Howard Dean: Stop ObamaCare now
posted at 7:54 am on November 27, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Is Howard Dean reclaiming the populist crown? The former presidential candidate and governor of Vermont appeared on Air America’s Bill Press radio show and blasted the ObamaCare bill — in both its House and Senate forms. During the interview, Dean insisted that the current efforts did nothing to control costs, and amounted to nothing more than a bailout for the insurance companies. He urged progressives in Congress to oppose the bill, especially if the public option gets stripped out. And he said, “Republicans are right about the rhetoric of this bill” (via Instapundit):
DEAN: There is something worse than passing no bill. This bill isn’t very strong. In fact, the only piece of reform left in it is the public option. The insurance reform is gone, essentially, because what they did is they have guaranteed issue — they have to, er, the insurance company has to ensure you — the problem is they don’t have community rating any more. They, they, they, the Senate bill, I think, charges three or four times as much for sick people as they do for healthy people, and the House bill is twice as much. …
DEAN: You know, we did this ten or fifteen years ago in Vermont, and you can charge 20% more for your most expensive clients as you can for your cheapest clients, and that’s it. Now if you can afford to buy health insurance if it’s 20% above the bottom price, but you can’t afford to buy health insurance if it’s twice as much or three times as much, so guaranteed issue doesn’t do you any good unless you have real community rating. Real community rating doesn’t exist in either the House or the Senate bill, so the old argument, which I used to make, was that we ought to pass this thing just to get the insurance reform. There isn’t any insurance reform left in this bill to speak of. …
DEAN: You know, what this is is a giant bail-out. This is a bail-out that makes AIG look cheap. Sixty billion dollars a year go to the insurance companies under this bill. Now if we can get a public option, I think that’s OK, but if you don’t have a public option, why would you want to stick the taxpayers with yet another bail-out? They bailed out the banks, they bailed out AIG. This is a trillion-dollar bailout. …
DEAN: I would vote with Bernie Sanders. I would vote to kill this bill if it does not have a public option, because that is doing harm to the nation. It’s not just, “Well, there’s some of this” –
PRESS: Yeah.
DEAN: This is a harmful bill to the nation without a public option, because it’s going to take trillions of dollars, billions, well, trillions over several decades from our kids. The Republicans are right about the rhetoric of the bill. But if you get reform, you can fix it. If you don’t get reform, you got the system that we have today, you are gradually going to start uninsuring people, because we are not going to be able to maintain this system. This system does nothing to control costs.
A couple of points are in order here. First, Dean’s notion of capping insurance premium charge rates at a 20% range means that the majority of people will be subsidizing those who are higher risks. If insurance companies are forced to guarantee issue and can only charge 20% higher for those plans to high-risk patients who normally cost them three or four times more than average patients, then insurance companies will simply increase their base rates to make up the difference. Instead of encouraging people to be healthy, the healthy will get heavily penalized. That’s obvious to everyone except populist politicians, apparently.
More importantly, Dean — who was a successful chair of the DNC and supposedly represented the mainstream of the Democratic Party — has now hitched himself to Socialist Bernie Sanders and the progressive wing of the party. Is Dean thinking about a 2012 run predicated on a politically wounded Obama who failed to pass health-care reform?
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: 1 2 Next »
Depends what Dean means by “sick people”. If someone smokes 2 packs a day and weighs 300 lbs, that’s one thing. But if someone has a congenital disease due to no fault of their own, that’s another.
I don’t mind payinga little more so the person with the disease gets covered at a reasonable price. I’ll be damned if i pay more so the obese smoker gets covered at only 20% more than me.
angryed on November 27, 2009 at 8:01 AM
Mmm, Mmmm, Mmmm. Delicious.
OmahaConservative on November 27, 2009 at 8:02 AM
Howard Dean is certifiable. Someone needs to put him in a home. And NOT the white one on Pennsylvania Avenue in D.C.
bradley11 on November 27, 2009 at 8:03 AM
Beware of dramatic scenes like this to lull a public into thinking “oh, it must not be that bad then.”
Marcus on November 27, 2009 at 8:04 AM
hmm…its hard for me to believe a word he says.
becki51758 on November 27, 2009 at 8:06 AM
The end is near.
Hening on November 27, 2009 at 8:06 AM
“Keep your friends close and keep your enemies closer”
Beware friends of the Dean tactic…..me no trustie…
justonevictory on November 27, 2009 at 8:07 AM
I work with a woman who is morbidly obese. She uses about 15-20 times more health care resources in one month than I do in one entire year. And she is 25 years younger than me. Under the current bill, I will be forced to subsidize her health care insurance premiums and she would not have to pay any extra for all of her self inflicted “pre-existing” conditions. She loves the new bill. Gee, I wonder why.
Johnnyreb on November 27, 2009 at 8:08 AM
No Ed he is not thinking of 2012. He is trying to pull Obama to the left. he is saying that with no public option the bill is not worth voting for to liberals because they will get all the negatives tied to them without any of the benefits of increasded governmental control.
He is saying it is not worth the price because the dems get all the blame when the crap hits the fan and they have no GOP cover. and the risk/reward for liberals is not there without a public option. If the bill can government complete control or even a foot in the door Dean would be saying vote for it. but with no public option it is not in the liberals best interest to do this because he rightly knows that the Dems will lose a campaign issue, will get negative press like Mitt is getting from Rommneycare and the debt/increase taxes will hurt the dems in 2010.
finally some liberals are waking up. I love to see this. Because up until now the liberals calaculation was that it was worth losing congress over this. That is begining to chance IMO and not you will see this bill hopefully buried like cap and tax.
Next up amensty
unseen on November 27, 2009 at 8:08 AM
we need to continue fighting this bill. expect no help from Scream Dean; do not trust him.
kelley in virginia on November 27, 2009 at 8:12 AM
Wrong Liberal! ;)
turfmann on November 27, 2009 at 8:13 AM
Then do not buy insurance and pay for everything out of pocket. Otherwise, you do not get that choice now, nor will you in the future, you will pay, and you will love it.
That’s how insurance works. Just like you Homeowners insurance premiums are helping to cover the guy down the street who fall asleep with a lit cigarette every night. Or your car insurance premiums are helping to insure the 16 year old who thinks texting is the best way to communicate while driving a car.
uknowmorethanme on November 27, 2009 at 8:14 AM
I work with a woman who is morbidly obese. She uses about 15-20 times more health care resources in one month than I do in one entire year. And she is 25 years younger than me. Under the current bill, I will be forced to subsidize her health care insurance premiums and she would not have to pay any extra for all of her self inflicted “pre-existing” conditions. She loves the new bill. Gee, I wonder why.
Johnnyreb on November 27, 2009 at 8:08 AM
and if it wasn’t the fat person it would be the smoker, and if not the smoker than it would be the gun owner, and if not the gun owner it would be the beer drinker, or the suger user, or the drug user, or the soda drinker, or the hambuger eater.
the entire idea of INSURANCE is to make a profit by having the good people pay for the bad people. Be it good drivers/bad drivers or healthy people/unhealthy people or live people/dead people.
People like you need to wake up. There is always someone that is the “bad” person who has to change their behavior to lower “your” cost. you probably are in favor of sin taxes also. because you know a good behavior today (like smoking in 1950) can become a sin tommorrow. The government just has to tell you what a sin is and they can get people to vote for more taxes.
unseen on November 27, 2009 at 8:15 AM
YYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
BPD on November 27, 2009 at 8:15 AM
Interesting, but Dean has been bonkers for many years. I doubt that his support will do much good for the conservative cause. Nevertheless it’s nice to see them scratching at each others eyes.
rplat on November 27, 2009 at 8:17 AM
4:30 A.M. is way to early for these old bones and brain cells to function but if the public option is the torpedo to blow health care out of the water, fire away.
fourdeucer on November 27, 2009 at 8:17 AM
I need to wake up because I don’t want to be forced to cover the medical costs of someone who is basically eating themselves into an early grave? Seriously, where the heck did you come up with that line? I want some of the purple Kool-aid that you are snorting.
Johnnyreb on November 27, 2009 at 8:19 AM
Dean has always been with the “progressives”… the country is moving right and this guy is on the far left… he’ll never reside at 1600 Penn. Ave.
WordsMatter on November 27, 2009 at 8:20 AM
Depends what Dean means by “sick people”. If someone smokes 2 packs a day and weighs 300 lbs, that’s one thing. But if someone has a congenital disease due to no fault of their own, that’s another.
I don’t mind payinga little more so the person with the disease gets covered at a reasonable price. I’ll be damned if i pay more so the obese smoker gets covered at only 20% more than me.
angryed on November 27, 2009 at 8:01 AM
Why? see the above post of mine. your way of thinking is idiotic. that is the idea of insurance. And if its a fat smoker today what says it can’t be a wheelchair bound person tommorrow. Once you start limiting who gets covered to “lower your costs” or out of some morality then you open yourself up to governmental control of them telling you what is good “behavior” and what is bad.
gun owners can be shown to raise costs because of all the gunshot wounds hospitals have to pay for in the cities. Should you not have to pay increased insurance premiums if you own a gun then? Or car drivers cost more than people that walk. should you “be damned if you are going to pay” for those dam car drivers getting in an accident?
unseen on November 27, 2009 at 8:20 AM
Might 2012 be the year of multiple parties, and not just two?
beatcanvas on November 27, 2009 at 8:21 AM
It’s a bad bill all the way around. It’s not even a good idea. Reform is important, but you have to fix Medicare before even sniffing expanding it.
And their rhetoric is disingenuous. If you don’t want to have to charge people with illnesses 3-4 times as much, you have to understand that the cost for healthy people will rise. The cost for sick people won’t go down that much, but the premiums for healthy people will go up.
Insurance is boring numbers. They pool everyone in categories defined by sex and age. They determine how much they pay out at that sex and age and give everyone the same rating in that sex and age. It is simple.
If you don’t want insurance companies making a profit, fine. . . tax them at 100% of all of their profits. But even if you did that, the cost of health care would continue to skyrocket. Medicare would still be broken.
The battlefield for this bill as chosen by the White House and Democrats is DECEMBER. We can kill this bill in December if we ATTACK NOW because they are on the ropes. If the bill gets past the Senate, this bad bill will become a bad law.
ThackerAgency on November 27, 2009 at 8:22 AM
…this goes to prove the fact that none of this is about how much the Dems and Progressives CARE about people…it about gaining and retaining power — not just political — but power at the individual level and the threat against your well being.
Was not that long ago that I stopped watching CNBC after the crowd of propaganda spewing faux-reporters had Dean on about health care…a real loser love fest…”but they were just obeying orders form their superior officers” — we’ve heard that before…and it was not because something good happened.
PhreeMan on November 27, 2009 at 8:24 AM
I need to wake up because I don’t want to be forced to cover the medical costs of someone who is basically eating themselves into an early grave? Seriously, where the heck did you come up with that line? I want some of the purple Kool-aid that you are snorting.
Johnnyreb on November 27, 2009 at 8:19 AM
Yes you need to wake up. People will abuse themselves someway somehow. If it isn’t food, its booze, or drugs or fast cars, or guns, or sex, or diving in a shallow pool or any amount of things. That is the point of insurance the healthy people pay for the sick,careless, unproductive people. So are you going to deny everyone that does risky behavior? should aids patients not get drugs because they had unprotected sex? Should the guy that blew his foot off not get healthcare because he owned a gun. should the 17 yearold that wrapped his car around the tree not get care because he was speeding?
unseen on November 27, 2009 at 8:26 AM
And I don’t want to have to cover the extremely expensive AIDS treatments for a promiscuous gay guy. That’s more expensive than treating lung cancer.
If the gay community understands that rationing includes rationing AIDS medication, they’ll march on DC. Sort of like Ahmadinejad. . . he can say anything (deny holocaust, call for another holocaust, chant death to America) and nobody cares. The minute he said ‘there are no gay people in Iran’, well then it became a scandal. This country is messed up like that.
ThackerAgency on November 27, 2009 at 8:27 AM
I wonder if we’re missing one of the oldest default ploys successfully used by the left-divide and conquer. When we start picking on certain groups as being more expensive -they win!
I recall non-thinking people demanding the be released from local school taxes because they had no kids. We all benifit from education and healthcare, and unless we believe in freedom, we ought to be cautious trying to control other people’s lives. First we define obesity, then we define the need to get rid of certain foods, then we have to hurdle discrimination laws against certain cultures who tend toward obesity. And, of course, we can’t stop there – why not talk about real health care destroying lifestyles. How much does AIDS cost us or promiscuity with STDs, or…?
Don L on November 27, 2009 at 8:28 AM
And I don’t want to have to cover the extremely expensive AIDS treatments for a promiscuous gay guy. That’s more expensive than treating lung cancer.
ThackerAgency on November 27, 2009 at 8:27 AM
yeah and I don’t want to cover the knee and hip replacement of runners that abused their bodies for years running up and down the road.
unseen on November 27, 2009 at 8:30 AM
OT: Something is happening in Dubai that is crushing the stock market.
BPD on November 27, 2009 at 8:31 AM
Don L on November 27, 2009 at 8:28 AM
agree and what I have been trying to say. you explained it better I think
unseen on November 27, 2009 at 8:32 AM
OT: Something is happening in Dubai that is crushing the stock market.
BPD on November 27, 2009 at 8:31 AM
they are defaulting on their interest apyments. Because they are broke because of the creidt crisis, and oil at $70.00 and the building bubble form 2005,2006. this is going to be the fate of the USA. If interest rates go to 5-6% we will be unable to pay our interest on $12trillion in debt and the whole world blows up
unseen on November 27, 2009 at 8:33 AM
it happened yesterday during Thanksgiving. They are defaulting on all the loans they took out to build their palm city in the ocean.
ThackerAgency on November 27, 2009 at 8:34 AM
If the government really wanted to lower healthy care costs they would get everyone to start smoking. It would lower Social security and medicare costs also.
unseen on November 27, 2009 at 8:35 AM
I thought ‘spreading the risk’ was the raison’etre for insurance in the first place. Now we have the socialists, moralists and the anarchist above — all (some of them are, or will be on this thread) — all wanting to pick and choose.
So long as we cover folks who don’t do anything to earn coverage all will be well. Just ’cause The One’s mom was taking jobs with no coverage or living in Indonesia or couldn’t convince a company that he wasn’t preexisting..and had a Harvard Law grad son who could have helpped in some way…
Se how easy social engineering is, my children?
IlikedAUH2O on November 27, 2009 at 8:36 AM
ThackerAgency on November 27, 2009 at 8:34 AM
not the loans themselves I think just the interest payments. I.e they can not service their debt but let’s let them run our ports because they are good business men. Bush fail on that one
unseen on November 27, 2009 at 8:37 AM
Really? Dean was considered mainstream? When?
NoFanofLibs on November 27, 2009 at 8:38 AM
Se how easy social engineering is, my children?
IlikedAUH2O on November 27, 2009 at 8:36 AM
LOL its only easy for the ones making the rules. everyone else gets screwed
unseen on November 27, 2009 at 8:38 AM
Before anyone agrees to pay more for something, shouldn’t we demand that they currently spend our current taxes wisely?
As an investor in a company, wouldn’t you refuse to provide more money unless the company corrects it’s current business plan?
I always hate it when I hear things like ‘I wouldn’t mind to pay a little more for……’ That attitude is a slippery slope that will only lead to total confiscation of your net worth before you realize it.
tatersalad on November 27, 2009 at 8:39 AM
wow going to be a BLACK FRIDAY IN THE MARKET. dow futures down 2% premarket.
the end of lending is at hand I think. Obamacare is doomed by the finacial market me thinks.
unseen on November 27, 2009 at 8:40 AM
tatersalad on November 27, 2009 at 8:39 AM
you misundserstand the motive of the government. It is not to make a provite. It is to them to buy votes. In that regard the present government thinks they are spending the money wisely. they are getting a great return on their money more votes which is the desired result as far as they care.
unseen on November 27, 2009 at 8:42 AM
how do you feel about auto insurance companies raising your premiums individually AFTER you have the policy, but you get into an accident or a wreck. How about their practice of charging different amounts for different types of vehicles? That’s ‘mandatory’ and it doesn’t lower costs according to an AP article today.
unseen on November 27, 2009 at 8:37 AM
The market is tanking because everyone knows it is the first step. They didn’t even say they couldn’t make their payments. . . they are just ‘postponing’ them (at the beginning of a long US holiday weekend). The market expects a complete default and bailout from the IMF. . . smart investors would think the same.
ThackerAgency on November 27, 2009 at 8:42 AM
Whatever it takes to the kill bill.
fourdeucer on November 27, 2009 at 8:42 AM
Insurance… you pay on the bet you will get sick and the insurance companies offer a plan on the bet that you won’t get sick.
If you must include the sick, then insurance is not a good system to pay for health care.
If you want to pay for ‘managed care’ then create a system that manages care for those people who are already sick. Perhaps some sort of disease treatment plan arrangement that allows people to get discounts based on known procedures their pre-existing conditions will require (such as tests and such) and offers the ability to hedge against complications in the future and offer lower long-term cost for those procedures based on when you invest into them? A ‘pay in advance’ system would fit much, much better for pre-existing conditions than an insurance system.
But that would be truly trying to ‘manage care’ for the already sick, let those with the ability to pay for that management to get reduced cost on known and expected necessary tests and treatment, and perhaps offer the opportunity for those with genetic pre-dispositions for certain conditions to purchase a minimal hedge plan so that if they get the condition they can get even better reductions as they have invested into a care system before they needed it.
Throw in a 100% donation deductible at that sort of thing for those wishing to do well for our less well citizens, and then you could help directly pay for the betterment of health care for all of our citizens, particularly those with pre-existing conditions. Mind you that would mean government can’t tell you to do that, which means the big-hearted slackers will want government to do that to force everyone to be ‘good’ by increasing taxes so that political cronies can get their share of the health care pie… just like we have now with ‘insurance’.
I am more than prepared to help those with pre-existing conditions because I have a couple of major ones, already, looked ahead at what that would mean in my life and planned accordingly. I do wish we had a care management arrangement to provide the best health care for those with pre-existing conditions and insurance is not the way to go. I’m stuck with it because we refuse to re-examine what it is we want and what that means in the way of what we can get. Insurance is a nice hammer, but lightbulbs don’t make great nails and yet that is how we are treating this issue as a society via our political class.
But then I trust in my fellow citizens to give to charity… and perhaps we should stop encouraging the slackers to want everything done via government fiat and to start putting their money where their mouths are and to invest in our care for our sickest via charity. Charities are damned good at managing costs… insurance companies are about bets and payoffs. I would prefer a system run by dedicated individuals seeking the best care for our sickest rather than the equivalent of bookies doing so.
ajacksonian on November 27, 2009 at 8:44 AM
LOL, some real business neophytes. The insurance business model provides a return because the probabilities are you will not need as much of it during the time period you have purchased it. If the probabilities of your potential needs go up, your premium goes up. Have a couple of claims on your auto insurance, watch the premiums go up.
The insurance business model does not make money by making your insurance premium higher to cover higher risk people; your premium only gets higher based on your risks over the lifetime of your policy.
The problem with health insurance vs. other insurance is the longer you live, the higher your risks. You pay a lifetime of coverage to cover the lifetime of probabilities. If you pay for 30 years and then lose coverage due to no fault of your own, you are getting ripped off. If you decide to go without coverage for 30 years and then want coverage when you hit 50 at the same payment level as everyone who has paid for 30 years, then you are trying to rip off the system (and everyone else).
The real health care solution is personal plans with portability. It would be like buying life insurance when you are 20; a lifetime of much lower payments than if you try to buy it when you are 50. If we convert to that model, and protect those who need to convert one time with current preexisting conditions, and then we pay out of our own pockets (with tax discounts to cover part of the costs) for the private insurance package we pick, that would be a real viable plan. That is close to what republicans have been suggesting.
ray on November 27, 2009 at 8:45 AM
Unlike auto insurance, if you have a health insurance policy and you get sick, it is against the law to raise your premiums individually or drop your coverage. ie, if you are diagnosed with cancer and have 250,000 worth of treatment, they can’t raise your premiums on your existing policy to cover the losses.
With auto insurance, if you get too many traffic tickets or too many accidents, they can revoke the coverage that you currently have.
ThackerAgency on November 27, 2009 at 8:45 AM
ThackerAgency on November 27, 2009 at 8:42 AM
true. but this is more than dubai. the market knows it has to delevarge. they were hoping it would be slow and easy. Now it looks like a domino effect is in the works. there is about $60 trillion of unfunded paper in the maket from those CDS and all that bad housing market crap still to get flush. the easy fed money made them not deal with it last year. You can only charge so much before the creditors pull the plug. that is iceland time
unseen on November 27, 2009 at 8:47 AM
People who can pay less for insurance, like I can with car insurance because I have a good record, are apparently like blades of grass that are too tall and need to be cut down to the same height as everyone else, when it comes to health insurance.
aikidoka on November 27, 2009 at 8:48 AM
With auto insurance, if you get too many traffic tickets or too many accidents, they can revoke the coverage that you currently have.
ThackerAgency on November 27, 2009 at 8:45 AM
Yes but you dont need to drive.
unseen on November 27, 2009 at 8:49 AM
Speaking of rationing due to behavior – how about abortion or does anyone still think most of it isn’t latent contraception. Why is abortion healthcare?
Don L on November 27, 2009 at 8:51 AM
No … he’s just pushing the public option. Dean is far left progressive.
darwin on November 27, 2009 at 8:51 AM
you don’t want me to get into a debate about the arbitrary nature of speed limits in the law. Where I live, my house is considered ‘car dependent’. If the government took my driver’s license due to speeding tickets, they would essentially take my house.
But I do pay a lot more for insurance.
ThackerAgency on November 27, 2009 at 8:53 AM
The simplest way for insuance companies to reduce cost is to reduce premiums. right now health insurance cost too much for the young and healthy to buy into the system So has health insurance rates go up up and up the pool becomes front end loaded with the sick that need it.
the government wants to make these young and healthy people buy in by force but if the insurance companies would simpley charge less for the policy more would sign up.
Gm is making the same mistake. They keep increasing the cost of their cars so that a new car is out of the price range of more and more consumers. If they wantred to increase profits they need to cut the price of the cars so they can market share. As long as they make any profit on the car they make money. Gm should be selling their cars at about $500 to $1000 profit right now. they would be running 24/7 employing people, who would buy their car who who employ more and more people. Gm would most likely increase profits in that way but don’t tell the havard CEO’s. they only care about increasing the price and cutting cost. I think havard,yale and Wharton have forgotten there is more than one way to make money
unseen on November 27, 2009 at 8:55 AM
Don L on November 27, 2009 at 8:51 AM
my problem with introducing abortion into this particular debate is that the cost of abortions is not the problem. At most it’s like 500 bucks. We are saying that this bill is bad because it is fiscally irresponsible. 500 bucks for an abortion isn’t going to bankrupt this legislation.
Abortion should be outlawed, but not because it costs too much.
ThackerAgency on November 27, 2009 at 8:55 AM
you don’t want me to get into a debate about the arbitrary nature of speed limits in the law. Where I live, my house is considered ‘car dependent’. If the government took my driver’s license due to speeding tickets, they would essentially take my house.
But I do pay a lot more for insurance.
ThackerAgency on November 27, 2009 at 8:53 AM
understood. Its 5 miles for me to the nearest store.
unseen on November 27, 2009 at 8:57 AM
The government tried to address this with HSA’s. Under this legislation, HSA’s won’t be ‘enough’ insurance.
Instead of mandating everything be covered, we need to just mandate a catastrophic policy. If you have a 20,000 deductible, you won’t pay as much and you won’t risk going bankrupt if you need 250,000 dollars worth of health care.
That’s the problem. The D’s want to mandate Cadillac health plans AND mandate that they cost the same as a kia.
I’d be all for a government plan that was a crappy fall back plan. But Pelosi talks about ‘STRONG’ public option means she doesn’t understand insurance. . . but she does understand power.
Her expectation is that every premium dollar that goes to health insurance companies now should go through the government. The D’s really think they could be more efficient than the private sector that has been competing for 80 years with price and service.
ThackerAgency on November 27, 2009 at 8:59 AM
comes to health insurance.
aikidoka on November 27, 2009 at 8:48 AM
Who is going to decide what is good habits?
unseen on November 27, 2009 at 8:59 AM
My point isn’t that it has a cost, but it is one thing that might be rationed, once we get into punishing, because it is a controllable behavior. We need to be dealing with the medical needs involved, not the punishment and judgement by government bureaucrats or populism.
Don L on November 27, 2009 at 8:59 AM
There are some seriously cold hearted people here. what exactly do you propose we do with sick people who can’t afford insurance….let them wither away in alleys? Come on people. I’m against the monstrosity of the health care bill, but at the same time I’m not about to say just let the market decide when the market decides someone with cancer pays $10,000 a month for coverage.
Insurance works great for auto, life, home. If you drive like a maniac and nobody insures you, you take the bus. If you burn down your house twice and nobody will insure you, you go rent instead. There are options to not having a car or owning a home.
What are the options for not having health insurance?
angryed on November 27, 2009 at 9:00 AM
I find myself doubting the sincerity of any liberal apparatchik. They always seem to have some angle, some hidden agenda. Not that Republicans are immune — not by any stretch of the imagination. But somehow the Demoncraps just seem so oily and creepy.
So who knows what this was all about. Is it really a sign that the Obamacare is in trouble among Democrats? Or is it some kind of head-fake?
mr.blacksheep on November 27, 2009 at 9:02 AM
ThackerAgency on November 27, 2009 at 8:59 AM
agreed. I have no problem paying for some bad habits to my insurance company. As long as they have competiton and I can get insurance form 200 companies.
unseen on November 27, 2009 at 9:02 AM
Not true.
NOBODY is healthy forever. That’s a fact. The point of insurance is to pay into a fund small amounts over time that will cover the costs of the majority of your expenses, if not all, with some amount left over. It’s been skewed and distorted by socialists to cover people who are uninsurable. This has had the effect of pushing healthcare costs through the roof so that nobody can afford healthcare without having some sort of insurance. But then, that’s how the socialists like it. Control baby… control.
You slam down insurance altogether and make hospitals a pay for service system like they were and you’ll see the costs come down.
Skywise on November 27, 2009 at 9:03 AM
More smoke and mirrors from the left. Dean all the dems still want national health care in some disguise.
docdave on November 27, 2009 at 9:03 AM
angryed on November 27, 2009 at 9:00 AM
well the government could spend some of that stimulus money and build more hospitals and doctor/nurse teaching schools. they could allow more people to train to become doctors. each of these steps would lower costs because the supply of healthcare would go up.
unseen on November 27, 2009 at 9:06 AM
Nobody in this country (legal or illegal) (insured or not) goes without health care.
That’s why people go bankrupt if they have a serious illness. They got the health CARE, they just didn’t have insurance and they paid the price.
Insurance is regulated by the states. I don’t know what state you live in. If I did, I’d point you to your state’s solution. In NC, we have a high risk pool. If you are sick, you can go on the state high risk pool and get insurance. It isn’t cheap, but it is mandated to be no more than 2 times what a healthy person pays. Most people want the private health plan, but if they have exhausted all other avenues, they can get the government plan.
As I said, if you told me what state you lived in, I could tell you what people could do. Poor people have Medicaid, old people have Medicare, extremely sick people get on Medicare due to disability, non-citizens go to the emergency room and get care.
The boo hoo we don’t have insurance so we will die schtick is ridiculous. Everyone gets the same health CARE. . . some just don’t have insurance to pay for it. It’s life. We aren’t guaranteed to succeed. Sometimes there are road blocks for everyone.
ThackerAgency on November 27, 2009 at 9:08 AM
This whole administration is one big head fake designed to collapse our economy and destroy our sovereignty…criminals all…
Ozprey on November 27, 2009 at 9:09 AM
HoDe IS an acknowledged socialist like Bernie. HoDe is the TOOL who fixed MI and FL and the RBC meeting so Obama got those votes cast for HRC
If HoDe doesnt like the healthcare bill he can kiss obamas grits since he selected him
unreal
ginaswo on November 27, 2009 at 9:10 AM
Skywise on November 27, 2009 at 9:03 AM
no insurance is a present system. Not a future savings plan. Insuance companies make money quarterly if the amount of claims is less then the amount of premiumns it recieves. They are required by law to keep a certain min in escrow to pay the claims for those times when the claims exceed the premiumns. but is is a system based in the present.
what you are describing is the ponzai schemes of social security and medicare. Which work how you describe. they work as long as the amount of people paying in exceed those amount of money going out.
unseen on November 27, 2009 at 9:11 AM
Nobody’s saying that people should go without health insurance and hurry up and deplete the surplus population. What we’re saying is that you get government out of the pot and the market rates will drop. If nobody can afford to pay $10,000/month for cancer treatments the cost will drop to what the market can bear. If government steps in and pays the bill for people we all end up paying and, more importantly, the price stays the same and GOES UP because, y’know, inflation and all that.
Government’s been running medicare for 30 years now. Has its cost EVER gone down? Has government “controlled” costs by lowering fees or by denying coverage?
Government plays orwellian speak by saying that they’ve increased coverage by 2% when in reality they’ve raised the costs of medicare beyond what the already covered can afford and still kick grandma and grandpa out of hospitals for “non-coverable expenses” but *we’re* the cold-hearted ones?
Skywise on November 27, 2009 at 9:13 AM
Is Dean thinking about a 2012 run predicated on a politically wounded Obama who failed to pass health-care reform?
…..
No.
artist on November 27, 2009 at 9:14 AM
This was on Air America. So now we’ve just quadrupled the audience that has seen Dean’s rant.
hawksruleva on November 27, 2009 at 9:14 AM
Which is why life insurance is more expensive the earlier you buy it… right? Coz’ they have to cover that present expense if you die to soon…
/s
Skywise on November 27, 2009 at 9:14 AM
gun owners can be shown to raise costs because of all the gunshot wounds hospitals have to pay for in the cities. Should you not have to pay increased insurance premiums if you own a gun then? Or car drivers cost more than people that walk. should you “be damned if you are going to pay” for those dam car drivers getting in an accident?
Are you droning on about the typical law abiding gun owner, or the ones that obtain guns, and are shooting each other over illegal activity and will continue to do so after statests like you force the guns out of the law abiders hands?
Sorry pumpkin.. for all your goofy rhetoric, get your dirty paws out of my hard working purse, your statestism to yourself. I don’t want the government run health care, Right now I can choose insurance or not.. I CAN CHOOSE! I am FREE to CHOOSE. Your way is that none of us have that.
Noelie on November 27, 2009 at 9:14 AM
Imagine the lame stream media trying to report on this: “Howard Dean says ‘the Republicans are right’ about this health care bill, but not ‘right’ the way you might think ‘right,’ but rather wrong about being right because it isn’t right that the bill isn’t a complete government takeover of health care and that’s a right that’s just wrong. So, he agrees with the Republicans but kinda sort of except that he doesn’t and he still loves President Obama most of all.”
Whew!
Rational Thought on November 27, 2009 at 9:19 AM
In the words of Sarah Palin, “you betcha”.
Watch Hillary jump ship soon too.
conservnut on November 27, 2009 at 9:28 AM
I agree with Dean that this is more of a bailout to the insurance companies than anything else, but I don’t think a public option would save it from being a debacle to implement.
It wouldn’t matter much at this point.
AnninCA on November 27, 2009 at 9:32 AM
Dean doesn’t like the bill because it isn’t “progressive” enough. More “progressive” = more punitive to insurance companies and those whose need for health care insurance is slight or nil + higher taxes and fees to toss into the omnivorous maw of government. Period.
ya2daup on November 27, 2009 at 9:32 AM
Mm-hmm. Now call your Conservative representatives to vote for what’s there now, says Howie.
Marcus on November 27, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Don’t trust this A$$ CLOWN!!!!!!!! he ruined a beautiful state………..We moved to THE GREAT STATE OF TEXAS…..
God Bless TEXAS……….Heaven help Vermont…..
1luckydogg on November 27, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Of socialized medicine, Walter Williams, guest hosting for Rush, used to say the problems raised were ones of socialism not freedom. The willingness to subsidize some but not all behavior concedes the whole premise.
It’s the same thing Rush does with his minimum-wage argument: if $11 an hour is good, $100 is better. The end point is arbitrary but the principle is established. It is also a punch-line to an old joke: “…we’re just haggling over the price.”
casel21 on November 27, 2009 at 9:39 AM
Why are we listening to a former governor, former doctor, former politician now a hack. Seems to me the left clings to every word from these people but diss Sarah when she gives just as qualified an opinion. Oh, she’s a woman and women need not apply.
Kissmygrits on November 27, 2009 at 9:40 AM
I doubt them too. I think Dean could be smart enough to realize the health care bill sucks, but the only reason he would say so is out of political motivations for himself. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if others with ambitions start to follow. After all, they’ve seen the tea parties, they’ve seen Obama’s poll #s tank, and they’ve seen Palin still standing with a best seller book. They’re just doing the math and capitalizing on it. It certainly isn’t about what the American people want. That’s the least of their concerns.
scalleywag on November 27, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Speaking of minimum wage…at the university in my town the professors/faculty/staff got no raise last year and won’t get one this year. Guess who got two pay increases? Student workers.
scalleywag on November 27, 2009 at 9:49 AM
All you really have to remember about Howard Dean is that – as Chair of the Democratic National Committee – he spearheaded the grassroots movement known as the 50 states initiative – that got the fraud in the White House elected.
He was then summarily driven out of that job by Rahm Emanuel and didn’t even pick up his “lovely parting gifts”.
Dean is a George Soros, MoveOn.org kind of guy, but he has a serious axe to grind with Obama & Friends.
GoldenEagle4444 on November 27, 2009 at 9:50 AM
Saving themselves(Dems) is paramount. They are sinking faster than the Titanic. What’s a little bone to the Repubs every now and then? They are making less sense as the days go by. Dean is a drowning man with a very bad idea. He’s hoping to save himself and his party. I pray that they keep on sinking.
BetseyRoss on November 27, 2009 at 9:52 AM
With apologies to Lyndon Johnson (and Waltor Cronkite) …
“When I’ve lost Howard Dean, I’ve lost America”
Del Dolemonte on November 27, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Oh, please do! Pass the popcorn!
PatMac on November 27, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Air America is still broadcasting?
Thought they went under years ago.
Rebar on November 27, 2009 at 10:07 AM
What’s the difference between Dean’s proposition and a standard group insurance plan? Doesn’t the group’s pool spread the risk to a point where it’s acceptable to the insurers? Isn’t that how Medicare (which covers the super high risk people now) supposed to work?
I’m not in favor of ObamaCare, but if Congress and the President think they have money burning a hole in their wallets, I’d say take the contracts associated with the Fortune 500, extact the commonality, and make that the base if you want to do something. The insurance companies and the providers are still making a profit and the pool gets the best healthcare available.
In fact, even better profits, because, as Dean points out, we are required to buy into the group.
The difference
unclesmrgol on November 27, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Hillary’s 2012 prospects are the reason, IMO, that Bill made that trip to Capitol Hill several weeks ago to push for ObamaCare passage. He knows from personal experience how damaging Health Care can be to a president’s poll numbers and he’s just trying to push it along, opening the way for Hillary in 2012.
PatMac on November 27, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Only Howard Dean could call the pending bills “a bailout for insurance companies”. In truth, Howie is worried about the 2010 elections and the fact that they could well become a Democratic bloodbath.
GarandFan on November 27, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Oh right, it’s naive to think this bill wont pass.
Hardcore liberals slamming the bill for political points means nothing, move along now.
jhffmn on November 27, 2009 at 10:28 AM
This man is an insane socialist.
dogsoldier on November 27, 2009 at 10:31 AM
It’s all about risk. If you are a race car driver then you are more likely to be injured than a librarian. That’s how it has always worked. I paid through the nose when I was young to have fast cars. Now I still have them but because i’m an “old guy” I am less of a risk.
faol on November 27, 2009 at 10:32 AM
I see we have a little blue on blue dog fight. It’s popcorn popping time. As previous brilliant HA posters have opined, it’s probably just calculated words that mean nothing.
Mojave Mark on November 27, 2009 at 10:45 AM
That is the appropriate place for charity, not government.
Count to 10 on November 27, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Exactly. Now that I’m on Social Security (which I don’t feel guilty about since I was forced to pay into it since I was 14) I’m forced to pay for Medicare, which does not cover 80% of medical bills, whatever they claim.
I’m also forced to pay for Part D to cover drugs I will never take. Doctors, in my experience, are drug-pushers, as well as being unqualified to judge the results. I had polio as a kid, and I learned by my 30′s that MDs had no clue as to treating the consequences of constant pain. My primary medical treatment for the last 23 years has been acupuncture, which I’ve paid for in cash.
Insurance is a scam, and the government’s control of it is a power-grab and nothing more.
warbaby on November 27, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Is it April 1st?
SouthernGent on November 27, 2009 at 10:55 AM
No it isn’t.
The idea of insurance is that the insuring agency charges a small fee to set a subset of the random financial costs that a person might see in their lifetime to the mean or expectation cost, particularly when the subset in question is mostly no cost with infrequent instances of extreme cost.
That is how “insurance” is supposed to work. The problem is that employer insurance and Medicaid-Medicare have become tools by which wealth is redistributed in a Marxist manor (from the “able” to the “needy”), obscuring the original ensemble averaging purpose.
Count to 10 on November 27, 2009 at 10:57 AM
unclesmrgol on November 27, 2009 at 10:10 AM
With all due respect, you miss this whole thing by about ten miles.
The Fortune 500 do not employ the population as a whole.
They miss the worst drug addicts, chronically ill, mental health patients and lovely new residents from Mexico or Indonesia all of whom run up bills like people using someone else’s resources.
The lib’s fave remark is that we are paying for the underclass now. Well, that is true. They never connect this remark with their plea that the poor get inferior care, however. So we want everyone to be cared for as well as possible. Just as we wanted an expanding economy and loans available for good housing for everyone…
Notice that nobody wants to do a study of giving all the poor “Cadillac” coverage. The adroitness with which the real issue is dodged is amazing. We can’t afford all this social justice unless we take a lot of money from somewhere.
IlikedAUH2O on November 27, 2009 at 10:58 AM
We are still talking about the health care reform bill as if it is about health care reform.
No, it is about power and about the Democrat party creating dependent voters.
It’s about power.
Dhuka on November 27, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »