @ 11:18pm

76. Common sense reforms are conservative economics in action.

    Posted by ttr at 10/26/2009 @ 11:16pm

    There are no common sense reforms being proposed and Congress has no business trying to reform a business service. where in the constitution does it authorize the Congress to reform business?

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 11:18pm

77. "It's the govt's job to get out of the way and not be a hinderance to job creation"

    so then conservatives shouldn't blame obama for rising unemployment.

    they should blame "the market."

    Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 11:53pm

78. "It's the govt's job to get out of the way and not be a hinderance to job creation"

    so then conservatives shouldn't blame obama for rising unemployment.

    they should blame "the market."

    Posted by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 11:53pm

    No, Obama has disrupted the market forces with his govt takeover of the automakers, insurance companies (AIG), the attempt to take over healthcare which will lead to another 3 million or more unemployed, the false propping up of the banks which still carry all the toxic derivatives, the more than 10 trillion pumped into the banks and financial services by Geithner and the Federal Reserve, the continuing decline of the dollar, and on, and on.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 12:14am

79. by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 11:18pm...

    When economic corruption is rampant... the people must put a stop to it... and congress is their voice. It won't end here...

    We've got to get America back to work!

    by darladoon at 10/26/2009 @ 11:53pm...

    They are conflicted with the contradicted...;^)

    Posted by ttr at 10/27/2009 @ 12:17am

80. by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 12:14am...

    No matter how hard you try to blame Obama, the fact remains... all of these became serious problems in the Bush administration... and were just left to fester. Then Paulson pulled the plug on the economy.

    Keeping the economic infrastructure afloat is the simplest solution... recreating it from scratch... like you adamantly disagree with doing in the health insurance industry... would have been precarious at best... and 'I don't want to even think about it' at its worst.

    Posted by ttr at 10/27/2009 @ 12:28am

81. "No, Obama has disrupted the market forces with his govt takeover of the automakers, insurance companies (AIG), the attempt to take over healthcare which will lead to another 3 million or more unemployed, the false propping up of the banks which still carry all the toxic derivatives, the more than 10 trillion pumped into the banks and financial services by Geithner and the Federal Reserve, the continuing decline of the dollar, and on, and on"

    you missed the point, anti. these two criticisms are incompatible:

    a) that obama shouldn't disrupt the market

    b) that obama hasn't done enough to combat unemployment.

    nevermind the automakers, AIG, toxic assets, for now....though i agree those are serious probs.

    we're talking about the incompatibility of ideas.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2009 @ 12:32am

82. anti,

    what would have done about GM, AIG?

    and btw, the public option isn't a "government takeover" of healthcare.

    anyone with even a shred of intelligence knows that.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2009 @ 12:33am

83. how stupid is antisocialist? simply go to the CBO's main page and read the f*cking headline:

    "federal budget is unsustainble due to rising costs of healthcare"

    in other words, without a government "takeover" healthcare costs will rise.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2009 @ 12:35am

84. Of all of our Presidents Ron was the best reverse Robin Hood . He took from the many and gave vto the few with his tax policy. Maybe you could call it unwittedly because of a certain lack of intelligence. I believe he had an Edgar Bergen helping him along. Why are the unemployment numbers of 1983 always quoted? Why is the savings and loan scandal never brought up by you? I laugh that the party of Reagan authorized a "wall" to be built to keep out illegals. The same illegals he blindly watched enter his beloved California for how many years.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/27/2009 @ 05:52am

85. Posted by whatozz at 10/27/2009 @ 05:52am

    Much of the new crop of conservatives know the MYTH of Reagan and that they are to dutifully worship at his altar, whatozz....but know little about the actual history of his Administration.

    Some of the older ones have "new memories" of it as well. Actually believing that "Reagan never raised taxes" or "Reagan cut the size and scope of government" or "Reagan tried to end abortion."

    Even some of the Left buys into a mythological version of history.

    Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 07:18am

86. how stupid is antisocialist? simply go to the CBO's main page and read the f*cking headline:

    "federal budget is unsustainble due to rising costs of healthcare"

    in other words, without a government "takeover" healthcare costs will rise.

    Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2009 @ 12:35am

    The only thing stupid is the idea that private business will not survive without a govt takeover.

    the only thing more stupid is the idea that govt is the solution to problems like healthcare costs.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 07:19am

87. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/26/2009 @ 6:38pm

    Stephen, there is a big difference between internal expense allocation WITHIN a company (Titanic made zero but Pluto Nash made $100M, for instance) and total profit for the company, which is audited by the IRS.

    But let's go with your example. Why didn't Titanic (as a project, not a company) show a profit? Well, Leo got 2 points and Kate got 1 point and the director got 5 points and the writers got 1 point and ...

    The people involed with the project made hundred of millions of dollars in "profit" that they paid taxes on.

    If insurance companie are "evil fuckheads" because they made $100 million off the sick and dying, what does that say about doctors and nurses who made $1B off the sick and dying.

    Doctors and nurses must be an order of magnitude worse that "evil fuckheads" because they made 10 times as much profit off the sick and dying than the insurance companies did.

    And what about the janitor who mops up the vomit in the OR after an operation. What about that evil fuckhead who is making a profit off of the sick and dying.

    Look, doctors, nurses and janitors provide a service to the sick and dying. The sick and dying desperately need that service. Insurance companies also provide a service. They pool risk. This helps provide economic security for the healthy and they provide funds for care for the sick and dying.

    Just because you want the government to provide that service doesn't mean that the people who currently provide it are evil fuckheads. You want that to be true because if it is true, it is easier for you convince voters to give you what you want. But just because you want something doesn't make your justification true.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/27/2009 @ 07:30am

88. It's fairly simple. The administration attacks Fox. Why? Because they don't have the balls to attack the insurance companies. It's all the same old smoke and mirrors.

    Why has not Obama come out in firm support for the "public option"? Why is Rahm Emanuel pushing for the health care bill killing "trigger"?

    Get the drift? There are elections to consider and payoffs in the form of campaign contributions to court.

    This administration does not give a damn if Americans get much needed Health Care Reform or not. All they care about is maintaining political power.

    This is just dirty politics 101.

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/27/2009 @ 07:32am

89. Darin-I don't think a person begrudges the money that doctors,nurses,or janitors make. Have you looked at a health bill lately? I have looked at plenty due to my wife and associated health problems. The" providers"are holding the cards in making decisions to both paying the doctors and protecting the consumer. The CEO's of big insurance are just one of how many making big salaries at each insurance company? Quit defending the money pigs,that is the core issue here. Santi says if insurance costs too much ,don't buy it ,and roll the dice. Life is short or long based upon the divine creator. Watch his pal Pat Robertson show off one of his 100 suits that the"gospel" paid for. I am not gaga about the government being involved in health care. The greed that isa being shown by American business is so out of hand that it has to be checked. If the Democrats don't do it then they have to go also. The conservatives in positions of leadership support this greedy grab for control of American's "spending". It is just a different angle of control. It is a matter of economic wherewithal which is dictating peoples lives. The same people bemoaning business bailouts are benefitting from them quietly.

    Posted by whatozz at 10/27/2009 @ 08:22am

90. And what about the janitor who mops up the vomit in the OR after an operation. What about that evil fuckhead who is making a profit off of the sick and dying. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/27/2009 @ 07:30am

    The difference Troll is that the janitor is providing a real tangible service and is rightly paid for that labor.

    For profit insurance companies provide nothing. They are a middleman that stands between the consumer of medical services and the real providers of medical services. These for profit insurance company vampires do not manufacture health care devices. They do not create or research new drugs. They do not mop up vomit, operate on your tumor or read youe anal thermometer.

    They do nothing but profit from denial of services. They are the death panels that decide if you get treatment or not.

    They are totally unnecessary in the delivery of Healthcare.

    And as a result, describing them as "evil fuckheads" is appropriate. In fact it is letting them off easy. The CEO's of these death worshipping insurance companies should by rights be taken to the town square and summarily executed for crimes against humanity.

    And as a opponent of the death penalty that is a stretch for me.

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/27/2009 @ 08:37am

91. Ronald Reagan>

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 10:54pm

    sheesh,

    and you blame obama????!?!??!?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 08:39am

92. Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 08:39am

    Never will quote "certain things" from Reagan from his memoirs, I'll bet.

    Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 08:55am

93. Ronald Reagan>

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 10:54pm

    sheesh,

    and you blame obama????!?!??!?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 08:39am

    It's a shame FZ that you hate liberty and freedom and instead worship the idol of totalitarian govt who will make your decisions for you.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 09:09am

94. From a real President. Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 10:54pm

    Anti, I think you forgot to place an "ly" at the end of "real" and the word "bad" after. Must have been an oversight.

    There are three Presidents who fall high on everyone's list of "Worst President Ever". They are James Buchanan, George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. That's 2 Republicans and One Democrat competing for the honor. But Reagan must be considered as #1 when it comes to undermining an entire nation, and to beat out George W. Bush fir that honor is quite an accomplishment.

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/27/2009 @ 09:37am

95. Anti, I think you forgot to place an "ly" at the end of "real" and the word "bad" after. Must have been an oversight.

    There are three Presidents who fall high on everyone's list of "Worst President Ever". They are James Buchanan, George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. That's 2 Republicans and One Democrat competing for the honor. But Reagan must be considered as #1 when it comes to undermining an entire nation, and to beat out George W. Bush fir that honor is quite an accomplishment.

    Posted by chaoszen at 10/27/2009 @ 09:37am

    Fortunately most Americans reject your view of Reagan as he consistently places in the top 5 of presidents in our history. Your hatered of individualism, liberty including the freedom to fail or succeed shows every week in your posts.

    I think we all wish you well in finding that totalitarian paradise that you seek ELSEWHERE.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 09:49am

96. by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 09:09am...

    But antisoash... it is precisely your version of 'liberty and freedom' that systematically deregulates the concentrated and centralized economic 'grab bags' for the well positioned... and promotes intrinsically unstable market 'enhancements'... promulgated by the lobbyists that represent all 'lucrative' economic forces except the general welfare of the people...

    ...and you go on... with the assertion that no Constitutional authority is given to the legislative branch to deal with this from the point of view of the general welfare of the US citizenry...

    ...forgetting that the Constitution is a living, breathing document... that the founders expected to be modified to fit the ever changing criterions needed to protect the bulk of the population from corruption and tyranny.

    Posted by ttr at 10/27/2009 @ 09:51am

97. <If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals -- if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. Now, I can't say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don't each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path.>

    Ronald Reagan

    Interview published in Reason (1975-07-01)

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 09:55am

98. " Lets all make an effort to toss all rebublicans out of office and the blue dog Democrats who do not listen to us!!!! This is a DEMOCRACY !!!!!"

    Posted by Tiger2Lover at 10/26/2009 @ 8:24pm |

    In August several outlets reported Emanuel's chastisement of some attendees for targeting Blue Dog Democrats wavering on reform. Anyone who went after Democrats, he reportedly said, was "fucking stupid." ---Tuesdays With Rahm by Chris Hayes

    Yeah, I'd say that fits you to a T.

    Posted by Benchrest at 10/27/2009 @ 10:00am

99. It's a shame FZ that you hate liberty and freedom and instead worship the idol of totalitarian govt who will make your decisions for you.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 09:09am

    oh, come off it.

    such gibberish.

    reagan doubled federal debt, increased federal bureaucracy, made deals with murderers, drug dealers, and islamic fundamentalists, and most damagingly, let loose the beast of financial deregulation that ultimately has lead america to the verge of collapse.

    freedom is only good if you remove the dumb.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 10:02am

100. Fortunately most Americans reject your view of Reagan as he consistently places in the top 5 of presidents in our history. Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 09:49am

     Yeah Anti, he places in the Top 5 worst presidents in our history. And you have your auntie panties in a bunch because I gave him 1st place?

     Sheesh. Talk about being inconsiderate..

     Posted by chaoszen at 10/27/2009 @ 10:30am

101. "There are three Presidents who fall high on everyone's list of "Worst President Ever"."

     Yup...

     and they are Carter,Carter, and soon to be added Obie.....

     and there should be plenrty of room for Bush to be on the terrible presidents list...both of them, LBJ,Clinton, Wilson...

     Woww... mostly democrats and 2 republicans,,,

     Funny how that works, eh comrade Chao?

     Ah, on "Everyones" list....

     Posted by YourJomamma at 10/27/2009 @ 10:30am

102. I have to admit that the Neo-Fascists have been somewhat successful in rewriting history. And that the "Teflon" President Reagan has avoided being vilified amongst the ignorant due to the efforts of Orwellian neo-fascist pigs.

     But the truth, after all is the truth, and has an almost supernatural ability to rise to the surface. Much to the disdain of the brain draining leeches.

     You can fool some of the people some of the time. But you will never accomplish fooling all of the people all of the time.

     Good luck in that endeavour!

     Posted by chaoszen at 10/27/2009 @ 10:42am

103. For profit insurance companies provide nothing. They are a middleman that stands between the consumer of medical services and the real providers of medical services.

     Posted by chaoszen at 10/27/2009 @ 08:37am

     Like Archie Bunker you are blinded by your bigotries.

     Risk pooling is a service every bit as vital as cleaning or diagnosis or education or research. Just because it is intangible doesn't mean it isn't real. What do you think Medicare and Medicaid are? They are risk pooling mechanisms. The question here isn't whether risk pooling is needed, the question is whether it should be done by private or public entities.

     The government is primarily in charge of education. Does that mean every educator at a private school or college is an evil fuckhead because they work for a profit motivated entity?

     And as to a middle man between the patient and the doctor, suppose you need a $250,000 lung transplant. As a truck driver how are you going to pay the doctor $250,000 without a middle man? You desparately need risk pooling to manage your risk of financial ruin due to morbidity.

     But your bigotries tell you that government is benevolent and private is evil. But governments cause preventable deaths by denying service as well. They just deny it to everyone, thus creating more preventable deaths.

     The private companies that deny claims do so because they are in the business of risk pooling. Unlike the govenment they cannot force the healthy to participate, which means that they can't pay for them if they wait to sign up to participate after they become sick.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/27/2009 @ 10:46am

104. James Taranto has published a book on presidential leadership. It gives a breif description of each president and then looks at a consensus of historians' opinions.

     It ranks them as great, near great, average, below average and failure.

     I'm going from memory here, but my recollection was:

     Washington, Lincoln, and FDR are great.

     Reagan and maybe Jefferson were near great.

     Clinton and Bush 41 were average

     Carter was below average.

     Buchanan is universally ranked as worst failure.

     Bush 43 was too new and wasn't ranked as was the guy who caught pneumonia at his inaguration and died shortly after.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/27/2009 @ 11:05am

105. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/27/2009 @ 10:46am |

     Risk Pooling? Glad you brought that up Troll.

     The economic philosophy of "Risk Pooling" is defined by certain concepts. One of which is "Centralized inventory saves safety stock and average inventory in the system". And "The higher the coefficient of variation, the greater the benefit obtained from "centralized systems"; that is, the greater the benifit from risk pooling."

     The very economic philosophy of "Risk Pooling" suggests that the larger the pool, the lesser the risk.

     By having a single payer system that included all Americans via opening up Medicare for all would be the ultimate "Risk Pool", and would spread the risk between people who require healthcare and those that don't. And would would by the very definition of a "Risk Pool" result in overall reduced prices for the administration of Health Care services.

     It never ceases to amaze how you people cut the throat of your argument with your argument... I would call that idiocy.

     Posted by chaoszen at 10/27/2009 @ 11:09am

106. Again, one wonders at the utter canonization of Ronald Reagan by the Right....I suppose because he was (and possibly always will be) the BEST, i.e. most conservative, President (atleast in terms of rhetoric) that they'll EVER get.

     But it is a fact

     1. Reagan raised taxes (as well as cut them). Gasoline taxes and corporate taxes (with the 1986 Reform Act).

     2. Reagan INCREASED, not decreased the size of Government, both in terms of Departments (DVA) and Federal employees (not just military personnel).

     3. Reagan proposed TOTAL nuclear disarmament with the Soviets, if they would accept SDI as a joint venture. And DID sign an Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with them.

     4. Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor, who though conservative, did NOT support overturning Roe.

     Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 11:22am

107. It never ceases to amaze how you people cut the throat of your argument with your argument... I would call that idiocy.

     Posted by chaoszen at 10/27/2009 @ 11:09am

     Well then look in the mirror because your argument is 1) wrong and 2) demonstrates that the theory is wildly divergent from the practice.

     Risk pooling is not an "economic philosophy". It is a real-world tool employed to manage non-systemic risks. The word you were grasping for is "diversification".

     Diversification does not lower the epected cost of the risk (as you suggest), no matter how big the pool. Diversification lowers the variability of combined result. This means that the risk can be financially managed with proportionately less capital, which means the cost of capital charge is lower, which lowers the risk premium. (The total premium is the expected cost plus the risk premium.)

     So Medicare for all does not lower costs. What lowers costs is when the government refuses to pay for new drugs for everyone. What lowers costs is when the government says you have to wait 10 months to get an MRI on your torn rotator cuff. What lowers costs is when government dictates that doctors' compensation will be cut. What lowers costs is when the government says nobody over the age of 70 can get a hip replacement because they aren't working anyway and since it's just a quality of life issue the government's return on its investment in you hip is negative 100%. (Actually it's even negative 150% because with a better quality of life you might live longer, costing the government more in SS payments.)

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/27/2009 @ 11:46am

108. Reagan was at one time a communist. When he was president of the screen actors guild, he was known as "Red Ronnie". Later Reagan aligned himself with Joseph McCarthy to fight communism and snitched off and falsely accused other actors and actors as being "communist".

     He was a front man for General Electric and rumoured to be an F.BI. informant.

     He was as bad a friend as he was a President..

     Ironic that Reagan denounced Neo-Fascists in the 50's and now after his death finds them worshipping him...

     Posted by chaoszen at 10/27/2009 @ 11:56am

109. "the only thing more stupid is the idea that govt is the solution to problems like healthcare costs"

     antisocialist has completely run out of ideas.

     Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2009 @ 12:01pm

110. Seizing control of our automakers (and you never hear anything about releasing back control) is not totalitarian?

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 7:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --who went hat in hand begging for taxpayer money?

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2009 @ 12:05pm

111. jomamma, the country saw tremendous economic growth under clinton.

     so why didn't you like him again?

     oh, i understand, you just didn't like him because he was a democrat (who never raised taxes after '96)....

     Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2009 @ 12:06pm

112. So Medicare for all does not lower costs. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/27/2009 @ 11:46am

     If Medicare for all would not lower the cost per-capita that we spend on healthcare then why is every other country that has single payer healthcare paying less than we do? And why does every other country who has some form of single payer healthcare have better medical outcomes and longer life for it's citizens overall.

     Again you sabotage your own argument with your own ignorance and stupidity.

     And to be honest Troll, I tire of your stupidity..

     Posted by chaoszen at 10/27/2009 @ 12:09pm

113. "If Medicare for all would not lower the cost per-capita that we spend on healthcare then why is every other country that has single payer healthcare paying less than we do? And why does every other country who has some form of single payer healthcare have better medical outcomes and longer life for it's citizens overall."

     chaoszen, conservatives are stubbornly beholden to the most arcane of political ideas, and will never change even when you present the only available empirical data on the subject at hand.

     yes, other countries spend less than we do. yes, they live longer. yes, they cover everyone.

     but that never cuts it for them.

     Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2009 @ 12:17pm

114. Larry, why do you think auto and home owners insurance are mandatory?

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2009 @ 12:20pm

115. There are no common sense reforms being proposed and Congress has no business trying to reform a business service. where in the constitution does it authorize the Congress to reform business? Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 11:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --why do you hate regulations that serve americans?

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2009 @ 12:23pm

116. but that never cuts it for them.

     Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2009 @ 12:17pm

     Yeah I know.. I just can't help trying.

     It is one of my character faults..

     Posted by chaoszen at 10/27/2009 @ 12:24pm

117. he doesn't care. he got his. fuck everyone else.

     Posted by SoundGuyChris at 10/27/2009 @ 12:44pm

118. Seizing control of our automakers (and you never hear anything about releasing back control) is not totalitarian?

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 7:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --who went hat in hand begging for taxpayer money?

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2009 @ 12:05pm

     And they should not have been given it.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 12:58pm

119. Larry, why do you think auto and home owners insurance are mandatory?

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2009 @ 12:20pm

     Homeowners insurance is not mandatory, at least not in CA or NV (the 2 states I'm licensed in).

     I would have no problem removing mandatory auto insurance, but it is state issue, not a federal one, so I don't understand the relevance of your question.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 1:01pm

120. There are no common sense reforms being proposed and Congress has no business trying to reform a business service. where in the constitution does it authorize the Congress to reform business? Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 11:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --why do you hate regulations that serve americans?

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2009 @ 12:23pm

     I don't. I hate seeing Congress usurp it's authority and attempt to override what has always been regulated by the states, consistent with the constitution.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 1:03pm

121. "What If, Instead of Fox, Team Obama Tackled Insurance Profiteers..."

     For some reason, Wayne's World came to mind: " What If, Monkey's Flew Out of My Butt..."

     Posted by frosty zoom at 10/27/2009 @ 10:02am

     antisocialist loves his freedom and liberty to pick my pockets to fund his war on Islam. He can't afford it, so it's much better that *I* pay for it. You can't be libertarian while supporting a global police state.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/27/2009 @ 11:46am

     While your point is a good one, your argument is bad because there is no reason that a government plan has to take the same risks as the current insurance systems. Therefore, the risk pools can be structured differently. Conservatives call this "rationing".

     Posted by darladoon at 10/27/2009 @ 12:17pm

     It never cuts it, darla, because you are talking about different things. You think medical costs would be lower if the government bought health services like Wal-Mart buys cheap consumer goods. Conservatives are arguing that the government ain't Wal-Mart.

     You can talk all day until your are blue in the face, but your points, to the other audience, are irrelevant.

     Posted by srjenkins at 10/27/2009 @ 1:16pm

122. "I would have no problem removing mandatory auto insurance, but it is state issue, not a federal one, so I don't understand the relevance of your question."-----Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 1:01pm

     "Not at all, liberty does allow you to be foolish, but insurance is about leveraging risk in your life and possessions. I've been building my business by either saving people money on their current coverage or increasing their coverage for the same premium. In some cases, I've saved people over a $1000 per year. So I feel like I'm helping people get through this economic cycle.

     Furthermore these so-called mandates when it comes to auto insurance are to protect the consumer against people who don't have coverage such as illegal immigrants.

     If I'm hit by someone without insurance, at least I know that my Uninsured/Underinsured coverage still protects me, my family, people riding in my vehicle, loss of income, hospital bills. Also, the loan companies have a right to protect their interest also.

     With Homeowner insurance do you honsestly believe that you

     I've never said that there is no role for govt and clearly oversight of insurance is well within the constitutional authority granted to states by the 10th amendment.

     And getting people the right coverage on their homes is often a real lifesaver. Unfortunately many insurance companies place restrictions through language of the contracts that in effect gives people worthless policies. I go through and explain the language of the policies and what is covered and what is not. My reviews with clients take over an hour on average. I'm almost always told that no agent ever really explained their coverage to them before.

     I'll have more to say on this."----Posted by lvliberty1 at 01/22/2009 @ 12:

     Posted by Mask at 10/27/2009 @ 1:17pm

123. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/26/2009 @ 3:25pm

     This is a total crap argument. Do a web search for fee-for-service. That's the main problem, and it has a lot to do with insurance billing.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/26/2009 @ 3:36pm

     Another crap argument. It has a medical cost control problem - in addition to an access problem.

     Posted by srjenkins at 10/27/2009 @ 1:23pm

124. So, you believe that Doctors should be slaves and not allowed to make money?

     who else should not be allowed to make money?

     What gives you or anyone else the right to determine whether someone's enterprise returns a profit?

     And yet you say you like capitalism. Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 7:09pm

     Larry, I didn't say ANY of those things.

     1. I like capitalism, but not unregulated capitalism. Unregulated capitalism is as bad or worse than communism.

     2. Making money (profiting) off sick and dying people is, in my book, immoral, unethical and goes against the Hippocratic oath. I am not saying that doctors shouldn't make money...everyone does have the right to make money in their chosen profession (I have NEVER said otherwise, regardless of what you might think). Doctors don't have to treat patients with insurance; I know many doctors who don't take any insurance AT ALL, and have only wealthy clients. Good for them, but that ain't most of America.

     3. Insurance companies provide no medical care. They simply exist as a middle man and provide no actual medical advantage. I say we should do away with the industry completely, but since that won't happen, a public option that will force them to bring down prices and be competitive is the next best thing, again in my book. Excessive profit providing no services is essentially the definition of unregulated capitalism. And why do the "anti-trust" laws exist for the insurance industry, eh? Justify THAT one with your capitalist mentality.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 1:25pm

125. With ownership of the automakers, the planned destruction of the banking industry (not that they aren't self immolating on their own), the move to destroy right to work laws, the healthcare agenda is the rubicon from which it may be impossible to resurrect the US.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 7:25pm

     PLEASE tell me you're not blaming the "planned destruction of the banking industry" on Obama. It happened on George W. Bush's watch, not Obama's. Do you NOT know how to read a calendar? Calendar use has been one of mankind's greatest achievements and has been used for millennia.

     Even a caveman could do it as he stood right next to the dinosaurs.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 1:33pm

126. Now admittedly, a doctor does actually cure people, but you could similarly argue that a cost-sharing scheme (which is what an insurance company optimally is) can also help people by making sure they don't have to go into bankruptcy when they get surgery. It's worth noting that most people don't hate insurance companies per se, they dislike the way they're currently being run and operated.

     Posted by Thrawn at 10/26/2009 @ 7:31pm

     In a perfect world, you'd be right. But if the purpose of insurance is to help people "by making sure they don't have to go into bankruptcy when they get surgery," why is the #1 cause of all bankruptcies in America due to not being able to pay medical bills?

     I'd have to say your insurance companies must not be doing too good of a job. Yet they are incredibly profitable. Hmmmmm....

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 1:37pm

127. Let's say you're right, about the 5% & 30%....now, what do you suppose such admin expenses go for?

     Maybe salaries for millions of workers, rent to gobs of landlords, jobs for armies of janitors and other building service workers, utilities, local taxes, local charities and sponsorships.....you know, all kinds of wastes and all.

     Be careful what you wish for in order to `help' that 5~10% of folks (Americans) w/out insurance......the Law of Unintended Consequences are never accounted for by all the bleeding hearts (or environmentalists).

     Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 8:21pm

     Happy, "salaries" (what people are paid) are never included under "Administrative expenses" in any accountant's books. Administrative expenses are usually things like "marketing" (i.e. TV ads asking you to come join their health insurance company...been seeing lots of ads for that lately, haven't we?); corporate travel is sometimes listed as an "admin expense," office supplies is usually listed as an "admin expense," etc.

     In fact, I would imagine that the marketing and PR budget alone for the big health care insurance providers is in the billions. With a B. Check it out.

     You mention things like taxes. If a government program were in place, they wouldn't have to pay any taxes, so there's additional money saved.

     http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 1:52pm

128. I can't tell a lie....doing well under policies and spendings I oppose, is truly sweet! Inflation, you're next.....a sure policy of the current Chicago regime and it will help me!

     Posted by Happy at 10/26/2009 @ 9:49pm

     So, if Obama's policies (since they are now his) continue to reward you monetarily, will you be the typical Republican in 2012 and vote against your own self-interest?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 1:59pm

129. Ronald Reagan>

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 10:54pm

     Nope. That was just a speech pandering to the religious right so he could get their money and continue getting their money. I am actually quite glad to see the Republican party brought so low, because in George W, Bush, the religious right got absolutely everything they wanted...and it crashed and burned. I am tired of religious hypocrites with lots of money.

     Moneychangers every one of them.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 2:03pm

130. where in the constitution does it authorize the Congress to reform business?

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 11:18pm

     Where in the Constitution does it set up capitalism as our preferred form of commerce?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 2:05pm

131. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/27/2009 @ 07:30am

     "If insurance companie are "evil fuckheads" because they made $100 million off the sick and dying, what does that say about doctors and nurses who made $1B off the sick and dying."

     * Doctors and nurses provide a direct service to the patient. Insurance companies feed off the patient. Bloodsuckers, literally. And I NEVER called anyone an "evil f*ckhead." I choose never to use that kind of language in a public forum. Don't know where you got the phrase from, but it wasn't me.

     * I do not deny the right of anyone involved with helping the sick and dying a fair salary; again, I have NEVER said that. I have many nurses in my family and they all deserve fair payment. But excessive profits to insurance company executives and the salaries of doctors, nurses and janitors do not compare. Ever heard of a janitor getting $300 M in stock options? I thought not. So again, your point is moot.

     "Just because you want the government to provide that service..."

     * I want the government to provide the capability of letting the doctors, nurses and janitors do their jobs without the 30% mark-up on costs due to the insurance companies marketing campaigns.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 2:15pm

132. So Medicare for all does not lower costs. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/27/2009 @ 11:46am

     If Medicare for all ...

     And to be honest Troll, I tire of your stupidity..

     Posted by chaoszen at 10/27/2009 @ 12:09pm

     Well then, let me speak more slowly... Re-read the arguement: ******************************************************* Diversification does not lower the epected cost of the risk ... no matter how big the pool. Diversification lowers the variability of combined results...

     So [expanding] Medicare for all [would] not lower costs [because of diversification. It would only lower proportionate variability]. What lowers costs is when the government [rations care.]

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/27/2009 @ 11:46am *******************************************************

     Why do other countries use programs similar to medicare? They do so in order to reduce the amount of GDP spent on medical care by rationing it: That is they refuse to treat treatable conditions (in a timely fashion) in order to save money.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/27/2009 @ 2:20pm

133. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 2:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Yea, and out of that billion dollars they paid 50% of it to insurance companies or inevidably to lawyers for malpractice insurance, hospital professional liability, personal umbrella policies etc. to protect them from the Demoncrats biggest supporter the lawyers!

     Posted by BigPasture at 10/27/2009 @ 2:22pm

134. As a witness at the 2004 Republican convention in New York City I witnessed in front of the Fox Information Ministry's headquarters an army of police and private security forces arrayed around the building. It was entirely unaccessible and passersby were kept moving from in front of it. CNN and the other networks had commentators and newspeople in plain view out on the streets. If Fox is not a propaganda organ the term needs to be removed from the lexicon. Anyone denying its corporate/right wing message channeling is either a conspirator or, as in the case of its unsophisticated support, a victim of its targeted demographic program. While this group is relatively uneducated and woefully informed the methodology used by Fox is relatively sophisticated. With people this ignorant nightsticks and other police state activity is no longer needed for coersion. Maybe this has finally woken Obama up. Bipartisanship is foolish with the Amerikan right wing. He was elected to combat and reverse their failures. If he refuses to do it he should be replaced by someone more courageous and competent than him.

     Posted by jobbo at 10/27/2009 @ 2:26pm

135. Seizing control of our automakers (and you never hear anything about releasing back control) is not totalitarian?

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/26/2009 @ 7:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --who went hat in hand begging for taxpayer money?

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2009 @ 12:05pm

     GM and Chrysler were given taxpayer money simply because we (as Americans) don't like the idea of the Chinese owning one of our few remaining manufacturing industries, or would you prefer, Larry, that the Chinese own GM?

     I actually applaud Ford (although I would never buy one) for not taking any Federal money.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 2:27pm

136. "I actually applaud Ford (although I would never buy one) for not taking any Federal money."

     I have tried to find the logic behind this comment. Has anyone found it?

     Posted by jobbo at 10/27/2009 @ 2:32pm

137. Why do other countries use programs similar to medicare? They do so in order to reduce the amount of GDP spent on medical care by rationing it: That is they refuse to treat treatable conditions (in a timely fashion) in order to save money.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/27/2009 @ 2:20pm

     Soooo, it's back to the old "we'll have to stand in line too long" argument. Always comes back to that, don't it with you Republicans. BTW, had to wait weeks to get an appointment with my doctor for a check-up. How is that any different from "standing in line too long" in a socialized medical system?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 2:35pm

138. I have tried to find the logic behind this comment. Has anyone found it?

     Posted by jobbo at 10/27/2009 @ 2:32pm

     What don't you understand about it?

     I don't like Fords (I like Hondas and currently drive a used BMW).

     I like that Ford (the corporation) ran a solid-enough business that it didn't need my tax dollars to bail itself out. What's illogical about any of that?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 2:38pm

139. Where in the Constitution does it set up capitalism as our preferred form of commerce?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 2:05pm

     The entire constitution and enforced by the 10th amendment.

     Our constitution was set up as a response to the British designed to limit the encroachment of govt into the lives of individuals and business.

     The constitution thus, by it's framework, made capitalism the only viable economic system that could function effectively.

     <I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.>

     Ronald Reagan farewell address

     "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

     Thomas Jefferson, letter to E. Carrington, May 27, 1788

     "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session. "

     Mark Twain (1866)

     "The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it."

     John Stuart Mill

     "Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread."

     Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 2:45pm

140. Nichols is right, the White House should choose its battles more carefully. But there is precedent for the executives to fight with media. Remember Nixon who felt he was "kicked around" by the media. Remember Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura who excoriated "media jackals?" Let's be reasonable here. If Nixon could have an enemies list, so can Obama! All this hoopla proves to me is that Fox is getting under the Obama administration's skin. Isn't that what the 4th estate is supposed to do?

     Posted by jsens at 10/27/2009 @ 2:46pm

141. Posted by urmygyro at 10/27/2009 @ 12:20pm

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 1:01pm

     Homeowner's insurance is mandatory for obtaining a mortagage.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/27/2009 @ 3:04pm

142. 2. Making money (profiting) off sick and dying people is, in my book, immoral, unethical and goes against the Hippocratic oath.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 1:25pm

     Here's the thing: insurance doesn't make money off of the sick and dying. The way insurance works it that there are 1 million people who are healthy. And they voluntarily purchase insurance against specific health risks. They do this by signing a contract and paying insurance premiums. A small subset of these healthy, insured people will eventually get sick. And then the insurance company pays the doctors and hospitals to make them better.

     In reality, there are 1 million healthy people who buy insurance and pay premiums and some eventually get sick and the insurance company pays to make the better.

     But there are also some healthy people who don't buy insurance who get sick and wish they had bought insurance. So they then try to buy insurance when they have cancer by committing fraud by not disclosing their cancer on their health insurance application. Then they go to the doctor and the insurance company recinds their contract for fraud and the readers of the The Nation hold a protest against evil insurance companies for making money off of the sick.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/27/2009 @ 3:14pm

143. Doctors and nurses provide a direct service to the patient. Insurance companies feed off the patient. Bloodsuckers, literally. And I NEVER called anyone an "evil f*ckhead."

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 2:15pm

     Health insurance companies don't make money off of the sick like doctors do. Insurance companies charge enough so that when the healthy people don't have claims, they will have enough to pay for the care of the sick.

     A helth insurance company will make a 95% profit on 10 people (say 5% for expense) and it will lose 825% on one sick person and that will give it a 2% profit margin.

     There is no way to know which person will be the one to get sick so the health insurance company provides a service by pooling the risks of these 11 (or 11 million) similar people.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/27/2009 @ 3:21pm

144. Fox is no longer a bona fide news organization, but rather the propaganda outlet for the opposition party.

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/27/2009 @ 3:22pm

145. * I want the government to provide the capability of letting the doctors, nurses and janitors do their jobs without the 30% mark-up on costs due to the insurance companies marketing campaigns.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 2:15pm

     I don't know where you are getting the 30% figure for advertising. Again, the profit margin is 2%. The admin cost figure for medicare is not comparible to private because of the age difference.

     Just yesterday, Samuelson posted the figures: ************************************************************* http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/26/ the_public_plan_delusion_98860.html

     Because Medicare recipients have higher average health expenses ($10,003 in 2007) than the under-65 population ($3,946), its administrative costs are a smaller share of total spending. The public plan, with younger members, wouldn't enjoy this advantage. *************************************************************

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/27/2009 @ 3:26pm

146. Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 2:45pm

     I don't see the word Capitalism in the constitution, Larry and neither do you. Nor do I see anything about communism, fascism, etc. Stating that "the framework" of the document amounts to capitalism as our only economic option is a very weak argument and you know it.

     There's LOTS of words about the form of government we have and no words about the form of commerce we should adopt. The document was not so concerned about business rights, or if it was, why aren't there more items in the constitution about the freedom of business? The document was about PERSONAL rights, not business rights.

     For such a strict originalist, not to be able to find a better argument than "the framework" of the document must frustrate you. The framework of the document is about personal freedoms, personal rights and personal liberty. The Courts have only recently granted "rights" to businesses, and it was a huge mistake for them to do that, especially from an "originalist" point of view like your own.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 3:30pm

147. GM and Chrysler were given taxpayer money simply because we (as Americans) don't like the idea of the Chinese owning one of our few remaining manufacturing industries, or would you prefer, Larry, that the Chinese own GM?

     I actually applaud Ford (although I would never buy one) for not taking any Federal money.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 2:27pm

     Your conclusion on the Chinese buying GM is speculative at best.

     Under normal rules for bankruptcy, the corporation would be dissolved and the assets liquidated to pay debts and court costs. It would also allow someone to buy up entire product lines in the liquidation.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 4:04pm

148. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 3:30pm

     Try applying some cognitive thinking. Then find a single historian or economist that believes any other economic system is possible with the way the constitution was set up.

     Only capitalism is possible with the constitution. Find anywhere that the constitution wasn't created to be a limitation on govt to maximize the rights of individuals to pursue property. It prohibits the govt from engaging in manufacture.

     There are only 4 real types of economic systems (although one is a hybrid of capitalism and socialism)

     Market economy (the basis for several "right-wing" systems, such as capitalism)

     Mixed economy (hybrid of capitalism or market systems and socialism)

     Planned economy (the basis for several "left-wing" systems, such as socialism)

     Traditional economy (participatory economics found in anarchism)

     Only capitalism is able to be consistent with the language of the constitution. The mixed economy which is what the left has tried to implement since FDR is really no different than that of the European models which could never withstand scrutiny to our constitution. That's why their constitutions mandate issues like UHC. They have spelled it out to conform to their economic model.

     From Locke to Jefferson, the ideal of a free person was the freedom to pursue the acquisition of property. That is capitalism

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 4:26pm

149. I find extraordinary what Pres. Obama has been willing to take on in a personal way: the Gates/cop contretemps, the Fox "news" annoyance. As many have mentioned, our President does not fight for what would help ordinary Americans.

     Posted by goedel at 10/27/2009 @ 4:57pm

150. (Carver:) "I actually applaud Ford (although I would never buy one) for not taking any Federal money."

     I have tried to find the logic behind this comment. Has anyone found it?

     Posted by jobbo at 10/27/2009 @ 2:32pm

     In the La La Land of Carver, and to be fair, most Libs,.....it's quite logical! He mouths support for American labor, union labor, but not where it counts. Bet he even shops Wal-Mart and Home Depot.

     The fact it's red states that buy the most Fords and GMs, especially trucks and big SUVs, certainly not in deep Blue California or NYC (except for cabs), just don't register, too Inconvenient!

     Posted by Happy at 10/27/2009 @ 7:08pm

151. Here's the thing: insurance doesn't make money off of the sick and dying.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/27/2009 @ 3:14pm

     Darin, if that simple statement is true, then why is it profitable for the insurance companies and their stockholders (leeches on the sick and dying) to deny coverage to patients who need lifesaving services/surgeries, etc? I mean come on, we've heard many stories for months throughout this entire debate about how insurance companies profits go UP the more the deny claims, thus driving more and more Americans into bankruptcy.

     Why do insurance execs make hundreds of millions of dollars denying care, denying procedures and practicing rescission on patients? I'll tell you why: because their stock prices go up and THAT is all they are concerned about. They are NOT concerned with patients, they are NOT concerned with doctors; hell, they're not even concerned with the industry as long as their stock prices go up...it's EXACTLY the same as the banking situation last year. Greed and ego ahead of everything else.

     Perhaps I misstated what I should have said: The insurance companies make money off the sick and dying people (who have paid premiums for years, sometimes decades) by denying their claims or stating that the patient had a previous condition.

     Grow up.

     By the way, I didn't even bother to read the rest of the post...the first statement being such a big fat lie. You are on the side of the morally deficient in this case.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 7:08pm

152. uh, what accomplishments? Posted by frosty zoom at 10/26/2009 @ 8:38pm

     What has Obama done? Oh a few little things. This will take a couple comments with the first five as of April 29, 2009 from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/ obamas-first-100-days-10_n_192603.html

     1. Health Care: The Obama White House cleared an important hurdle in the health care reform debate when it appropriated $19 billion in the stimulus package to help implement an electronic medical record system.

     2. Communications: A presidential campaign built on innovative messaging and advanced technology has, naturally, become a White House defined by similar characteristics ... from hosting online question-and-answer sessions with the president to publishing the first White House blog - has been as expected as appreciated.

     3. Transportation: Since the passage of the economic stimulus package in mid-February, the Obama Department of Transportation has approved 2,500 highway projects.

     4. Education: ... the Obama Treasury Department has nevertheless implemented policies with real qualitative and quantitative impact on debt-burdened families. Chief among those was a $2,500 tax credit to help offset the cost of tuition (among other expenses) for those seeking a college education. Nearly five million families are expected to save $9 billion, according to Treasury officials.

     5. Cars: The automobile industry at the White House and Congress's behest has undergone seismic structural changes, managerial reorganization, and massive cuts in employment. But for all the tough love, the president has put in place the framework for an industry recovery. Perhaps the most significant of steps was to allocate $2 billion in stimulus cash for advanced batteries systems.

     to be continued...

     Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 10/27/2009 @ 7:11pm

153. Six through eight from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/ obamas-first-100-days-10_n_192603.html

     6. Pakistan: Cognizant of a destabilizing situation in Pakistan, the administration's diplomatic team, with a major assist from Japan, secured $5 billion in aid commitments "to bolster the country's economy and help it fight terror and Islamic radicalism" within the country.

     7. Cities: More than any prior president, Obama has put a spotlight on America's struggling cities, even creating an office of Urban Policy in the White House. It is the Justice Department, however, that lays claim to one of the most consequential of urban affairs achievements. Through the Recovery Act, DOJ secured $2 billion for Byrne Grants, which funds anti-gang and anti-gun task forces. The money, cut during the Bush years, is expected to have massive ramifications on inner-city crime and violence.

     8. Engaging the Muslim World: While certainly discussed, foreign affairs experts insist that Obama's engagement with the Muslim world has been at once remarkable and under-appreciated. From the first interview with Al Arabiya to his Nowruz address to the Iranian people, to his proclamation that "American is not at war with Islam" during an appearance in Turkey, seasoned observers have been routinely impressed. "Through these [statements and interviews]," said one Democratic foreign policy hand, "He has been able to dramatically change America's image in that region."

     to be continued...

     Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 10/27/2009 @ 7:13pm

154. Nine and Ten from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/ obamas-first-100-days-10_n_192603.html

     9. Forests: Since taking office, the White House has put under federal protection more than two million acres of wilderness, thousands of miles of river and a host of national trails and parks. The conservation effort - the largest in the last 15 years - came with the stroke of a pen when Obama signed the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 in late March.

     10. Tone: Leaving a meeting at the White House on Tuesday a progressive member of the House of Representatives commented to the Huffington Post just how impressed she was with the president's manner. "He is so calm," said the member, "and has a great ability to make you feel like you're being respected and listened to."

     …all this during the first 100 days. I guess the right wingnuts can't have it both ways. Did he do something that requires Teabaggers to take the nation back? or has he done nothing?

     Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 10/27/2009 @ 7:19pm

155. Perhaps I misstated what I should have said: The insurance companies make money off the sick and dying people (who have paid premiums for years, sometimes decades) by denying their claims or stating that the patient had a previous condition.

     Grow up.

     By the way, I didn't even bother to read the rest of the post...the first statement being such a big fat lie. You are on the side of the morally deficient in this case.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 7:08pm

     We are talking about less than 1% of claims; and yes to the people involved, even one denial is too many. But having worked with claims for many years, I've seen even medical professionals try and commit fraud in making claims or trying to obtain coverage to cover a current condition that they lie about.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 7:40pm

156. Honestly, would you go into this nest of enemies without acknowledgement of the foxes' jingoistic intentions?

     Fox News: 100 Days of "Opposition" to Obama http://foxattacks.com/blog/?p=1283

     or

     http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=35eRxxZ-Ar0&feature=player_embedded

     Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 10/27/2009 @ 8:35pm

157. Perhaps I misstated what I should have said: The insurance companies make money off the sick and dying people (who have paid premiums for years, sometimes decades) by denying their claims or stating that the patient had a previous condition.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/27/2009 @ 7:08pm

     Name one person like this.

     I made this point before. Health insurance is a contract. If a company promises to provide coverage in exchange for premiums, but decides on a whim to deny coverage, a jury would award the preson $5 millon or the deceased person's family $25 million. That doesn't save money.

     Health companies pay billions out in claims. Are you juvinile enough to believe that they just decide willy-nilly not to pay contractually obligated claims because that "increases profits" (before the jury slaps them with a $25 million punitive damages award)?

     Companies only deny cliams when they are legally justified to do so. The are justified to do so when an applicant commits fraud or when a claim isn't covered by the contract.

     Juries love to give away the money of insurance companies.

     You grow up and give up this self-indulgent fantasy that insurance companies make money by refusing to pay contractually obligated claims and the courts and juries let them get away with it.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/27/2009 @ 9:18pm

158. "Fox is no longer a bona fide news organization, but rather the propaganda outlet for the opposition party."

     So what? All the news media I come in contact with are shilling for one side or another. Nothing new there.

     Posted by jsens at 10/28/2009 @ 08:41am

159. Only capitalism is possible with the constitution. Find anywhere that the constitution wasn't created to be a limitation on govt to maximize the rights of individuals to pursue property.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 4:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --funnily enough, the first draft of the declaration of independence stated "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property"

     but then property was changed to happiness.

     of course, some people were considered property back then, but larry ignores that.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 08:51am

160. 4. Education: ... the Obama Treasury Department has nevertheless implemented policies with real qualitative and quantitative impact on debt-burdened families. Chief among those was a $2,500 tax credit to help offset the cost of tuition (among other expenses) for those seeking a college education. Nearly five million families are expected to save $9 billion, according to Treasury officials.

     --what's $9 billion divided by $5 million? and is that number less than $2500?

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 08:55am

161. We are talking about less than 1% of claims; and yes to the people involved, even one denial is too many. But having worked with claims for many years, I've seen even medical professionals try and commit fraud in making claims or trying to obtain coverage to cover a current condition that they lie about. Posted by antisocialist at 10/27/2009 @ 7:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --insurance companies are fraud-free I'm sure!

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 08:57am

162. Health companies pay billions out in claims. Are you juvinile enough to believe that they just decide willy-nilly not to pay contractually obligated claims because that "increases profits" (before the jury slaps them with a $25 million punitive damages award)? Companies only deny cliams when they are legally justified to do so. The are justified to do so when an applicant commits fraud or when a claim isn't covered by the contract. Juries love to give away the money of insurance companies. You grow up and give up this self-indulgent fantasy that insurance companies make money by refusing to pay contractually obligated claims and the courts and juries let them get away with it. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/27/2009 @ 9:18pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --Darin, a company that pays out millions or even billions a year in health insurance claims has a HUGE stake in delaying claim payment or finding any reason to not pay a claim. The longer they hold onto money they should pay out, the more money they make (in interest and/or investments). This is the other side of risk-pooling you ignore.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 09:05am

163. All the news media I come in contact with are shilling for one side or another.

     no, they're not. not everything is the same. Fox is the like Pravda, fawning over the Bush administration, and childishly vitriolic to the present one.

     it borders on treason, this bit with "Fox nation". a nation within a nation. purer, more american. shall we order the brown shirts or would black be more fitting?

     Posted by emile duBois at 10/28/2009 @ 09:14am

164. but then property was changed to happiness.

     of course, some people were considered property back then, but larry ignores that.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 08:51am

     Read John Locke, read the founders writings. Property is considered central to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 1:10pm

165. but then property was changed to happiness. of course, some people were considered property back then, but larry ignores that. Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 08:51am Read John Locke, read the founders writings. Property is considered central to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 1:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --jesus considered property not to be the center of the pursuit of happiness. so locke and the slaveowners are gonna have to take a back seat.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 1:41pm

166. --jesus considered property not to be the center of the pursuit of happiness. so locke and the slaveowners are gonna have to take a back seat.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 1:41pm |

     Why did you insert Jesus into a discussion of economic systems. Jesus has nothing to do with that issue.

     Property in it's definition in the 18th century referred to wages, labor, land, businesses, and yes and unfortunately, even slaves.

     So, are you also against the pursuit of a good wage?

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 2:01pm

167. --jesus considered property not to be the center of the pursuit of happiness. so locke and the slaveowners are gonna have to take a back seat. Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 1:41pm |

     Why did you insert Jesus into a discussion of economic systems. Jesus has nothing to do with that issue.

     --you're kidding right? you insert jesus into almost every discussion on the nation. just on anther thread today you were arguing it's ok for a jury to bring a bible into the jury room to deliberate a case. Jesus is your supreme law. Jesus does not hold property sancrosanct like locke does. you should be following jesus.

     Property in it's definition in the 18th century referred to wages, labor, land, businesses, and yes and unfortunately, even slaves.

     --property still means the same (minus slaves). so what?

     So, are you also against the pursuit of a good wage?

     --nope. are you against jesus?

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 2:01pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 2:45pm

168. Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 2:45pm

     I'll repeat, why did you insert Jesus into this when I have made no mention nor is there any connection between Jesus and economic systems?

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 2:57pm

169. Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 2:45pm I'll repeat, why did you insert Jesus into this when I have made no mention nor is there any connection between Jesus and economic systems? Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 2:57pm |

     --I'll repeat, why do you ignore Jesus here?

     Just because you ignore Jesus here doesn't mean I will let you. Clearly you need to reread your Bible.

     Jesus had something to say about everything in life. You don't get to ignore Jesus when it comes to areas of life where you'd rather forget what he said.

     Matthew 6: 19-21: "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal."

     Luke 12: 33: "Sell your possessions and give to the poor."

     Mark 10: 25: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"

     But keep arguing for property and Locke. Ignore Jesus!

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 3:31pm

170. Matthew 6: 19-21: "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal."

     Luke 12: 33: "Sell your possessions and give to the poor."

     Mark 10: 25: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"

     But keep arguing for property and Locke. Ignore Jesus!

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 3:31pm

     Not one of those quotes (and some are out of context) deals with the economic system of a nation.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 3:35pm

171. you think Jesus sat around discussing economics? he discussed what it took to honor god and to get to heaven. you claim to be for Jesus...yet you ignore his own words (I would put an exclamation point at the end of that sentence, but clearly you don't deserve one--you ignore Jesus whenever it's convenient for you).

     treasures are property. possessions are property. rich men got so from the accumulation of property.

     I quoted Jesus 3 times where he warns against the accumulation of property.

     Keep ignoring him Larry--you're only killing your soul.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 3:42pm

172. Not one of those quotes (and some are out of context) deals with the economic system of a nation. Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 3:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --No Jesus quotes are EVER taken "out of context"

     Jesus talked about what it took to get to honor God and get to heaven. Everything he says applies to life.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 3:45pm

173. you think Jesus sat around discussing economics? he discussed what it took to honor god and to get to heaven. you claim to be for Jesus...yet you ignore his own words (I would put an exclamation point at the end of that sentence, but clearly you don't deserve one--you ignore Jesus whenever it's convenient for you).

     treasures are property. possessions are property. rich men got so from the accumulation of property.

     I quoted Jesus 3 times where he warns against the accumulation of property.

     Keep ignoring him Larry--you're only killing your soul.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 3:42pm

     perhaps I missed the place where I supposedly stated that the US is a christian theocracy?

     What does my following my faith (I do not pursue materialism) have to do with what kind of economic system the US has?

     And to correct you, Jesus never warned against the accumulation of property. He warned about putting the things of this world ahead of seeking the kingdom of G-d. In fact He declared that if you seek first the kingdom and G-d's righteousness, then the material needs you have in the world will be provided.

     You are engaged in a typical subversion of the scriptures that is out of context.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 3:54pm

174. perhaps I missed the place where I supposedly stated that the US is a christian theocracy?

     --your red herring will not control the debate. i did not say that you said the US is a "christian theocracy" you brought john locke and property into this. that's when i brought jesus into this. both talked about PROPERTY.

     What does my following my faith (I do not pursue materialism) have to do with what kind of economic system the US has?

     --larry--you claim to believe in jesus. his words CLEARLY state; at least three different times; possession of property is antithetical to getting into heaven. you should be for what Jesus wants more than anything else. yet you're not--you're for locke more than you are jesus. you're only for jesus when it politically suits you.

     And to correct you, Jesus never warned against the accumulation of property.

     --wrong, that's again your interpretation. the clear text is a warning against accumulation of property. very clear. couldn't be clearer.

     He warned about putting the things of this world ahead of seeking the kingdom of G-d. In fact He declared that if you seek first the kingdom and G-d's righteousness, then the material needs you have in the world will be provided.

     --you're ignoring his warning.

     You are engaged in a typical subversion of the scriptures that is out of context.

     --NOT EVEN REMOTELY. you're a dis-believer. your should be extremely thankful jesus is a forgiver--even of you. Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 3:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 4:09pm

175. Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 4:09pm

     One of the more bizarre and incorrect statements on scripture I've seen on these pages or elsewhere.

     You are so far wrong, that you aren't even close to the truth.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 7:25pm

176. Posted by urmygyro at 10/28/2009 @ 4:09pm

     One of the more bizarre and incorrect statements on scripture I've seen on these pages or elsewhere.

     You are so far wrong, that you aren't even close to the truth.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/28/2009 @ 7:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --the text of the bible says otherwise. the text you will ignore.

     Posted by urmygyro at 10/29/2009 @ 08:14am