Video: The Public Plan Deception
posted at 2:14 pm on June 12, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The guys at Verum Serum strike again with this new video of Democrats and their think-tank allies talking about the real goal of the “public plan” in ObamaCare, the new health plan getting rolled out in Congress this month. The White House says the plan will “keep private insurers honest,” but it seems the dishonesty comes from the Oval Office and Capitol Hill:
The people who designed this approach were very honest about it, as you can see in the above video. None of them talk about “keeping private insurers honest”; instead, they’re openly scornful of private insurance and want to rid us of them as soon as they are politically able to do so. The one couldn’t even bring himself to call the public plan a Trojan Horse, so obvious is its intent.
The entire premise of the public plan, as designed by its originators, was to crowd out the private insurers by undercutting them on price. After all, the government can take losses on the plan for as long as they need to drive everyone else out of the market. Once that process completes, voila! Single-payer remains as the only option.
Time to get on the phones and start telling your Senators and Congressment to vote no on the public plan. We will start next week on The Ed Morrissey Show. Get ready for some activism.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 6 7 8 9 Next »
I absolutely am not mischaracterizing her positions in any way. You strike me as a naive idealist who simply refuses to acknowledge the lessons of history and reality. She is an anti-American socialist who knows exactly what destruction her kind is wreaking on the free world and is reveling in it. There’s a difference, though slight. Your type serves as useful idiots for her type.
aero on June 12, 2009 at 7:46 PM
Obama has REALLY pissed off the gays today. On Daily Kos they are calling him all sorts of names they usually reserve for Republicans. Some are even saying Cheney is better on gay rights (which he is, but they would never admit it while he was VP).
Speedwagon82 on June 12, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Good suggestion. The count hasn’t changed since sometime this afternoon.
obladioblada on June 12, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Actually the Conservative position is that people who are willing to work for a living can pretty much meet all their basic necessities.
manofaiki on June 12, 2009 at 8:10 PM
Fight all you like. We’ve got the votes. Healthcare will pass. Elections have consequences.
Terry Silver on June 12, 2009 at 8:24 PM
Somehow I managed to survive through a lot of open registrations!
Absolutely.
I think those people should also be allowed on roads. I think the kids of those people should be able to go to public school. I think if they need the help of the police, they should be able to go ask as well (and receive it of course).
Until you guys are willing to let sick people die on the sidewalk, we are already providing some form of health insurance to these people. I would rather see them covered with a comprehensive plan that allows for prevention rather than emergency room treatments.
And here is the thing. You are giving me the “worse case” possible. It’s like the torture argument. “Imagine you had this guy who had the secret codes to destroy the whole world etc.”
The reality is that the vast majority of Americans work hard every day. These are the first people that we need to protect, even if it means that some freeloaders come along the way.
You know, we could have a police state that would help us catch all the illegals, but last I checked we aren’t going to use the worse case scenario as our every day policy. Same here. I want a plan that works well for the vast majority. If people freeload, too bad. It comes with the territory.
We do this just about everywhere. We have gun rights even though some people abuse them. We have free speech rights even though some people abuse them. The list goes on. My position isn’t based on what the worst among us will do.
mycowardice on June 12, 2009 at 8:29 PM
Absolutely.
I think those people should also be allowed on roads. I think the kids of those people should be able to go to public school. I think if they need the help of the police, they should be able to go ask as well (and receive it of course).
Until you guys are willing to let sick people die on the sidewalk, we are already providing some form of health insurance to these people. I would rather see them covered with a comprehensive plan that allows for prevention rather than emergency room treatments.
And here is the thing. You are giving me the “worse case” possible. It’s like the torture argument. “Imagine you had this guy who had the secret codes to destroy the whole world etc.”
The reality is that the vast majority of Americans work hard every day. These are the first people that we need to protect, even if it means that some freeloaders come along the way.
You know, we could have a police state that would help us catch all the illegals, but last I checked we aren’t going to use the worse case scenario as our every day policy. Same here. I want a plan that works well for the vast majority. If people freeload, too bad. It comes with the territory.
We do this just about everywhere. We have gun rights even though some people abuse them. We have free speech rights even though some people abuse them. The list goes on. My position isn’t based on what the worst among us will do.
mycowardice on June 12, 2009 at 8:29 PM
So why have any laws at all if freeloading just comes with the territory. Because some people just go into a rage and kill their neighbor or spouse we should just accept that it comes with the territory of people living together and do nothing about it? I don’t buy it. Lines have to be drawn. The question is where. How about the line is you want to pay for some freeloader’s healthcare, go for it. donate %100 of your paycheck. I will give my charity where I deem appropriate.
txmomof6 on June 12, 2009 at 8:39 PM
You can’t avoid the freeloading — at least not at the cost of also catching non freeloaders. Plus, you anyways are willing to pay for their coverage by paying for their emergency room costs.
mycowardice on June 12, 2009 at 8:48 PM
I wouldn’t be so smug about having the votes; they may very well be (Blue Dog) Democrats who won’t be on-board for ObamaCare.
I don’t think health care will pass.
Elections may have consequences, but I doubt a lot of folks who voted for Obama thought they were voting for Socialized medicine.
Most Americans are happy with the health care plans they already have.
Jenfidel on June 12, 2009 at 9:05 PM
There is a difference between providing insurance for someone and care for them in an emergency. I actually don’t think we should treat common illnesses in the emergency room. They should be saved for actual emergencies and not clogged up with care for people who want free healthcare and know they can’t legally be turned away from an ER for liability reasons. We have health insurance in this country for the indigent (ever heard of Medicaid, SCHIP etc.?) but you have to sign up for it and fill out paperwork and frankly some people who qualify are too lazy to sign up for it so they just show up in some ER.
txmomof6 on June 12, 2009 at 9:09 PM
The entire premise of the public plan, as designed by its originators, was to crowd out the private insurers by undercutting them on price. After all, the government can take losses on the plan for as long as they need to drive everyone else out of the market.
I don’t buy that argument. Insurance companies ARE the problem- a very big part of the cost problem. Do you really think high medical fees are caused by doctors and hospitals getting rich? Look at the average private hospital, and you’ll probably see an organization on the edge of bankruptcy. As for the ‘Obama will be a liberal nut on fighting terrorists abroad, Obama will be a liberal nut on picking a justice for the Supreme Court’, that hasn’t occurred.
If a public insurance option or some hybrid of it (ie nonprofit insurance co’s funded by the government) can force private insurance companies, which are bloated, technologically backward, and generally inefficient, to change, why not give it a try?
Changes to the health care system won’t happen through a single piece of legislation. It’s going to take several administations, run by both Dems and Republicans, to the get the formula right.
bayam on June 12, 2009 at 9:13 PM
Jenfidel on June 12, 2009 at 9:05 PM
+1
there seem to be rumblings from some Senate Dems as well, e.g.Conrad, Landrieu and others. Orrin Hatch made a good point recently about the public plan not having strong Dem. support in the Senate because they know when it fails (inevitable) the dems would have to eat it for the rest of their lives.
txmomof6 on June 12, 2009 at 9:13 PM
And considering the cost of an ER visit versus a doctor visit, we might be better off paying for that doctor visit rather than wait for the ER visit.
Anyways, the bottom line is that you are for some public insurance plan (medicaid, schip), so the debate is what? Offering a plan administered by the government that everyone can join?
For me, a minimum would be to allow people to join the same plans as federal employees, even if it means having everyone pay both sides of the cost (employee + employer).
mycowardice on June 12, 2009 at 9:14 PM
You can’t avoid the freeloadingmycowardice on June 12, 2009 at 8:48 PM
Oh we know your kind never trys to avoid it. Just curious…what in the fook are you currently sacrificing in order to help all these fascist programs you “think” would really be totally awesome?
What tax bracket are you in? How many homeless do you have living with you. What exactly have you given up for these programs that you want the government to strong arm the real contributing members of this country into?
ClassicCon on June 12, 2009 at 9:16 PM
Most Americans are happy with the health care plans they already have.
Except for
a) American’s who don’t have insurance because it’s either not affordable or unavailable due to pre-existing conditions
b) Americans who have an HMO and worry that any required procedure could be rejected as not covered
bayam on June 12, 2009 at 9:16 PM
Wrong…Wal-Mart could fix it in two years…
ClassicCon on June 12, 2009 at 9:17 PM
Weren’t you banned?
I want NO health care. None. Zip. Zero. Nada.
As I said above, most Americans are happy with the health care plans they have and don’t need or want more nor do they want the astronomical cost it would entail with the requisite tax burden to pay for it–which would be across the board, not just “the rich.”
NObama is insane to propose a program this unnecessary and this costly at a time when the economy’s in a huge downturn with no sign that the bottom has been reached yet!
Jenfidel on June 12, 2009 at 9:19 PM
They could start by getting Medicare right or at least trying. That is a more pressing problem for many reasons than whatever flavor of the month “problem” the Dems believe exist in the private healthcare situation. They are ginning up a crisis to get what they have been after for more than 40 years. Obama campaigned on healthcare before the recession started, so clearly the current economic crisis did not cause his sudden emphasis on solving “the healthcare crisis”
txmomof6 on June 12, 2009 at 9:22 PM
As Obama says, you can keep your existing plan, or you could take the public plan.
mycowardice on June 12, 2009 at 9:22 PM
You’re probably right about that. I’d have no problem with a national, private insurance co run by WalMart. Unfortunately, private insurance co’s are a joke compared to WalMart’s efficiency and technical prowess.
bayam on June 12, 2009 at 9:22 PM
Says who? You? (and NObama)
Are the numbers of these groups really large enough to warrant a government-mandated plan? NO.
Should the government even be in the health care or health care insurance business at all? HELL NO.
In America today, you can still get treated for your medical problems regardless of your ability to pay or your insurance plan.
BTW, ObamaCare will be like having the HMO/Insurance Co. who denies your claims from Hell–Ask the British!
Jenfidel on June 12, 2009 at 9:23 PM
Of course, because he has been so honest about everything else. So can I opt out of paying part of my paycheck for the “public/freeloader” plan?
ClassicCon on June 12, 2009 at 9:23 PM
He’s lying, as usual.
Once the Gub’mint’s plan is in place, the existing private plans will all be driven out, especially if he starts taxing insurance benefits as he’s threatened to do.
Jenfidel on June 12, 2009 at 9:24 PM
Agreed, and I think it does not help to simply discuss healthcare as one large category. I feel the topic should be discussed in terms of catestrophic healthcare issues, and everyday healthcare issues.
It is the latter that Wal-Mart is actually doing something with their $4 prescription drug plan and their nurse practitioner services that they are testing.
ClassicCon on June 12, 2009 at 9:27 PM
pssst. I have this bridge in Brooklyn, its real cheap, interested?
What happens if I choose to keep my plan, but my boss says he chooses the cheaper option of putting me in the government plan? What then, do I quit or do I have to get the government plan? where is my choice then genius?
txmomof6 on June 12, 2009 at 9:29 PM
The best system is one that allows me to purchase health insurance just like I do auto insurance with after tax dollars. My employer should cancel my coverage, pay me the cash value of my insurance plan and let me fend for myself. I also want the government to let me keep my Social Security “contributions” so I can save for my own retirement.
There are ways to cover the poor without forcing self-sufficient Americans into a socialized system. Making me pay for myself and others is indentured servitude.
DerKrieger on June 12, 2009 at 9:29 PM
Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha: You should sub for Letterman. You’re actually funny.
Beaglemom on June 12, 2009 at 9:29 PM
They could start by getting Medicare right or at least trying
But private insurance hasn’t proven to be any more efficient than the government. You wouldn’t think it’s possible, but the system is that screwed up. According to the Congressional Budget Office: “the Medicare public plan spends less than 2 percent of expenditures on administrative costs, compared with approximately 11 percent of spending by private plans under Medicare Advantage.”
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/82xx/doc8268/06-28-Medicare_Advantage.pdf
And according to an analysis by the McKinsey Global Institute, excess spending on “health administration and insurance” accounted for as much as 21 percent of the estimated total excess spending ($477 billion in 2003) and 85 percent of this excess overhead can be attributed to the highly complex private health insurance system in the United States”
Why do you believe that this system need to be protected like baby Jesus?
bayam on June 12, 2009 at 9:31 PM
DerKrieger on June 12, 2009 at 9:29 PM
Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner!!!!
txmomof6 on June 12, 2009 at 9:32 PM
What make me mad is that as a taxpayer I have to pay for my own health care via my private plan but also be taxed to subsidize those opting for the public plan.
Do those opting for the public plan have to pay for it themselves? If so then why do we have to raise taxes by 1.5 TRILLION dollars. Wasn’t the objective to reduce costs? Funny how it takes trillions of taxpayer dollars to reduce health care costs. Makes zero sense.
F*CK YOU OBAMA!
DerKrieger on June 12, 2009 at 9:32 PM
That’s the whole point of the post we’re commenting on, remember? Ed posted a video that proves that the architects of this boondoggle are lying and know full well that public insurance will kill private insurance and we’ll all be stuck with public whether we want it or not. We can keep our existing plan until it’s deliberately and unfairly shut out of the market. Then we’re all stuck with Medicare-like suckage.
aero on June 12, 2009 at 9:33 PM
That’s exactly what you do.
You quit and find another job.
Health care is a benefit in the Republican land. It’s like discounted gym memberships and paid time off. It’s already like that today. If you don’t like what an employer offers, go to the next job.
By the way, the McCain approach was also leading towards the direction of having people get their own insurance.
mycowardice on June 12, 2009 at 9:35 PM
No, it’s slavery. With indentured servitude, the servant can eventually pay off the debt and be free. We will never be free once this goes into place.
aero on June 12, 2009 at 9:35 PM
This just shows me that this dumb black boy is being played by the more intelligent psycho-democrats. He can’t even make a speech of his own!
Cybergeezer on June 12, 2009 at 9:36 PM
What percentage of administrative paperwork is either mandated by government or is CYA in the event an ambulance chasing trial lawyer darkens a physician’s doorstep?
Eliminate government meddling and CYA paperwork and I will guarantee you that the administrative overhead will drop dramatically.
Funny how no one ever discusses the regulatory burden on private business as a root cause for its few inefficiencies and additional costs.
Government is an impediment and an obstruction to commerce, innovation, efficiency, and cost reductions.
DerKrieger on June 12, 2009 at 9:36 PM
Well, I could always quit my job, emigrate, or reduce my earnings below the net tax contributor level.
When my wife gets laid off later this year she’s staying home. We’re not supporting government anymore than we absolutely have to. And her staying home reduces our significant income by 50%. Obama will have to find some other sucker to pay the bills of his unproductive parasite class of voters.
DerKrieger on June 12, 2009 at 9:38 PM
Not at all. If the public plan is so horrible, you will still be able to get private insurance or pay for your own care. I don’t see how you would get stuck with any plan.
My guess is that if there is no room for the private market after that, it’s because it won’t be competitive enough.
mycowardice on June 12, 2009 at 9:40 PM
I did not say that it did. I don’t think government should be involved except in the extreme circumstances beyond the pale. In fact, I think that the whole system of third parties like employers and unions and various governments paying for healthcare has distorted healthcare delivery and skewed everything completely. If the person receiving the healthcare was actually paying for the services they were receiving prices would not be so high because there would be competition and supply and demand would be more effective. Look at the prices for elective surgery. Much more reasonable. Of course, I think there should be health insurance for catastrophic cost, but not routine care.
txmomof6 on June 12, 2009 at 9:41 PM
Eliminate government meddling and CYA paperwork and I will guarantee you that the administrative overhead will drop dramatically.
Funny how no one ever discusses the regulatory burden on private business as a root cause for its few inefficiencies and additional costs.
If you’re referring to the mountain of paperwork it takes an HMO to approve a specialist referral or to approve a surgical procedure, no, that has nothing to do with government meddling. Or when you walk into a doctor’s office and see that it’s run like a zoo, that’s not because the government is preventing private insurance co’s from streamlining the operations of their participant physicians. Private insurance has been a cost burden on the medical system for decades and strongly defending it on the merits of its efficiency is absurd.
bayam on June 12, 2009 at 9:43 PM
Who pays? As a net taxpayer I will wind up paying for my own coverage plus the coverage of those opting for the public plan. If that’s not true then why is Obama seeking trillions to pay for this new plan?
Please name me a single success the federal government has had in managing massive scale benefit program?
DerKrieger on June 12, 2009 at 9:43 PM
Check out what the plan will really cost:
House Health-Care Proposal would add $600 BILLION in taxes
FTA:
America neither wants nor needs health care “reform.”
Jenfidel on June 12, 2009 at 9:45 PM
Yes, there is not much incentive to be among the contributors in this system. As mycowardice said above, he and his kind believe that even those who work “off the books” and deliberately dodge taxes have every right to freeload off the system, and that is to be expected and allowed. A system that is set up to strongly encourage freeloaderism and strongly discourage contributions will quickly have more freeloaders than contributors. The system will collapse, and quickly. Unfortunately, there will be no safety net once all the private insurers have gone out of business and their networks dismantled.
aero on June 12, 2009 at 9:46 PM
Social security. It runs on a very low overhead for every dollar of benefit paid.
I always wonder why conservatives love to see insurers, not doctors or patient make decisions on medical care.
mycowardice on June 12, 2009 at 9:48 PM
I have a Health Savings Account (HSA) and it is the absolute best solution for solving the health care problem. Whatever that may be. My employer gives me $2400 cash to deposit in my account, I can contribute another $4800 more. My deductible is $10k. All expenses below $10k come out of my HSA which I get to keep forever so I have incentive to not got to the doctor for a sniffle. My plan only costs me $50/month for a family plan.
The poor can be given HSA debit cards with a minimum balance that they can accrue and keep and be enrolled in low cost, high deductible plans.
The free-market CAN solve this problem if only the socialists in government would let it.
DerKrieger on June 12, 2009 at 9:49 PM
Please name me a single success the federal government has had in managing massive scale benefit program?
What’s your metric for success? Based on cost efficiency, private insurance has been a major failure.
According to an analysis by the McKinsey Global Institute, excess spending on “health administration and insurance” accounted for as much as 21 percent of the estimated total excess spending ($477 billion in 2003) and 85 percent of this excess overhead can be attributed to the highly complex private health insurance system in the United States
http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/rp/healthcare/accounting_cost_healthcare.asp
bayam on June 12, 2009 at 9:51 PM
They CAN’T compete. It’s impossible. No businesses operating under real-world rules and without access to infinite tax-payer (or printing-press) dollars could compete with a government entity not bound by the same rules. You’re not dumb, mycowardice, you know this.
aero on June 12, 2009 at 9:51 PM
You obviously don’t know much about the current state of SSI do you? It is massively underfunded and about to be overwhelmed when the Boomers begin to retire en masse. The only two available acknowledged solutions are massive tax increases or massive reductions in benefits.
DerKrieger on June 12, 2009 at 9:52 PM
Very good point Aero. Curious is it possible that Mycowardice is Southerngal on another computer sounds similar?
LSUMama on June 12, 2009 at 9:52 PM
For Leftists, this misses the POINT.
It’s never about whether the system actually WORKS.
It’s whether the system is FAIR or not.
Obama is on record saying even if proposed tax increases he was pushing led to no increase in government revenues whatsoever, he would still impose them because it was the FAIR thing to do.
This is the mentality we are arguing with here in re. the trolls.
You keep harping on the utility of the present system vs. the degraded quality of services in a single payer system where the Gov. has driven all the private insurers out of business.
As if the trolls would even care about that.
manofaiki on June 12, 2009 at 9:53 PM
The solution is to put consumers in charge via HSAs. If consumers treated health insurance as they do all other insurance coverage they purchase then the system would become much more efficient. The only inefficiencies in the auto insurance business are the 50 sets of regulations the insurance companies have to follow. Rules should be national, not local, to keep prices low.
DerKrieger on June 12, 2009 at 9:54 PM
You really don’t understand the nature of the insurance business model do you? If you have fewer people paying premiums you have to raise the premiums for everyone else. Eventually your premium price is too high if there are too few payers. The government is not constrained by the need to make a profit. Look at Medicare. It is just about bankrupt.
txmomof6 on June 12, 2009 at 9:56 PM
Bankrupt. Unsustainable. Try again.
I don’t know where you get this. My private insurer has never dictated medical decisions to me or my doctor. They have covered everything that’s ever been requested by medical professionals on my behalf.
Now, the one time I had an HMO, it was different. That sucked. I went over the competition immediately.
My parents on government-run Medicare, on the other hand, experienced all kinds of grief and headaches over what they were allowed to have done. Couldn’t get into medical and care facilities because they couldn’t accept any more Medicare patients or they would have gone out of business. Needed a social worker to get anything approved, and most of what they got was too limited to be of long-term help. The kids ended up taking care of them. Surprise.
aero on June 12, 2009 at 9:57 PM
DerKrieger
Ditto to everything.
We are down to a single income in this house. We will do everything in our power to reduce our tax load.
Dear Leader is insane and I’ll be damn if I’m going to contribute to his insanity or the country’s demise.
ORconservative on June 12, 2009 at 9:57 PM
It’s never about whether the system actually WORKS.
It’s whether the system is FAIR or not.
Is that the goal of the Congressional Budget Office or the McKinsey Institute when both release studies that describe the private insurance industry as grossly inefficient and the largest driver of higher health system costs?
Why is it that you get hot and bothered when someone suggests that private insurance co’s should not be protected like baby Jesus?
Sure, there may be some who want to force private insurance co’s out of the picture for some ideological reasons. Frankly, I don’t agree- you need competition from private insurance co’s for the system to work. But there’s no proof of a massive conspiracy theory among health care experts in general who suggest a need to force change. If you actually took the time to read what CBO, McKinsey, and other generally objective studies had to say about the issue, perhaps you’d have a different perspective.
bayam on June 12, 2009 at 9:59 PM
Aero,
Why don’t we look at how many private companies have existed since 1950. Why don’t we look at how many still exist today and how many went bankrupt.
Then we can conclude capitalism is a failure.
Social security, if untouched, will go bankrupt. The government needs to fix/tweak it, but it doesn’t have to actually go bankrupt. The point is that social security is well administered, and is not bankrupt.
mycowardice on June 12, 2009 at 10:01 PM
bayam – if the public plan is going to cost taxpayers $1.5 trillion above and beyond the current system, what’s the advantage?
If you want to be on the government plan and not reach into my pocket to subsidize your choice then go for it. As soon as your choice imposes an obligation on me I will object. You are your own responsibility. Not mine.
DerKrieger on June 12, 2009 at 10:03 PM
Forcing business to provide health insurance for every employee is gonna be a big job killer. Get ready for additional layoffs..
TN Mom on June 12, 2009 at 10:04 PM
Head in the sand.
Can I opt out of Social Security if I promise to pay for my own retirement and never go begging to Uncle Sam?
DerKrieger on June 12, 2009 at 10:05 PM
I don’t think so. Though the arguments they make are similar, there’s a different tone and flavor to their writing and thinking. If it’s the same person, he/she has an excellent grasp of subtle characterization in writing. There was a supercilious smugness to SouthernGal’s writing, and a willingness to openly admit her anti-Americanism. Mycowardice, on the other hand, strikes me as more of a naive idealist.
aero on June 12, 2009 at 10:05 PM
bayam on June 12, 2009 at 9:59 PM
Funny you should mention the CBO. They are coming out with their scoring of the Dem. plan’s costs early next week. The Dem Senators (like Boxer) are saying the CBO scoring is irrelevant because it won’t use phantom numbers about how much will be saved via preventive healthcare, so they are pressuring Conrad to use different scoring for the costs.
txmomof6 on June 12, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Can I get a refund for the war in Iraq? Maybe we could all get a line item veto.
mycowardice on June 12, 2009 at 10:05 PM
Unlike national defense, providing for national health care is NOT in the Constitution.
DerKrieger on June 12, 2009 at 10:07 PM
I am not Southerngal, although I did like her health care arguments!
Ed said once his podcast I was the “loyal opposition” (or dissidence or something to that effect).
mycowardice on June 12, 2009 at 10:08 PM
And your answer didn’t address the fundamental question of the imposition on me of a fiscal obligation for someone else I didn’t volunteer for. How does that differ from slavery?
DerKrieger on June 12, 2009 at 10:09 PM
The constitution argument, again!
There are a million and one thing that the Fed government does that isn’t explicitely listed in the constitution. Like I wrote earlier, I bet 1$ that any law they would pass would pass constitutional muster.
mycowardice on June 12, 2009 at 10:09 PM
bayam – if the public plan is going to cost taxpayers $1.5 trillion above and beyond the current system, what’s the advantage?
The higher cost isn’t related to whether there’s a ‘public insurer’ competing against the private insurance industry. The high cost is related to universal coverage- whether it’s done through a private or public system, or both, it’s going to be very expensive.
In my mind, you can’t leave so many ppl uninsured. Health costs place a massive burden on American industry and make it less competitive.
As soon as your choice imposes an obligation on me I will object. You are your own responsibility. Not mine.
Well, that’s your right and I respect your opinion.
bayam on June 12, 2009 at 10:10 PM
Yes, it is. SS has posted its first loss month already. Every month that goes by, there will be more people drawing on it and fewer paying into it. It is bankrupt now. It is being sustained by borrowed money. It’s a zombie system. The boomers will finish it off, and there is absolutely nothing that can save it — certainly not some simple “tweaking.” Look at the numbers. It’s UNSUSTAINABLE. Do you intend to keep borrowing money to infinity and beyond? China will eventually cut up the credit card, and then a whole lotta seniors will be surviving on cat food.
Yes, private companies go bankrupt all the time. They are generally replaced by stronger, better business models; or the thing they produced is made obsolete by newer products/technologies/services. See newspapers. It is a healthy process that creates products and services that people actually want at prices they are willing to pay. I can’t believe I’m arguing this with you. Did you get a high school diploma?
aero on June 12, 2009 at 10:12 PM
If this is your definition of slavery, I have bad news for you, you’ve been a slave for a while. Health care won’t change much in that department. How much of our budget is already made up of entitlements?
mycowardice on June 12, 2009 at 10:13 PM
Uh, yeah – that’s a problem and I object to 90% of federal spending. That doesn’t justify even more unconstitutional usurpations of the states and peoples rights.
Damn that Constitution! We should just get rid of that old thing and just pass whatever law feels good. /sarc
DerKrieger on June 12, 2009 at 10:13 PM
You’re right! I’ve been enslaved to the parasite class since I took my first job. And you know what, I object to all of it.
DerKrieger on June 12, 2009 at 10:15 PM
I’d take that deal. The entire cost of the Iraq War is a microscopic drop in the bucket compared to entitlement spending (SS/Medicare/Obamacare). You’d get about 5 bucks back for the part you paid for the Iraq War, and we’d get tens of thousands each to opt out of universal health care.
aero on June 12, 2009 at 10:15 PM
It doesn’t have to be expensive. Implementing HSAs on a national scale will dramatically cut costs.
DerKrieger on June 12, 2009 at 10:16 PM
60% and growing, last I checked. Military spending? Less than 10%.
aero on June 12, 2009 at 10:17 PM
Good night! Off to another topic.
DerKrieger on June 12, 2009 at 10:17 PM
Same old leftist canard:
Look, private industry could be doing a BETTER JOB of that!
So………..let’s have the GOVERNMENT take it over and do it better and more efficiently!
See the……..PROBLEM?
When the Congressional Budget Office or the McKinsey Institute release studies showing me how government run insurance is going to be soooo much better than the current system, give me a holler.
manofaiki on June 12, 2009 at 10:18 PM
Using that kind of logic, you would declare any startup company bankrupt because they run deficits for the first few years. My point is that simply because SS is starting to run out of cash doesn’t mean that it’s a failed system, just like GM failing doesn’t mean car companies are failures.
I disagree with your assertion that SS cannot be saved, but we will have to wait for the thread on SS instead of totally derailing this thread.
What is a high school diploma?
mycowardice on June 12, 2009 at 10:21 PM
When the Congressional Budget Office or the McKinsey Institute release studies showing me how government run insurance is going to be soooo much better than the current system, give me a holler.
They are saying that government-run insurance is currently more efficient. Read the studies.
Defending private insurance co’s is something done by ppl who don’t understand the main cause of rising health costs in this country.
bayam on June 12, 2009 at 10:21 PM
I say we all go and talk about Bill O’Reilly and the Salon Editor!
mycowardice on June 12, 2009 at 10:23 PM
How can you be so dense? A rock could smack you on the forehead, and you’d argue for three hours that rocks absolutely don’t exist, so that can’t be a lump on your forehead. Dude. Unbelievable.
Aero, out.
aero on June 12, 2009 at 10:27 PM
So the casual acceptance of tyrrany in the days of Wilson (look up what he did to the economy during WW1) and Roosevelt (Even the SCOTUS couldn’t stomach the NRA provisos – and most of what was kept still violates the Tenth Amendment) means that we should continue to excuse this power grab from Washington?
You can’t get blood from a turnip. Which is something that governments all around the world are going to discover, much to their chagrin, over the next 15 years. You’d think, since they’re so smart (just ask them!) that they’d have learned from the example of the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, and even the Japanese “lost decade” and the disparity in wealth production between the EEC nations and the US over the last 20 years. Unfortunately, a fool doesn’t learn until events happen to him. China is the exception that “proves” the rule – but not every nation on Earth, and particularly not this one, is going to tolerate the living and working conditions found there (particularly in rural areas – even the Chinese are finding them intolerable there, as evidenced by the BBC’s reports of uprisings in the countryside in spring of 2008). We have already accepted too much of this crap as it is, nevermind a prison-state that can mandate political prisoners as unpaid factory labor. Indeed, we live in interesting times.
Blacksmith on June 12, 2009 at 10:38 PM
Tell me, do you pay a mortgage? Have children? A car note? Even WORK for a living? Cause that’s the stupidest thing you’ve said so far. Get with the times dear, jobs are a hot commodity these days. I and my husband and all our friends and family do what we can to HOLD our jobs. Grow up.
Annietxgrl on June 12, 2009 at 10:52 PM
No, but all I am saying is that if you think you will become a slave thanks to this new entitlement, I think you are already a slave due to the current entitlements.
(side note: It’s a bit like conservatives discovering deficits when Obama took office. Where were they for the last 8 years?)
mycowardice on June 12, 2009 at 10:53 PM
Thanks Annietxgrl, I got distracted with a phone call, but you said it better than I could anyway. Clearly, this kid is of the generation that has never known economic hardship where jobs are easy to come by and you just change them whenever you feel like it. Good luck in this Carter redux economy.
txmomof6 on June 12, 2009 at 10:58 PM
Enjoying an economy under a Republican Congress with the stock market at 14,000 and unemployment under 5% until the Dems took over in 2006 and it has been downhill ever since.
txmomof6 on June 12, 2009 at 11:01 PM
Annietxgrl,
Pick your side. Either health care is a benefit that the employer choses to provide or it’s something more fundamental that we all are expected to have. Right now you are going in the direction that you are entitled to your employer providing health care. I will gladly go down that path, but I think conservatives don’t want to go there.
The left wants health care to be accessible to all as a right and to be decoupled with employment. (McCain also supported the second part by the way)
mycowardice on June 12, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Oh, I thought it was enjoying the growing national debt and watching the housing bubble getting ready to explode.
mycowardice on June 12, 2009 at 11:07 PM
What problem exactly do you have with the national debt? I thought you were for adding an additional 1,500,000,000,000 on tob of the current debt which is quadruple what we had under Bush to pay for this healthcare boondoggle.
txmomof6 on June 12, 2009 at 11:13 PM
Actually that increase in the national debt is something that worries me. It doesn’t mean I don’t support the stimulus package and co., but it does worry me.
mycowardice on June 12, 2009 at 11:16 PM
You should be worried. Do you remember 21% inflation? How about mortgage rates of 12-15% I remember it, and it wasn’t pretty. How much house do you think most people could afford with a 10% mortgage rate? That was the mortgage rate on my first home and I thought I was damn lucky to get it that low. Obama’s policies have us headed that way sooner rather than later.
txmomof6 on June 12, 2009 at 11:25 PM
When thinking of national healthcare please consider the ripple effects that occur. Such as how many will choose to become DRs with untold student loan debt and no future compensation to offset it? Study the system in Canada talk to people in the know. Don`t just read some articles and assume you are knowledgeble on the subject. Why would you want to drag our health care down to sub-par? There are other methods to include the uninsured than to destroy the current system.
LSUMama on June 12, 2009 at 11:43 PM
Of course we could also address the education problem by making it more affordable like they do in most other developed country in the world.
mycowardice on June 12, 2009 at 11:48 PM
Thanks for taking up the dropped baton : ) Anyway I usually lurk on the threads but that just..well just really was a silly comment made by mycowardice. Naive. Since I am one of the 440k employed by the insurance industry I worry about losing my job with this healthcare debacle. This recession has hit all hard (and about to get harder I fear). Can I just let out an AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHH? Well, a theraputic scream and a glass of wine never hurt anyone!
Annietxgrl on June 12, 2009 at 11:50 PM
Paco on June 12, 2009 at 11:53 PM
Not sure if it has been said yet or not, but tort reform would probably be more effective at making insurance affordable than having the government run it.
coyoterex on June 13, 2009 at 12:03 AM
Okay, slick let’s do education like they do in other countries. I would love to see my kids get a free education, but would the dems settle for a MERIT system that only takes a limited number of university students and turns the rest away?
DumbsDems would never set aside “diversity” to set up a European style higher education system. They keep harping about EVERY child attending college. What nonsense! We need every child EDUCATED (vocational training, reading, math, and history). The last thing this country needs is more undereducated, debt-laden philosophy majors. If the liberals wouldn’t interfere, some of the dead wood could be cleared to make room for the smart kids.Laura in Maryland on June 13, 2009 at 12:09 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 6 7 8 9 Next »