Here’s a challenge: Make up a simple question and call the Medicare Help line and see how long it is before you actually get to talk to a human being. The number is 1-800-MEDICARE (1-800-633-4227) and is supposed to be manned 24/7.

During the wait you can fantasize about the prospect of actually being forced to use this beast to appeal a denial of service or pretend you have a serious illness and need help finding a doctor who will agree to do the government-imposed paperwork and treat you for the government-imposed fee (there already is a growing shortage of providers: worse in some areas than others).

The last time I tried this number, you had to sit through a 20 minute recording before you were offered any options: no escape possible (believe me, I tried…and I know most of the phone system bypass tricks). If you call back, you’ll have to sit through the same 20 minute recording again: no escape, no credit for suffering through it the first time: this is government-run healthcare!!!

This simple experiment should cure you of any desire for government-run health care. If you try this experiment during the day, make sure you have food and water by the phone and be sure to visit the bathroom before you call.

Some commenters, such as darwin, eyedoc, and Romeo13 are being civil, so I’m not claiming that it’s universal. But I think it’s worthwhile to notice how there are many more commenters jumping in with namecalling than there are folks who are willing to actually have an intelligent discussion.

This is especially relevent with the discussion of the tiered commenting system. Personally, I would go for (at minimum) an “ignore” feature. I know I would use it on folks whose rhetorical style includes ad hominem attacks.

He obviously does not understand the term “mandate”. Mandate means “required”. The plan requires everyone to pay, even if you “choose” not to have a medical insurance plan. That feature of the bill turns the “premium” into a tax, because you are “required” to pay it.

You cannot choose to not pay for ObamaCare. That means it’s a tax, just like FICA and Social Security taxes.

jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 6:28 PM

So, its your contention that a company started with government money (under low to no interest).

Who will not have to pay taxes.

Who does NOT have to make a profit for its stockholders.

And is able to use LEGAL price controls and decide what part of bills it will pay…

Is NOT designed to drive other corporations out of that business?

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/06/16/report-kennedy-bill-would-actu

[Is "ItsforDinner" aware that you have tacked your handle to their site?

Common practice for shills all across the net these days.]

Where exactly is the evidence that “their complaint was factually wrong.” Other than your insisting it is so?

coldwarrior on July 16, 2009 at 6:11 PM

Considering I made the site, I think it’s OK with management.

Check out the update that Ed made to the post which is exactly what I noted out, their “problem” with page 16 is refuted on page 19. The CBO estimate itself says that 2/3 of the people who get subsidies will end up using them on private plans. That would be impossible if these private plans were “outlawed”.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/is-health-care-reform-worth-16-trillion/

Uwe E. Reinhardt is an economics professor at Princeton.

Like Captain Renault in “Casablanca,” who found himself “ shocked, shocked” to discover that there was gambling going on at Rick’s Café, moments before pocketing his cut of the evening’s gambling profits, Congress last week expressed “shock, shock” at what was already well known in policy wonkdom — namely, that a move to genuine universal health insurance coverage might easily entail federal budget costs of $1.6 trillion over the next decade.

There followed a scramble on the Hill to trim the proposed reform package, to keep its price tag below $1 trillion or so for the decade.

A price tag of $1.6 trillion seems immense if one contemplates the figure in the abstract. It is, however, only about 4 percent of the total cumulative health spending of $40 trillion, the amount government actuaries now project for the decade from 2010 to 2020. That is also less than the 6 to 7 percent that total national health spending has increased each year in the past decade.

And $1.6 trillion is only about 1 percent of the amount of G.D.P. that America can reasonably be expected to produce in the next decade (about $150 trillion to $170 trillion).

jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 6:03 PM

[Is "ItsforDinner" aware that you have tacked your handle to their site?

Common practice for shills all across the net these days.]

Where exactly is the evidence that “their complaint was factually wrong.” Other than your insisting it is so?

Where did you get those figures? I didn’t see that in the CBO estimate.

Those numbers have been reported over the past week or so.

For just a moment, let’s divorce the discussion from “health insurance.” Now…what private company anywhere would ever come out in favor of having government set itself up as a competitor with unlimited access to revenue?

Now, back to health insurers. Why would any health insurer ever come out in favor of having government under bid them across the borad, and then be exempt from all taxes, local, state and federal, while at the same time, private health insurers have to factor in these same taxes across the board or find themselves in jail?

coldwarrior on July 16, 2009 at 5:56 PM

They wouldn’t, it’s obvious. As I said, it’s no wonder they haven’t come out in favor of the plan. You wondered why IBD could possibly have a bias and I explained–it’s not a popular thing amongst investors and thus IBD readers and staff. That’s all. I expect HMO’s to be against it. I expect IBD and WSJ to be against it. They got ahold of the bill to try and tear it apart. That was my point. (Oh and that they failed thus far–their complaint was factually wrong.)

jonknee on July 16, 2009 at 5:48 PM

For just a moment, let’s divorce the discussion from “health insurance.” Now…what private company anywhere would ever come out in favor of having government set itself up as a competitor with unlimited access to revenue?

Now, back to health insurers. Why would any health insurer ever come out in favor of having government under bid them across the borad, and then be exempt from all taxes, local, state and federal, while at the same time, private health insurers have to factor in these same taxes across the board or find themselves in jail?

Lastly, because you are dense and I tire easily when dealing with such, where is it in the Constitution that government should be involved in any of this?