Another Question About Obamacare

[apk919]

Because "friggin" trial lawyers' profits buy the Dems...

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IdpVY-cONnM&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IdpVY-cONnM&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by glb

Did I somehow prevent you reading about the fines and settlements they've already paid? Or, should we consider those "donations"? Is a criminal charge your only yardstick for wrongdoing? OK, I have some war crimes with which some should be charged....

Yup, e, they did nothing wrong, just felt like making really large donations.

Note that the case brought by NYS AG is not finished, and this is just an insidious...actually moreso

BTW, the earth is round. Should I wait for your refutation? is that even a word? Yes.

I read about the fines. They broke the rules and were punished. The NYS case is not finished. Report back when it is. Until that time these are just allegations. Remember something that goes like this "Innocent until proven guilty"?
In previous posts you eluded to Enron where there were criminal charges, convictions, and people went to prison. If this (United Health Care) is so serious why weren't you concerned about Franlin Raines? He was only fined (to settle a civil lawsuit), no criminal charges and no jail time. Franklin Raines perpetrated an Enron-like accounting scandal as chief executive officer of Fannie Mae. This scandal involved billions of dollars.

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by glb

My 2nd point, still quite valid, is that we have single-payer plans that are the two highest rated, as you know.

Medicare is not a true single payer program.

Paul Krugman says:
"Today, Medicare — which is, by the way, one of those “single payer” systems conservatives love to demonize — covers everyone 65 and older. And surveys show that Medicare recipients are much more satisfied with their coverage than Americans with private insurance. Still, most Americans under 65 do have some form of private insurance."

"But what Krugman fails to tell readers, or perhaps doesn’t even know, is that many Americans OVER 65 also have some form of private insurance. In other words, Medicare is not quite the “single-payer” paragon that Krugman holds it out to be. The latest government figures available, from 2005 (see Chart 6-3), show that Medicare pays only 51% of Medicare beneficiaries’ health care costs. The rest is made up by the beneficiaries themselves and … those evil health insurance companies."

Paul Krugman’s Health Care Fantasies The Foundry

http://medpac.gov/documents/Jun09Dat...tireReport.pdf
See page 74 of 210 Chart 6-3

[apk919]

Originally Posted by ezmoney

...
Paul Krugman says:
...

Wasn't he a paid adviser to Enron in the 90's? While they were perpetrating one of the world's largest accounting frauds? He wouldn't be above ignoring a few inconvenient facts, would he?

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by glb

And, how corps are paying people to show up at town hall meeting to “yell at and disrupt” the speakers (UnAmerican, btw)

You didn’t show me proof that the insurance companies are paying people to show up at town hall meetings to “yell at and disrupt” the speakers. That was your statement.

Originally Posted by glb

My protests involved war, not some friggin insurance company profits.

This bill is about the health care of 300 million people not insurance company profits!

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by apk919

Wasn't he a paid adviser to Enron in the 90's? While they were perpetrating one of the world's largest accounting frauds? He wouldn't be above ignoring a few inconvenient facts, would he?

The Enron-Krugman Connection
by Don Luskin (March 28, 2003)
Krugman claims that Vice President Cheney's energy task force misdiagnosed the California crisis, while "yes, I am patting myself on the back for getting it right." But when, exactly, was Krugman "getting it right"? When he was paid $50 thousand to be a member of the Enron Advisory Board? When he was writing glowing puff-pieces on Enron for Fortune magazine? Or when he was accusing the Bush administration of "crony capitalism" for its involvement with Enron, without admitting his own involvement? Does he really think that by not mentioning the name Enron in a column about energy market manipulation that no one will remember any of that?

[glb]

Originally Posted by apk919

Let's analyze your statements for a moment:


Why? There are thousands of insurance companies across the country offering health care insurance... why don't you have more choice? Do you know the answer? And why would you want to replace your meager choices with no choice: single payer?

Only a few do business in NJ, all offer the same relatively poor coverage, with high monthly premiums and large copays. It's like a conspiracy

Now, had you looked at this, or - heaven forfend - watched Sicko, you would have found that your fears are unjustified: Drs make a good living and people are NOT kept from their choice of Drs.

Again, tho, you have erected a straw man: No one (except powerless glb) is saying we need/will have single payer. You imagine otherwise and you imagine a future where we have single payer and, unlike the other countries with it, this somehow curtails our choices.

Please spare me, A, from your fearfull fantasy future, if I may ask...as your ardent and absolutely alliterative friend. (crap, I left out adorable...)

Plus, countries w/o single-payer have universal coverage that is quite fine,as stated by me and verified by your fav economist.

Originally Posted by apk919

Now why is that? Because your GP isn't getting paid enough by insurance companies and Medicare? What's your GP going to do when his only choice is to take what the government pays or retire? See RoadDad's posts.

While I have great respect for RD, he is but one voice. You know, have seen, how many letters in NYT are from physicians telling us we need universal h/c.

Originally Posted by apk919

Even if (as your contention) private insurance companies absorb ~30% of costs as profit (a dubious assumption that's NOT (gb) been successfully challenged here)... removing all insurance companies only drops health care costs 30%... while Medicare costs are growing at an average of 8% a year... so in about three years, a gov't plan based on Medicare would cost the nation as much as the current system. How is that supposed to reduce future health care costs?

You do realize that there are other cost-control measures proposed, right? And, you must have, by now, read about successful medical institutions/assoc that have instituted some of these w/great success.

One measure is to pay drs a good salary, but not "commissions" on procedures. This resulted in far fewer unnecessary tests/procedures being performed.


So, yes or no: Would you like to see ins costs lowered by 30%??



PS: I understand that most here have not seen "Sicko", for many reasons not shared by your writer. However, those of us who have seen it found it illuminating. While no one movie, article, etc should be our only source of info, not seeing it is almost like burying our heads in the sand.

If you read/heard interviews w/ former ins co exec (name above somewhere' Wendell Potter, I think), you'd know that he found it accurate and damaging to his then-current employer. He relates how frightened the ins industry was to see the truth exposed.

So, as he recommends it, so do I.

[glb]

Originally Posted by apk919

Wasn't he a paid adviser to Enron in the 90's? While they were perpetrating one of the world's largest accounting frauds? He wouldn't be above ignoring a few inconvenient facts, would he?

Gosh...again!!! We covered this. Don't you remember? Have you yet any proof he did anything untoward or was in any way involved in their scandal?

While on topic of memory: You and EZ owe me some answers.

[glb]

Originally Posted by ezmoney

This bill is about the health care of 300 million people not insurance company profits!

No, wrong.

Polls still show people want reform. Polls still show they want the Citizen Plan.

Now, how much higher would you estimate those polls would be if the right weren't trying to convince people of lies (death panels, no h/c for Republicans, taking care away from seniors, etc.)

You like research. Check out how many of these lies promulgated by Fox and the right (i.e. wrong) have taken hold. I am seriously asking for your opinion on this.

No one has yet answered: If the right has such good arguments against h/c reform, why has it resorted to lying so much???



Now, if it's just down to you, the luckless APK and the delusional Stormy, this is no longer worth it. Josh was a great addition, but I think that this thread does deserve to die if we don't see improvement

OMG! A DEATH PANEL!!!!!

[apk919]

Originally Posted by glb

Only a few do business in NJ, all offer the same relatively poor coverage, with high monthly premiums and large copays. It's like a conspiracy

That's your answer? "It's like a conspiracy"?

If over-regulation of health insurance is a conspiracy... then you're right. Otherwise... it's you that are living in a fantasy...

Originally Posted by glb

While I have great respect for RD, he is but one voice. You know, have seen, how many letters in NYT are from physicians telling us we need universal h/c.

And many letters opposing... that's not the point. The point is that there are many doctors that will just retire... and you're proposing to increase the load on existing physicians...

Originally Posted by glb

You do realize that there are other cost-control measures proposed, right? And, you must have, by now, read about successful medical institutions/assoc that have instituted some of these w/great success.

Um... how about tort reform? Oh that's right... Howard Dean explained that one...

Originally Posted by glb

One measure is to pay drs a good salary, but not "commissions" on procedures. This resulted in far fewer unnecessary tests/procedures being performed.


So, yes or no: Would you like to see ins costs lowered by 30%??

Yes, by the same way that keeps costs down in just about every other industry in America: competition based on price and quality, and the freedom of the consumer to make their own informed choices.

You continually labor under the misconception that I prefer the status quo. I do not, and I'm very much in favor of the type of reforms discussed in John Mackey's WSJ editorial.

What say you of Howard Dean's admission that the Dems refuse to touch tort reform because it will anger their paymasters?

[apk919]

Originally Posted by glb

Gosh...again!!! We covered this. Don't you remember? Have you yet any proof he did anything untoward or was in any way involved in their scandal?

It does prove that he was either too stupid or lazy to do real research in the company whose praises he sang in print for pay.

Originally Posted by glb

While on topic of memory: You and EZ owe me some answers.

Why? You never answer my questions with real answers... (see above)

[apk919]

Originally Posted by glb

No one has yet answered: If the right has such good arguments against h/c reform, why has it resorted to lying so much???

If the left has such a good health care solution, why have they resorted to lying so much???

(i.e. saying it will reduce costs, that the AARP has backed the plan, etc.)

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by glb

Polls still show people want reform. Polls still show they want the Citizen Plan.

People want reform. They don't want Obamacare. WTF is the "Citizen Plan"?
You have to go back to late June or early July to find polls with approval higher than disapproval for Obamacare. Once people started to see the plan approval dropped.

Latest Rasmussen Poll.

Support for Health Care Legislation Has Stopped Falling, But Most Still Opposed
Thursday, August 27, 2009
As August winds down, the good news for President Obama and congressional Democrats is that support for their proposed health care legislation has stopped falling. The bad news is that most voters oppose the plan.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey show that 43% of voters nationwide favor the plan working its way through Congress while 53% are opposed. Those figures are virtually identical to results from two weeks ago.
As has been true since the debate began, those opposed to the congressional overhaul feel more strongly about the legislation than supporters. Forty-three percent (43%) now Strongly Oppose the legislation while 23% Strongly Favor it. Those figures, too, are similar to results from earlier in August.
While supporters of the reform effort say it is needed to help reduce the cost of health care , 52% of voters believe it will have the opposite effect and lead to higher costs. Just 17% believe the plans now in Congress will reduce costs. This is a critical point at a time when voters see deficit reduction as more important than health care reform.
Additionally, by a 50% to 23% margin, voters believe the proposed reforms would make the quality of care worse rather than better. Voter skepticism of Congress remains high. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer recently penned an article advocating health care reform, but most voters were skeptical about the benefits they claim would result from its passage.

Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters believe that passage of the legislation is still at least somewhat likely. Forty-one percent (41%) say it’s not likely. Those figures include just 17% who say it is Very Likely and nine percent (9%) who say it is Not at All Likely, leaving the vast majority of voters somewhere in between.
Obama's job approval ratings as measured in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll have slipped in August as the health care debate has moved to center stage. So has support for congressional Democrats. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s national unfavorable ratings have jumped to new highs.
Congress returns from its recess on September 8, and Democratic congressional leaders have vowed to pass some form of the health care plan when they return to Washington. Many town hall meetings held by congressmen have turned into protest sessions, and congressional leaders are considering procedural steps for Democrats to pass the bill on their own. If Democrats can agree on a plan that would not attract any Republican votes, 24% believe they should pass that legislation. Most (58%) say they should change the bill to attract a reasonable number of Republican votes in Congress.
It might be a challenge to win GOP votes in Congress because 87% of Republican voters around the country oppose the current legislation. That figure includes 74% who are Strongly Opposed. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 55% oppose the legislation including 47% who Strongly Oppose it.
Among Democrats, 75% support the plan including 48% who Strongly Favor it.
As for the protesters at congressional town hall meetings, 49% believe they are genuinely expressing the views of their neighbors, while 37% think they’ve been put up to it by special interest groups and lobbyists.
One reason the town hall protests have become so intense is that just 22% of voters believe Congress has a good understanding of the health care legislation.
The latest tracking survey was conducted over two nights, the nights before and after news reports covering the death of Senator Edward M. "Ted" Kennedy. Some advocates of reform have suggested that his passing might become a rallying point for the legislation. However, support for the legislation before and after Kennedy’s death was virtually identical. Among the public, there was no increase in support or opposition.
Last summer, 50% of voters nationwide had a favorable opinion of Kennedy while 45% had an unfavorable view. Like the health care reform he championed to the end, Democrats gave Kennedy rave reviews. He was viewed favorably by 79% of those in his own party and unfavorably by 77% of Republicans. Opinions among those not affiliated with either major party was more divided: 44% favorable and 49% unfavorable.
Ironically, as Congress has debated reforms to the U.S. health care system, Americans have begun to show greater confidence in that system. Forty-eight percent (48%) of adults now say the health care system is good or excellent, and only 19% say it’s poor.
In a Wall Street Journal column, Scott Rasmussen notes that “the most important fundamental [in the health care debate] is that 68% of American voters have health insurance coverage they rate good or excellent.” Rasmussen, the founder and president of Rasmussen Reports, explains that “in political terms, the most important reality will be how the reform affects the 68% who say they have good or excellent health insurance coverage. If they end up having to change their coverage, pay significantly higher taxes or encounter some other unpleasant reality, congressional Democrats will look back on this August as a time when they should have listened more closely to the folks back home.”
This national telephone survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports August 25-26, 2009. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence (see methodology).
Date Approve Disapprove
Aug 25-26
43% 53%
Aug 9-10
42% 53%
Jul 26-27
47% 49%
Jul 20-21
44% 53%
Jul 10-11
46% 49%
Jun 27-28
50% 45%

[Stormy320]

Does anyone see the irony with Ted Kennedy.

He gets brain cancer and then seeks treatment from the best doctors around the country, but still only last 15 months.

Under the Obama plan his treatment at his age would be denied because the cost / benefit was too great.

[Rob T]

Originally Posted by apk919

Because "friggin" trial lawyers' profits buy the Dems...

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IdpVY-cONnM&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IdpVY-cONnM&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

I wonder how much of a scolding ole Dean got after this one!?

[Rob T]

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey show that 43% of voters nationwide favor the plan working its way through Congress while 53% are opposed.

That's impossible.

glb has told us how many times that American's strongly support Obama's Health Care proposal?

[Rob T]

Originally Posted by glb

It is, quite simply, Unamerican.

Only you would say that exercising one's First Amendment rights is "Unamerican".

[JoshS]

Gil, Obama's approval ratings are going down big time. Are you seriously denying that?

[ezmoney]

Originally Posted by glb

EZ, geez, a simple search showed more than i have time for.

Note that these disruption are being "cheered" by those on your side. Whoever disrupts these meeting, from either party, is wrong. Certainly anyone should ask a questions, but simply shouting out random stuff is counterproductive and negates the point of these sessions, meant to be discussions.

It is, quite simply, Unamerican.

I love it when you parrot Democrat talking points!!

Democrat congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer wrote of the recent protests taking place in town hall meetings around the country, “These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.”

Prompted by the “un-American” comment in Pelosi and Hoyer’s USA Today piece, Jon Henke points to the difference in attitude when the anger was coming from those on the left. He quotes Glenn Greenwald: “Anger, when constructively directed, is a potent and inspiring passion. It is noble to be angry about dangerous situations and corrupt leaders, and there are few passions which can compete with anger for inspiring oneself and others to meaningful action.”

Originally Posted by glb

This growing phenomenon is often marked by violence and absurdity. Recently, right-wing demonstrators hung Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) in effigy outside of his office.

It's OK for the left to hang Republicans in effigy but when the shoes on the other foot . . . .

William Jacobson put things into perspective when he wrote, “So this is what it comes to. After eight years of protesters hanging George Bush in effigy, calling him a Nazi, disrupting conservative speeches on campuses by taking over stages or throwing pies, creating websites and movies that wished for Bush's death, and a myriad of other indignities.... After all this time, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer discover what it means to be ‘Un-American.’”

Mon Oct 27, 2008
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - An effigy of U.S. Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin hanging by a noose as part of a Halloween display drew complaints on Monday, but local officials said the homeowner was covered by free speech rights.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Law enforcement officials said the display is protected by the First Amendment and does not violate any city, state or federal laws.

Your side can exercise their First Amendment Rights and so can we!!!!

Originally Posted by glb

Boehner's Office Cheers On Disruption Of House Dems' Town Hall Events | TPMDC

From that link:
House Minority Leader John Boehner's (R-OH)
The posting concludes: "Unless Democratic leaders agree to work with Republicans on a bipartisan plan that achieves real reform that Americans are seeking, it will be a long, hot August for Democrats in Congress."

I guess it is and will continue to be a LONG, HOT summer for democrats. It's about time!!!

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by glb

And, how corps are paying people to show up at town hall meeting to “yell at and disrupt” the speakers (UnAmerican, btw)

Back when Bush was around, dissent was patriotic. Now it's UnAmerican. I guess whatever Pelosi says goes. It's amazing how times change.

BTW Obama has the NEA for the creation of nation-wide propaganda:

Big Hollywood Blog Archive The National Endowment for the Art of Persuasion?