Notable Links



Denver Internet Marketing by Parallel Path

Knowledge Messenger

Arvada Boutique Clothing Store Stella B's

Senate Health Reform Bill Unveiled, Salazar Drafted to Win Moderates

by: Colorado Pols

Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 15:57:31 PM MST


Associated Press:

The political stakes enormous, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid launched long-awaited health care legislation Wednesday estimated to extend coverage to 94 percent of eligible Americans at a cost of $849 billion.

Initial maneuvering on the Senate floor was expected later in the week on the measure, bitterly opposed by Republicans eager to deny President Barack Obama a victory on his top domestic priority.

Officials have said the measure would require most Americans to carry health insurance and would mandate large companies to provide coverage to their workers, as well as ban insurance company practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.

As rank-and-file Democrats gathered to learn details of the measure, a senior Democratic leadership aide said the Congressional Budget Office had estimated it would spread coverage to 31 million Americans who currently lack it while still reducing federal deficits by a total of $127 billion over 10 years...

Reid announced two weeks ago it would also include an option for consumers to purchase government-sold insurance, with states permitted to drop out of the system.

...Anticipating a major struggle, the White House deputized Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to join Vice President Joe Biden in trying to clear the way for the bill's approval over the next several weeks.

Salazar, a former Colorado senator, is viewed as a bridge to moderate Democrats who are far outnumbered by liberals inside the Democratic caucus.

Colorado Pols :: Senate Health Reform Bill Unveiled, Salazar Drafted to Win Moderates
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Go Ken Go!
I hope this works. We desperately need this reform. Maybe Salazar can drone on so long that he turns Lieberman into a zombie.

Unless Lieberman gets to Salazar first.

Defend the 1st, 10th, 14th and 17th Amendments - and Social Security! Vote Democratic!


Ummm...hate to burst your bubble, but there's a problem...
...with that strategy.  Yeah, sure, you can **maybe** get a watered-down bill through the Senate with things like opt-out provisions, but Nancy Pelosi and her liberal caucus would kill each and every one in conference, making the report impossible to push through the Senate.

You're not going to get 60 senators to vote a public option, you're not going to get 60 senators to vote for a bill that funds abortion, you're not going to get 60 senators to vote for a mandate (punishable by fines and jail time)...it just wont happen.

Not to mention all these ridiculous claims about being deficit neutral and lowering costs.  The bottom line is that the plans under consideration would increase demand for health care services, which means the price would generally rise.  But since the government is going to try to prevent that rise in price level, we'll see a shortage in supply.  The shortage will basically make it so that the people who can afford to pay out of pocket will get coverage, while many of those who pay for the government run insurance plan go with reduced coverage.  Not to mention the House bill would add apprx. 23 million  people to the already unsustainable and insolvent Medicaid program, along with S-CHIP.  And after all that, 18 million people are still estimated to be without insurance, paying the fines imposed by the government who supposedly set out to help them.

Health care "reform" will die in the Senate, and for their efforts, Democrats will be widely thrown out of office in 2010.  Don't say I didn't warn you.


The back of my napkin here says the CBO doesn't know what it's talking about n/t


[ Parent ]
We need this bill
You're on the fringe.


Best to kill them early instead of letting them possibly need food stamps.
--marilou, 2010


[ Parent ]
No he's not.
This bill is the wrong bill.  It's not happening.

We do need reform but that's not what is behind this bill at all.

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

P.J. O'Rourke


[ Parent ]
OK, that's two votes from the party of "No"
You might both be on the fringe.

Best to kill them early instead of letting them possibly need food stamps.
--marilou, 2010


[ Parent ]
We might be on the fringe at ColoradoPols, but...
...here in the real world, our position is in line with a majority of America.

Health care "reform" will die in the Senate, and for their efforts, Democrats will be widely thrown out of office in 2010.  Don't say I didn't warn you.

[ Parent ]
Except, well, it isn't.


"I have come to the conclusion that the making of laws is like the making of sausages-the less you know about the process the more you respect the result."  -- Anonymous IL State Rep. circa 1878

[ Parent ]
Keep telling yourself that.

This new study telling women not to worry about getting breast exams until their fifties is going to be the final nail in the coffin for this power grab disguised as 'health care reform'.

Even bitter gun and bible clingers can make the connection that if the government was in charge and decided to stop covering breast exams that you'd be SOL.

This bill is designed not to compete with, but to eliminate private health insurance.  Bottom line, and it's wrong.

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

P.J. O'Rourke


[ Parent ]
What does the breast exam study have to do with health reform?
Except that the private insurance companies will jump on the bandwagon and eliminate the benefit.

Best to kill them early instead of letting them possibly need food stamps.
--marilou, 2010


[ Parent ]
This bill...
is designed to eliminate private health insurance.

Without it (private insurance), an idiotic governmental recommendation to not get breast exams carries a little more serious vibe to it.

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

P.J. O'Rourke


[ Parent ]
Idiotic? So you're saying a Bush-appointed Panel is stupid?
I know that the Repub Media Machine has been busy spinning the statement into it's usual sound-bite bullshit, but you do know this panel was hand-picked by the previous administration, not the current one.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

And please, LB explain to me how a government-run public option that may be used by 2% of the population is going to eliminate private health insurance.

If that was the case, TriCare should've killed that industry back in 1994, when it was invented by the Repub Congress.

"Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about." Mark Twain


[ Parent ]
Government idiocy is part of its DNA.
Not an R or D thing.  It is an idiotic finding.

Are there many women who had exams and found cancer in their 40s?  Sure there are.  Why in the world would you tell people to have less diligence in scanning for cancer?

The administration is already tripping over themselves backing off of this one.

The public option is absolutely designed to eliminate private insurance.  You have a blank check, mandates for coverage that will astronomically raise private rates, and mandates (probably unconstitutional) that force most to have coverage.

I'll say it again: You cannot be a participant and a regulator at the same time.  It's counter-intuitive.

I think a lot of folks are being really disingenuous about the true purpose of the bill, which I think is to lead us toward a single-payer system.



"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

P.J. O'Rourke


[ Parent ]
Because a mammogram involves radiation
and it's very expensive, and it's got a truly awful false-positive rate for young women, and there are a lot of people who don't need it.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH...

In fact, the task force mentions in its statement that for every 1,000 women in their 40s who receive routine mammograms, two cases of cancer are detected. However, it also notes that 98 women will have "false positives." In other words, the mammogram will pick up something that looks like cancer, but that further testing shows actually is not.

If I'm reading that right, a mammogram is 98% ineffective. 100 out of 1,000 women will think they have breast cancer and only 2 of them actually will.

Of course women should be concerned about breast cancer, but a breast self-exam is far far more effective at that age.

Breast cancer is a serious thing; my mother died from it (and she got it in her 40s, finding it through a self-exam). It's not a joke. It's not a game. It's not something that exists just to win elections.

Bring back S[redacted]e H[redacted]y!


[ Parent ]
I agree totally.
But the same idiots on the panel also recommended against teaching self examination.

The "Public Option" just got a whole less popular.

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

P.J. O'Rourke


[ Parent ]
Good!
I can't wait for Single-payer health care to happen in the US. It won't, but it's a nice thought.

As far as it being a stealth option, yeah whatever. The Public Insurance option was the compromise INSTEAD of single-payer.

Lastly, the majority of mainstream economists have already stated (in public interviews) and proven (in research) that the Single-Payer health care system is the most efficient, most economical and the fairest way to deliver care.

Go ahead and dig up some fringe Right-wing nutbags to say things to back your view....

"Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about." Mark Twain


[ Parent ]
Ok.

How's that?

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

P.J. O'Rourke


[ Parent ]
GAAA!!!!
Geeez, dude, don't do that! Use the size tag, at least, fer pete's sake!

"Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about." Mark Twain

[ Parent ]
Polls are fun
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...

AP Poll: Public favors gov't health plan

Half of the 1,500 participants in the AP poll were told that a government insurance plan "would be less expensive than other insurance plans, because the government would not need to make a profit the way businesses do and because the government is able to negotiate lower prices with doctors and hospitals than insurance companies can."

Fifty-two percent said they favored such a plan, while 35 percent were opposed and 12 percent neither favored nor opposed it.

"I fundamentally feel that the private insurance industry basically holds all the market power" and could use some competition from a nonprofit alternative, said Robert Baulch, 58, of North Chatham, Mass.

The goal is "covering a lot of folks that just can't get coverage and reducing the cost overall," he said.

The other half of the people polled were told the government plan would be less expensive, but they were also told that "the government would run the insurance plan and decide which medical care would be paid for and how much would be paid, like insurance companies do."

That version of the question found 44 percent in support and 38 percent opposed, while 15 percent neither favored nor opposed the idea.

Even with the Republican spin version, more people supported it than were against it.

"I'll take incompetence over a business model incentivised to kill me any day." -- DtR(H)


[ Parent ]
I noticed...
There was no breakout of the poll along party lines.

Of course, oversampling works wonders for ABC/WaPo polls, so forgive my skepticism.

After a while, it gets to be a broken record, but we still have to ask: does anyone know how to poll out there?  Despite every indication that the partisan split among Americans has narrowed considerably since the last Presidential election, won by the Democrat by seven points while garnering considerable independent and Republican cross-over votes, the new Washington Post/ABC poll uses a sample in which Democrats outnumber Republicans by fourteen points.  Moreover, the WaPo/ABC poll has progressively widened that gap over the last four monthly polls:

   * 11/15/09: 35/21/39 (D/R/I)
   * 10/18/09: 33/20/42
   * 9/12/09: 32/21/43
   * 8/17/09: 35/25/34

Let's have a reality check here.  In the last four months, which party would have lost ~20% of its representation in the polls and had them shift to the independent column?  With both Gallup and Rasmussen showing the Democrats losing the generic Congressional ballot for the first time in several years, it's not the Republicans losing voters.  And yet the Post and ABC conduct their public-opinion polls based on samples that not only wildly oversample Democrats but show the opposite trend of partisan identification.



"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

P.J. O'Rourke


[ Parent ]
It was an AP Poll
Of course, when Rasmussen oversamples Republicans, that's just good polling.

"I'll take incompetence over a business model incentivised to kill me any day." -- DtR(H)

[ Parent ]
Despite every indication
"Despite every indication that the partisan split among Americans has narrowed considerably since the last Presidential election."

Is there really any indication of this? To believe Malkin, you'd have to believe all other pollsters are lying about partisan self-identification. Why would you believe that?

What's the current Republican conspiracy theory? That ACORN stole Obama's election as well as Hoffman's, and that Republicans actually have a majority of partisan self-identification and Boehner is the rightful Speaker of the House?

Just how detached from reality do you have to be if you're Michelle Malkin?

Bring back S[redacted]e H[redacted]y!


[ Parent ]
Not Malkin.
It's Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.

They aren't lying...

BTW, what do you know about math and statistics, anyway?

:)

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

P.J. O'Rourke


[ Parent ]
That's conservative vs. liberal
which is totally different from Republican vs. Democrat. (We have a lot of conservative Democrats, but you just kicked the last liberal Republican out of the party.)

Sorry, I didn't click the link, I just assume every Hot Air link is Malkin. But what do you think of that survey that a majority of Republicans believe ACORN stole the election for Obama? Isn't that a little weird?

Bring back S[redacted]e H[redacted]y!


[ Parent ]
Yes.
But I think that polls with really idiotic questions intentionally go after idiots.  

I am certain that a majority of Republicans don't believe that ACORN stole the election for Obama.

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

P.J. O'Rourke


[ Parent ]
That's fair
"Do you think that Barack Obama legitimately won the Presidential election last year, or do you think that ACORN stole it for him?"

The question is rather leading, so probably a lot more false positives than deserved.

Bring back S[redacted]e H[redacted]y!


[ Parent ]
Gee, that poll doesn't ask a loaded question at all.


The only thing two people can agree about on the Internet is that the third is wrong.

[ Parent ]
Thank you - your post gives me more hope
You are so wrong about everything, here's hoping you continue with that track record and your prediction means the bill will pass.

Tom Tancredo Interview

[ Parent ]
Perhaps you'd like to take a shot and point out where I'm wrong?
Making blanket platitudes (like you ALWAYS do) doesn't really give anyone reason to believe you.

Health care "reform" will die in the Senate, and for their efforts, Democrats will be widely thrown out of office in 2010.  Don't say I didn't warn you.

[ Parent ]
Read that sentence again
Making blanket platitudes (like you ALWAYS do) doesn't really give anyone reason to believe you.

See if you can tell what's wrong with it. No hints!

Bring back S[redacted]e H[redacted]y!


[ Parent ]
How about you prove you're right?
And do it with more than finding the 3 partisan hacks in the world that agree with you.

Tom Tancredo Interview

[ Parent ]
OK, so I'm the idiot who doesn't know shit.
But what if the Dean of Harvard Med agreed with me?

In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it. Likewise, nearly all agree that the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care's dysfunctional delivery system.

[. . .]

Worse, [the] legislation would undermine any potential for real innovation in insurance and the provision of care. It would do so by over-regulating the health-care system in the service of special interests such as insurance companies . . . rather than the patients who should be our primary concern. . . Ultimately, our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all.

Makes you think, doesn't it?

Health care "reform" will die in the Senate, and for their efforts, Democrats will be widely thrown out of office in 2010.  Don't say I didn't warn you.


[ Parent ]
Oh, crap. I found another person from Harvard who agrees with me.
Let's review some basic principles of supply and demand: If a government policy increases the demand for a service, the price of that service tends to rise. If the government prevents prices from rising, shortages develop. The quantity provided is then determined by supply and not demand. In the presence of such excess demand, the result could be a two-tier market structure. Consumers who can somehow pay more than the government-mandated price will be able to purchase the service, while those paying the controlled price may be unable to find a willing supplier.

Those principles lie behind this story from the Washington Post.

That kinda sounds like what I said above.   Thanks for playing David, but Greg Mankiw and Jeffrey Flier--hardly partisan conservative hacks--are on my side here.

Health care "reform" will die in the Senate, and for their efforts, Democrats will be widely thrown out of office in 2010.  Don't say I didn't warn you.


[ Parent ]
Greg Mankiw is a partisan conservative hack
Everybody knows that. And who's ever heard of Jeffrey Flier?

The fact that you struggled so much over so many hours to find three people who agreed with you means your position may not be as popular as you think it is. Just saying.

Bring back S[redacted]e H[redacted]y!


[ Parent ]
He works at Harvard and wrote some of the textbooks that...
...CU students use.  He might be a conservative (as anyone with a function brain might be), but he's not a partisan hack.  That's ridiculous.

As for Jeffrey Flier, it doesn't matter if you know who he is.  He's the man chosen by the most respected educational institution in the entire world to head up the Med school, and this is a medical issue.

I didn't "struggle" for ANY "hours" to find someone who agreed with me.  David (like most of you) tends to reject anything I say out of hand, so I figured I would give him the opinions of two people who he can't say are "wrong about everything."  And it appears you can't count.  I posted TWO people's opinions.  Not three.


Health care "reform" will die in the Senate, and for their efforts, Democrats will be widely thrown out of office in 2010.  Don't say I didn't warn you.


[ Parent ]
That's "functioning* brain." My bad.
n/t

Health care "reform" will die in the Senate, and for their efforts, Democrats will be widely thrown out of office in 2010.  Don't say I didn't warn you.

[ Parent ]
Why is it that every time you try to call someone else stupid
you make an obvious grammatical error? What's the psychological term for this? Parapraxis?

And Mankiw is as much a partisan hack as you are, i.e., 100%. If I write a math textbook and get someone to use it, would it make you believe my political opinions? Probably not.

Bring back S[redacted]e H[redacted]y!


[ Parent ]
I type fast. Sue me.
As for your question, no.  That's not even remotely what I suggested.  I was suggesting that there might be something to an award winning Harvard economists' economic projection of what the bill would mean to our health care system.  And any old idiot can write a textbook, but trust me, as a CU alum, I can tell you that textbooks written by conservative "hacks" are not accepted by that institution.

Besides, it wasn't like the economic argument he was making was complicated.  It's relatively  simple if you've taken even an introductory economics course.  And yet STILL nobody even bothered read what I said.

Health care "reform" will die in the Senate, and for their efforts, Democrats will be widely thrown out of office in 2010.  Don't say I didn't warn you.


[ Parent ]
That's exactly the point
People who make arguments based on the first week of a first-semester economics course are always ignoring all the things that make real economics complicated (oligopolies, externalities, imperfect information, irrational actors). That's why they sound so dumb, and why conservatives find them so comforting. And why Mankiw is a hack.

Bring back S[redacted]e H[redacted]y!

[ Parent ]
It's not
As for Jeffrey Flier, it doesn't matter if you know who he is.  He's the man chosen by the most respected educational institution in the entire world to head up the Med school, and this is a medical issue.

This is an insurance & financial issue, not a medical issue. If I need medical care, this guy has a lot to say. If I need to discuss how to pay for it, he's merely a player in the system - and one with a very specific interest in how he wants it to work.

Tom Tancredo Interview


[ Parent ]
And Krugman isn't?
It doesn't invalidate his opinion on econ.

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

P.J. O'Rourke


[ Parent ]
Krugman's Nobel Prize in economics
doesn't make him right about politics, even though politics sometimes involves numbers and also economics does.

Nor does Mankiw's Nobel Prize textbook.

Bring back S[redacted]e H[redacted]y!


[ Parent ]
have to agree wth you David about the R's
In my opinion, this year is just the first in the fight to make healtch care a civil right.

Ken Buck: a man of Mr. Rove and Dick Cheney. The road forward does not use reverse.

[ Parent ]
That's honestly a great analysis.
I'd love to see someone rebut it with some facts, rather than insults.

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."

P.J. O'Rourke


[ Parent ]
And I'd love to see the facts behind the opinion.
So far, all I see is people lobbing opinion pieces back and forth.

I think if Republicans were interested in health care reform, they would introduce a bill. I don't recall seeing one. Like the Democrats, they've had literally decades to do so.

Never assume "shill" when "idiot" is available as an explanation. [h/t Ralphie]


[ Parent ]
"Pro Life"
Pardon my tangent, but I feel it's a bit silly to allow anti-choice activists to claim the label "pro-life" when they're for:

-Preemptive war
-A "survival of the richest" health care system
-The death penalty
-Guns for all (I'm for this bit, too, FWIW)

And they oppose any plan that would provide life-saving care to those currently without insurance. Heck, even if we accept that only unborn lives are apparently deserving of protection per the "pro-life" agenda, where are the picketers demanding expanded access to prenatal health care in order to prevent premature births and birth defects?

I think the anti-choice movement has really shown its true colors in demanding to make abortion an issue in the health care reform debate. Saving lives doesn't matter; reducing female access to reproductive health services and eliminating choice does.

The only thing two people can agree about on the Internet is that the third is wrong.


[ Parent ]
Really?
I believe that abortion is a sin.  I do not believe that it should be a crime, and point out that criminalizing sin has never done much to stop it.  I think churches (including my own; I'm Catholic) are misguided and/or crazy to put so much energy into efforts to change laws when they should be working to change hearts.  But overall, I would describe myself as pro-life.

I abhor the wars we have gotton into, and wonder why my archbishop isn't adamant that my tax dollars shouldn't be used to kill innocent Iraqi children.

I'm for single-payer health care.

I'm against the death penalty.  The government shouldn't be in the business of killing people.  Period.  And I don't want my tax dollars used to kill people.

I think the Second Amendment is stupid public policy, but it says people have the right to bear arms so we're stuck with it.

I've known a lot of pro-life people who have adopted children, and who work hard to provide health care and other services to the poor.  

It drives me crazy to hear lefties on the radio hollering that Obama should veto a health care bill that doesn't include abortion coverage.  That would neither increase women's access to "reproductive health services" (ahem, all of them are available except abortion, so why are you working so hard to keep from saying that?), nor would it save lives.  It seems to me that the people who are saying "no health care reform unless it covers abortion" are saying that saving lives doesn't matter; requiring the taxpayers to pay for abortions is the only thing that does.

Dang.  Pardon the lengthy rant.


[ Parent ]
It shouldn't be an issue in the bill at all.
I don't feel Obama should veto the bill if it includes the shameful Stupak amendment, but I'm sorry to see that Stupak and the Blue Dogs felt the need to make abortion an issue in this bill in the first place. If they're pro life, they should be pushing to get this bill through, which could save up to 40,000 lives annually, not trying to prohibit people from spending their own money to purchase private insurance plans that cover abortion.

I'll mediate my initial rant a bit: I respect your right to a difference of opinion on abortion. It's the anti-choice activists who want to make their opinions law who bother me. I'd shake your hand if we met in person for sticking to your faith without trying to write it into law.

The really ugly thing about Stupak is that it essentially limits abortion access to the wealthy and denies it to the people who can least afford pregnancy and child-rearing. Sure, there are some non-profits that help to fund abortion for low-income people, but the same reps want to deny those organizations access to any federal grants. So, essentially, if you're rich you have a choice about what goes on inside your own reproductive organs. If not, sorry, better luck next lifetime.

The only thing two people can agree about on the Internet is that the third is wrong.


[ Parent ]
Is it true that..
...moderate Dems are "far outnumbered by liberals inside the Democratic caucus"?

"Far outnumbered?" Yes. But the moderates...
...in this case hold the balance of power.  But the moderates aren't really that moderate, they just care about being reelected.  That's why the most vulnerable Democrats voted against the final bill (case in point:  Betsy Markey).  In all reality though, the final bill (if we ever get one) is going to be based on the wishes of Joe Lieberman, Olympia Snowe, and Ben Nelson.

Health care "reform" will die in the Senate, and for their efforts, Democrats will be widely thrown out of office in 2010.  Don't say I didn't warn you.

[ Parent ]
are you saying that true moderates don't care about being reelected?
no wonder they're outnumbered!

[ Parent ]
They do. Thus the reason Nelson, Snowe, and Lieberman...
...have all come out against a public option.

Health care "reform" will die in the Senate, and for their efforts, Democrats will be widely thrown out of office in 2010.  Don't say I didn't warn you.

[ Parent ]
They've come out against a public option
Because their campaign benefactors have dictated that it be so.

Fuck the lobbyists.  It's time we did something for Real People in this country.

Best to kill them early instead of letting them possibly need food stamps.
--marilou, 2010


[ Parent ]
Here's a good question for you guys:
What happens when 18 million people (as estimates say will remain without coverage) opt to pay the penalty of $750 until they get sick, then go out to purchase a policy under the public option?  They can't be turned down for a preexisting condition.  It will flood the system, making yet another large, insolvent government program.

Also, about 15-20 million people would be added to the Medicaid rolls under the House bill.  Why would you add that many people to one of the OTHER insolvent government programs?

And finally, if we're trying to do this to help "the poor" who can't afford coverage, how is it that our government is so inept that, between Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, COBRA, etc... we already provide health coverage to over 80 million people, and these  supposed 46 million people still fall through the cracks?  Are you really trying to suggest that one out of every two Americans is unable to provide themselves with health insurance?

Health care "reform" will die in the Senate, and for their efforts, Democrats will be widely thrown out of office in 2010.  Don't say I didn't warn you.


The same thing that happens now.
When uninsured people get so sick that they would run for the public option, they're probably about to lose their job.

The system now would cover them once their income reaches $0.  From the diagnosis to Medicaid because of job loss, how fast does cancer grow?  See how that would be more expensive to treat?  That's one of the reasons why our pseudo-socialist system doesn't work quite right.

As an added bonus, unemployed, near death people will also use more public funds to do things like feed their children.  Better to catch these things sooner, cheaper, lives get saved, etc.

"I'm all naked and wet!" - Homer Simpson


[ Parent ]
good questions!
First off, we shouldn't penalize people for opting out of the requirement to get health insurance. Instead, we should force them to open Medical Savings Accounts with a minimum balance based on the amount of people in the household. (Single folks $2000, etc). When they have a catastrophic illness, require them to pay 80% of the original balance of the account first, then allow them to enroll in the public option.

Not only do these folks get to "keep their own money" it also prevents the lunatics from saving the gov't will shoot you if don't get health insurance.

Second, we've heard this argument before, every time we expand a program like Medicare and Medicaid. If this was the only thing the health care bill was doing, then yes, it'd get swamped. Since people will be adding themselves to private insurance, public option or Medicaid, I think the system will handle it

(And please, explain why Medicaid is insolvent?)

Lastly, I wish I knew why 46 million people are without coverage. Here's one theory -  The free market, since 1994, has failed to do it's invisible magic and drive down coats enough where everyone can afford health care?


"Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about." Mark Twain


[ Parent ]
Dan, I'd love to agree with you
But try to get an MSA with a pre-existing condition.

Medical Savings Accounts are subject to underwriting the same as any other health insurance.

Best to kill them early instead of letting them possibly need food stamps.
--marilou, 2010


[ Parent ]
Sorry, BR, but some of that doesn't really compute
Maybe it just needs to be worded better...

Paragraph 1: If someone is uninsured and gets sick, they get treated regardless of whether they have insurance. If they can't afford it, we all end up paying for it. That's the problem we face today. If the hospital pays, health care costs rise. If the govt pays, taxes rise. Either way, we all pay.

Paragraph 2: The alternative is that we start yet another program? What alternative are Republicans proposing?

Paragraph 3: Where to start withthis rant?
46 million Americans don't have health insurance for a variety of reasons, as you clearly know.

Some choose not to, how do you force them to buy insurance? What if they don't? See #1 above.

wrt Medicaid - remember that it is administered by states and isn't funded well enough to cover all that it is supposed to.

wrt CHIP - How many children do you know that have the wherewithal to buy their own insurance - that's ridiculous.

wrt COBRA - (1) That's not a govt insurance program. (2) Coverage through COBRA is usually very expensive because the employer no longer provides their contribution.

wrt Medicare - If you're living on social security, then even Medicare looks expensive.

wrt VA/Tri-care: We shouldn't cover vets?


Never assume "shill" when "idiot" is available as an explanation. [h/t Ralphie]


[ Parent ]
46 million is one out of two?
Everything else aside, what do you mean by this? The US population is still 300 million.

Bring back S[redacted]e H[redacted]y!

[ Parent ]
One Mid-round note on the main event...
...again, while it appears that Laughing Boy is ahead on points, I would point out that the Senate Bill will probably get it's first vote on Saturday.

At the moment, the House bill meets my minimum standards for a Public Option, while the current Senate version is only barely so. Amendments in the Senate may weaken the public option, giving LB the victory on points.

HOWEVER - the Stupak amendment, as it currently exists in the House Bill, may trigger a veto threat by the Prez. If so, that makes this fight a TKO, and we all must split the check.

The ring girl will now walk around in with the 7th round card...

"Patriot: the person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about." Mark Twain


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?




Advertise Here!
ads@coloradopols.com


Active Users
Currently 42 user(s) logged on.

Search




Advanced Search


Colorado Pols Network


Jeffco Pols
  More >

Denver Pols
  More >















RSS 2.0



Pols Gets Mobile: ColoradoPols.com/mobile/

Colorado Pols is on Twitter: twitter.com/coloradopols

Email Pols


How to Write a Diary That Will Make the Front Page



Terms of Use/Privacy Policy



Pols Posting Policies



The Pols "Mailbag"

Mailbag #1



Relevant Links

The Big Media Blog

Blog It Right

Blog For Growth

Blogometer

Colorado Capitol Journal

Colorado Center on Law and Policy

Colorado Democratic Party

Colorado Ethics Watch

Colorado Independent

Colorado Labor Blog

Colorado Veterans for America

Colorado Legislature

Colorado Lib

Colorado Libertarian Blog

Colorado Media Matters

Colorado Progressive Coalition

Colorado Republican Party

Colorado Secretary of State

Colorado Senate

Colorado Young Democrats

Commentary Today

Coyote Gulch

CU Democrats

Curious Stranger

Daily Kos

Dan Willis-Rumors

Dem Notes

Democracy for Colorado

Denver Politics

East Boulder County Politics

Ed Stein Ink

Election Neutrality Now

George in Denver

Great Education Colorado

Head First Colorado

The Hotline Political Network

Junction Daily Blog

Left in the West

Liberal and Loving It

Maintain Educational Standards in Colorado

Mount Virtus

MyDD

National Journal

On Call

Peak Dems

Political State Report

Progress Now

Prometheus

Project Vote Smart

Radio Free Denver

Senate Guru

Slapstick Politics

Steam Powered Opinions

Square State

Stygius

TalkLeft

The Thicket

The Bell Policy Center

The Hypothetical Wren

ThomasMC.com

Toilet Paper Online

TRACER Campaign Finance

View From a Height

Walter in Denver

Wash Park Prophet

Western Democrat



Colorado Pols is wholly owned by www.ColoradoPols.com, LLC
webmaster-at-coloradopols.com
Powered by: SoapBlox