ObamaCare: Shot Across the Bow
[Posted by Karl]
I am following up on yesterday’s story about the health insurers’ revolt against the Baucus vapor bill because I — like a lot of people — may have undersold it.
The White House may attack the America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) study, which predicts the healthcare bills pending congressional approval could cost the typical family up to $4,000 more in monthly premiums each year. Liberal bloggers like Steve Benen may bring out the lazy sarcasm, claiming that “[p]rivate health insurers haven’t exactly played a constructive and supportive role on health care reform this year.” In reality, AHIP’s decisions to promote healthcare reform and not run negative ads were important factors in ObamaCare’s survival over the summer.
Smarter analysts like Jonathan Cohn (on the Left) and Keith Hennessey (on the Right) can criticize the study on its merits, though Hennessey ultimately agrees that the Baucus vapor bill would make health insurance more expensive.
But Hennessey is about the only pundit on the right track, because he goes further to ask about the politics of the study — asking why AHIP waited until now to attack. Part of the answer is because the Baucus bill undoes the Faustian bargain insurers struck with the Democrats — “guaranteed issue” and “community rating” for mandates and fines. When AHIP president Karen Ignagni says, “You really have to have a coverage level in the high 90s to make this work,” she means “to make this work for health insurers.”
Another part of the answer is that since ObamaCare survived the August recess, the six largest publicly-traded health insurance companies have taken it in the shorts:
Weighted for market capitalization, these insurance stocks have lost 11 percent of their value since Labor Day, wiping out about $10 billion in value. And that’s understating the case since the major indices have gained 5-8 percent over the same period — the insurance industry stocks are underperforming the market by just shy of 20 percent.
AHIP’s Ignagni is a Democrat and former labor apparatchik who wants to work with Democrats, but after losing $10 billion of market cap in a few short weeks, the membership may be rethinking the collaboration strategy.
Accordingly, the pundits’ analyses of the merits of the AHIP study likely miss the point. Frankly, would anyone be shocked if AHIP does not care about the merits of the study? No. The entire point of the study is political. It is a message to the politicians that the insurers are not going to simply complain if Reid sends a bill to the Senate floor that is not to their liking. They will take action. They will drive news cycles. They may launch an air war.
So let’s look at AHIP and its war chest:
AHIP spent $3.9 million in lobbying activities in the first six months of 2009, according to lobbying disclosure forms. In the first half of 2008, they spent $3.7 million on lobbying activities.
AHIP’s PAC has contributed $189,000 to committees and federal candidates during the 2010 election cycle, according to Federal Election Commission records. Recipients this year have included the Blue Dog PAC; Congressional Black Caucus PAC; Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee; National Republican Congressional and Senatorial committees; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; Senate Finance ranking member Charles Grassley, R-Iowa; and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va. During the 2008 election cycle, AHIP’s PAC donated $591,000 to committees and candidates.
AHIP has run television ads promoting health care reform, but it has not disclosed the amount of money spent on the ads.
The group’s total revenue for 2007 was $75.9 million, according to IRS forms.
In short, with the industry’s future on the line, AHIP did not spend much more in the first half of 2009 than it did in the first half of 2008. AHIP’s pro-reform ad buy was reportedly seven figures, which suggests it has tens of millions of dollars to spend. That money could be spent on anti-ObamaCare ads — and for comparison, consider that the famous “Harry and Louise” ad buy was only $14 million in 1993-94. AHIP could spend two or three times that much and still have tens of millions that could be withheld from old allies, and donated to new ones.
You do not have to read the AHIP study to understand it. It’s a threat, and now the Democrats also have to start worrying about other special interests leaving their coalition of the bought-off.
—
Update: The AHIP study has put Democratic noses out of joint, with anonymous rumors of retaliation. That sounds imprudent, but if the Dems respond to the shot across their bow by launching a war against the insurers, I will bring the popcorn.
Update x2: Surprise, surprise, surprise — AHIP has made a multi-state (Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico, Missouri, Louisiana and Nevada), million-dollar ad purchase claiming that seniors will see their care cut under Democrat-crafted legislation.
–Karl
This Administration is waging war on Fox News. Can a war against the insurance industry be far behind?
Rochf (ae9c58) — 10/13/2009 @ 9:23 amNever thought I’d be rooting for major insurers, but like the saying goes “the enemy of my enemy.” Since these two combatants are usually bedmates, it also begs the theme of lovers scorned. The lobby crowd must be in hog heaven with all the dollars flying. Dollars that won’t be available for health care purposes. Political energy better spent on so many other urgencies domestic and foreign. Is America great, or what?
political agnostic (a01e98) — 10/13/2009 @ 9:32 amWith the WH appearantly declaring war on Fox, and the Dems on the Hill wanting to strike against AHIP,
AD - RtR/OS! (48d3c8) — 10/13/2009 @ 9:39 amthey (the pols) could be doomed to failure by the natural synergy of their two opponents.
Does anyone think that AHIP would have to spend all of their funds on paid media, when Roger Ailes would IMO be more than happy to give them wall-to-wall coverage of their attacks against the Dems takeover of HealthCare.
It is indeed popcorn time. If you really want great popcorn while giving the finger to the food nazis, pop it with coconut oil. Watching two groups that I absolutely despise go for each others’ throats: priceless.
Bar Sinister (d2caac) — 10/13/2009 @ 9:48 ampowerline has good analysis of it. basically the baucus theory only works if you assume that most people pay no attention to their incentives. this is the same idiot thinking that drove cash for clunkers. Did you know that congress thought that the money would last for 6 months? Pretty stupid, huh?
maybe we should require our ocngressmen to pass a basic economics class before taking office.
So here’s my prediction: this will pass, and it will be a boondoggle. and it will take years to fix.
A.W. (e7d72e) — 10/13/2009 @ 9:52 amNewsflash: Olympia Snowe (RINO Maine) is voting FOR this monstrosity.
John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 10/13/2009 @ 10:03 am#1, Fox News and the health insurance industry are only the latest additions to Obama’s enemies list. He’s got the elderly in his sights, and he’s plotting to force healthy young people to do his dirty work in his undeclared War on Senior Citizens (WSC).
The inconvenient truth is that young people don’t want or need comprehensive health insurance. They should be covered for occasional illness and catastrophic care, but to use the force of law to either strong-arm them into industry health plans or pound them into submission with exorbitant fines is wrong, diabolical, and un American. It’s also the dirtiest of dirty little tricks Obama is using to draft young people into his Army of National Eradication, for use in the WSC.
Obama’s too smart to leave his own fingerprints on the legislative guillotine so he needs useful idiots (Olympia Snow) and young adults (MoveOn, college students, union thugs, ACORNs and SEIU thugs) to kill off the nation’s Senior Citizens before Midicare and his own 13 billion dollar spending spree breaks Uncle Sam’s piggy bank.
Like Uncle Joe, Adolf, Charlie Manson, Bill Ayres and Bernardine Dohrn before him, Obama plans to use America’s children and young adults as surrogates in his War against the old and the infirm. It’s easy, just wind them up, point out the bad guys, and keep out of the spotlights. If things go sour, commiserate, cry crocodile tears, then appoint a sweetheart commission to look into the carnage and report the victims had it coming. Waco is the best model.
Too, don’t forget Democrats are also a long time on a parallel warpath. They’ve been after corporations, the wealthy, the military, the productive, and the unbowed patriotic for years. Obama’s list (above) of inconvenient persons is far from complete, but I have to go sign up for Medicare now, and I’m going to send my pretty young niece a nice gift so she’ll think kindly of her sweet old uncle, just in case.
For a partial list of useful idiots, check out the Senators who vote for the current health insurance fraud.
ropelight (f1323e) — 10/13/2009 @ 10:31 amSo let me see if I have this right.
We’re supposed to trust the insurance industry – that bastion of integrity with a profit motive – to tell us a public health option that will directly compete with them is going to be much more expensive? Nope, not buying THAT policy.
JEA (0ccd61) — 10/13/2009 @ 10:40 amJEA,
Thanks for missing the point of the study, as well as the point of the post, which links to criticism of the study from the Left and Right. Then again, your apparent aversion to profit was kind of a giveaway.
Karl (f07e38) — 10/13/2009 @ 10:59 amJEA:
Please remember that if you work for a “for profit” business, profit is what pays your salary.
If you work for a “non profit”, you are getting money from people who make a profit.
So, are you a hypocrite or just plain stupid?
Dr. K (eca563) — 10/13/2009 @ 11:21 amNo one has yet to explain why a national system is necessary, considering that individual states like Tennessee and Massachussetts have their own systems.
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 10/13/2009 @ 11:21 amNo one has yet to explain why a national system is necessary, considering that individual states like Tennessee and Massachussetts have their own systems,…which are failing!
Fixed that for you, Michael.
AD - RtR/OS! (48d3c8) — 10/13/2009 @ 11:28 amMy aversion is to excessive profit made at your and my expense.
Ya know, like those wonderful banks that make billions by charging customers for access to their own money and continue to make billions while millions lose jobs?
Like Exxon, who cries poor, wants govt leases for free and tax breaks, but holds the record for the biggest profit EVER? I guess you sent a nice thank you note to the oil companies when gas was going for $4 a gallon. Cause otherwise you’ve got no damn room to bitch about it.
Like the insurance companies and their ‘death panels’ who deny coverage to their customers even as their profits soar? And you act like I should take their figures as gospel?
I love how Republicans are always defending corporations like they’re some benevolent entity. After Enron, BofA, etc., all ‘good corporate citizens’ who like to rape a gullible public. And being good Republicans that you are, I’m sure you all willingly bend over and take it like the men you are. Right?
JEA (0ccd61) — 10/13/2009 @ 11:28 amNo-one has explained to JEA, or he refuses to acknowledge, the concept of Return on Equity, or the meaning of Profit Margins, or otherwise he would be unable to criticize the profit that Exxon (among others) have earned.
AD - RtR/OS! (48d3c8) — 10/13/2009 @ 11:35 amJust another sterling example of the mis-education courtesy of our PE system.
#8, who you trust is up to you, but I’m not going to trust an Administration stupid enough to think spending themselves out of a recession is the way to to run the country. They wouldn’t do it with their own money, but they’re full tilt boogie to double down on a loosing hand when the taxpayers have to pick up the tab.
Another example: Obama thinks it’s perfectly OK to fly 2 jumbo jets to Copenhagen on the taxpayer’s dime to shill for Olympic Games any fool could easily see were going to Brazil right from the get-go. We really don’t need an inexperienced leader so wet behind the ears he can’t read the tea leaves. Hells bells, he’s a liability, not a leader. Face it, this Administration hasn’t got the basic intelligence to tell a hypocrite from a hypochondriac.
So, hell yes I trust the health insurance industry one heck of a lot more than the incompetent boob in the White House, and that goes double for his idiot pack of braying sycophants in Congress. If they were serious about improving health care they would address tort reform, portability job to job and across state lines, and tax deductions for individual buyers the same as employee plans.
The truth is this isn’t about health care at all, never was, it’s about expanding government control into the most personal and private spheres of our lives, and it’s wrongheaded, way too expensive, and deadly to the poor dumb suckers who put their trust in crooked politicians.
ropelight (f1323e) — 10/13/2009 @ 11:37 amJEA is not partisan and bemoans the lack of civility in discourse. Maybe JEA can explain where the cost savings will come from, as nobody else seems to want to. This “competition” idea with a pubic option is laughable.
JD (5308da) — 10/13/2009 @ 11:39 am“Excessive”?? Define “excessive”.
If a company provides a legal product or service that people are willing to pay a fair price, I don’t care how much they make. If they make trillions legally and do not coerce their customers, then how is that excessive?
Dr. K (eca563) — 10/13/2009 @ 11:49 amPrice Waterhouse has made the projections for the AHIP. Given the acknowledged objectivity of that organization how can anyone dismiss it lightly?
JerryT (9ffe15) — 10/13/2009 @ 11:57 amComment by Dr. K — 10/13/2009 @ 11:49 am
Yeah, it’s not like they’re MicroSoft?
AD - RtR/OS! (48d3c8) — 10/13/2009 @ 12:00 pmI understand ROE and ROI and profit margins – I deal with them all the time. And I have absolutely no problem with profit. But profits can be excessive. Are unlimited profits okay with you? Does our country pay a price for it? Would you like, for example, a contractor to make 100% profit? Federal law limits the profit a company can make on a govt contract – should that be lifted?
Do you honestly think Exxon’s $40-something billion profit doesn’t come with any expense to society at large? Do you think – honestly, do you – that the behavior of Wall St comes without consequences? Do you think corporations have some sort of obligation to the public or not? And how do you think the insurance companies would be behaving if it wasn’t for federal and state laws restricting their behavior? I’m guessing we’d have a lot more uninsured than we have right now.
So please excuse my skepticism of these figures.
JEA (0ccd61) — 10/13/2009 @ 12:01 pmExxon’s profit measured as a percentage of revenues is not “excessive” but well within the range of other publicly-traded industrial companies, and is miniscule when compared to some of the more prominant companies in the information/technology sector (MS, anyone?).
AD - RtR/OS! (48d3c8) — 10/13/2009 @ 12:07 pmYou just go off the deep-end when you see large numbers, but you neglect to mention that the amount of money Exxon reported as “profit” was overshadowed by the amount of taxes that the company paid to all levels of government throughout the world.
What percentage do you deem to be excessive, JEA?
JD (5308da) — 10/13/2009 @ 12:11 pmAnd, it’s not like our society is acutely dependent on oil products or computers…you enjoy walking, don’t you???
JEA (0ccd61) — 10/13/2009 @ 12:12 pmInsurance and oil are like legal profiteering, I tell you.
JD (5308da) — 10/13/2009 @ 12:13 pmand, of course, auto insurance in your state is optional too, right, AD?
JEA (0ccd61) — 10/13/2009 @ 12:15 pmDo it all the time when the bicycle’s put away.
But, on those lines, you say that Exxon extracts a “cost” on society.
AD - RtR/OS! (48d3c8) — 10/13/2009 @ 12:15 pmIf Exxon disappeared tomorrow, what benefit would society derive?
Comment by JEA — 10/13/2009 @ 12:15 pm
It is for illegal aliens.
AD - RtR/OS! (48d3c8) — 10/13/2009 @ 12:16 pm“If Exxon disappeared tomorrow, what benefit would society derive?”
None.
JEA (0ccd61) — 10/13/2009 @ 12:16 pmI, like many others, are only required to have auto insurance if we present a “danger” to loss of life/limb/property to others.
AD - RtR/OS! (48d3c8) — 10/13/2009 @ 12:19 pmIf I don’t drive on public roads, or possess a car that is encumbered with a lien, I neither need insurance or a driver’s license, nor registration.
So, approximately 9% profit is excessive, and bears a cost to society. Health insurers are around 4%, and apparently that is evil too. Mother Gaia and the Leftists weap.
JD (5308da) — 10/13/2009 @ 12:20 pmComment by JEA — 10/13/2009 @ 12:16 pm
Then, since “society” would not derive any benefit from the disappearance of Exxon, it derives no costs from its’ existence.
AD - RtR/OS! (48d3c8) — 10/13/2009 @ 12:21 pmAD – But with Obamacare, there is a lien on your person from the day you are born until the day you die.
SarahW (f65b90) — 10/13/2009 @ 12:23 pm“Then, since “society” would not derive any benefit from the disappearance of Exxon, it derives no costs from its’ existence.”
How very theoretical of you
JEA (0ccd61) — 10/13/2009 @ 12:25 pmJEA’s view is endemic on the left. Corporations and profit are bad. Gov’t is good. Nevermind that corporate profits are only possible when they provide a service or product that consumers are willing to pay for. Nevermind that so many of the problems in the health insurance market (through tax treatment in particular) and the financial system (moral hazard among others) are the direct result of government attempts to “fix” things. Its never going to sink in.
Tom (b732f6) — 10/13/2009 @ 12:27 pmComment by SarahW — 10/13/2009 @ 12:23 pm
Yes, and I am perfectly willing to pay it in 147 & 230 grain increments.
AD - RtR/OS! (48d3c8) — 10/13/2009 @ 12:30 pmWhat % is “excessive”, JEA?
JD (5308da) — 10/13/2009 @ 12:32 pmAccounting Firm Admits Cost Savings Left Out Of Report Prepared For AHIP Report
bored again (a4dce0) — 10/13/2009 @ 12:35 pmtpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/accounting-firm-admits-cost-savings-left-out-of-report-prepared-for-ahip-report.php?ref=fpblg
JEA:
Yes, profits should be unlimited.
Because you can’t tax losses.
And it Exxon were to disappear, then society would lose the benefits of:
1) Employment of some 50,000 +/- people.
2) Tax revenue from the incomes of those people in #1
3) Tax from the dividends paid to shareholders
4) Corporate taxes paid by Exxon.
See, socialism works until you run out of other people’s money.
Dr. K (eca563) — 10/13/2009 @ 12:37 pmAh! Well, that settles it then, for there is no more authoritative source than TPM…on doggy-do!
AD - RtR/OS! (48d3c8) — 10/13/2009 @ 12:38 pmBored again is spamming links to TPM again. SHOCKA
When did TPM run a story about how the CBO numbers counted 10 years of revenue but only 7 years of expenses? Or how the CBO accounted for imagined hypothetical slashing of hundreds of billions for Medicare?
JD (ff4baa) — 10/13/2009 @ 12:39 pmMy health care insurance company posted a 3.8% profit for last year. That doesn’t seem excessive to me, so I signed up for 2010.
It doesn’t cost any more than Medicare Part B, and it’s got no deductibles, I can select my doctors, have low copays for office visits and specialists, preventive exams and services, hospitalization, immunizations, urgent care, ambulance service, medical equipment, and includes hearing, dental, vision exams, and prescription drugs, other good stuff too.
It’s a darn good deal, I’m happy as a clam at high tide, and I wish to hell Obama would mind his own business and keep his stupid snout out of mine.
ropelight (f1323e) — 10/13/2009 @ 12:40 pmMY body, MY choice!!
But I guess that only works in selected scenarios.
Dr. K (eca563) — 10/13/2009 @ 12:42 pmWell, I can’t tell you all how much fun this has been, but I have to beg off for a previously scheduled “scrape & polish” at the dentist.
AD - RtR/OS! (48d3c8) — 10/13/2009 @ 12:44 pmNeedless to say, I won’t be thinking of you.
And I have absolutely no problem with profit. But profits can be excessive.
This is standard leftist rhetoric. A survey was done a few years ago asking college students to estimate the profits of large corporations. The results were as ludicrous as you would expect. JEA could probably explain how stock would shoot up in value if profits were “excessive” since the owners, the stockholders, would expect greater dividends. Health insurance companies, those that are for-profit, have seen their market value drop over 10% this summer as health reform took shape. That is why they have turned on Obama. They have lost $10 billion just on the prospect of the bill that is being debated now.
It may be my imagination but attendance is way down at the College of Surgeons meeting this week. The College is another organization that has supported Obamacare.
Mike K (187f3b) — 10/13/2009 @ 12:48 pmGiven the current state of things, for all of you popcorn lovers, the nanny state may find that bad for you–can you sit on the sidelines and eat celery or something?
Rochf (ae9c58) — 10/13/2009 @ 1:02 pmMY body, MY choice!!
Thread winner!
MDr (fd1f4b) — 10/13/2009 @ 1:13 pmYa know, like those wonderful banks that make billions by charging customers for access to their own money and continue to make billions while millions lose jobs?
JEA likes him some strawmen…hmmnn, hmmmmm. Go Slingblade, go!
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/13/2009 @ 1:36 pmNothing like supporting a loser and watching your company disappear into the ether.
I thought Lobbyists were supposed to buy legislation – not pay to be deep sixed.
Why would Business even want to be able to spell the word DEMOCRAT, Obama, Nancy or Harry?
Typical White Person (ecb5f5) — 10/13/2009 @ 1:41 pmGiven the acknowledged objectivity of that organization how can anyone dismiss it lightly?
Possibly, because PWC itself is saying the study is flawed.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/10/white-house-says-insurance-group-study-is-akin-to-study-of-what-the-earth-would-look-like-flat.html
Frankly, I don’t think many people on the Hill are taking this study very seriously.
The only remaining question on reform passage is public option or no public option. Snowe’s final vote could be the deciding factor in that debate.
Folks Like Myron (aka Myron) (6a93dd) — 10/13/2009 @ 1:54 pmKind of like how the BS CBO numbers you like to tout, Myron, include phantom huge cuts to Medicare, and 7 years of expenses compared to 10 years of revenues?
Myron wants the government to have more power and more control over people. Full stop. This has nothing to do with controlling costs, increasing access, or increasing quality. They do not give a flying f*ck about those things. They want to take from some people, and give to others, increasing the role of the nanny-state.
Mike K – Are you in Chicago?
JD (d51050) — 10/13/2009 @ 2:09 pmYes, JD. I’m enjoying global warming in the heart of the global warming hopers. I went to the College meeting today and found small crowds. Some of that is because all medical meetings are hurting. Doctors don’t have the money to go to a lot of meetings anymore. A couple of good meetings I used to attend are no more. The Geriatrics meeting will be in Orlando next spring and that has a pretty good turnout but nothing like the College of Surgeons 20 years ago when 12,000 doctors would show up. I would guess it is 20% of that this week.
I also think their support of Obamacare is hurting them just as AARP membership is down about 50% I’ve heard. If you sup with the devil, use a long spoon.
Mike K (187f3b) — 10/13/2009 @ 2:56 pmJD: As I said on another thread, all these projected numbers are only that — projections — and none of us know how they will play out until legislation is enacted. Doing nothing, as you advocate, is not acceptable.
But speaking of actual numbers of things that exist at present, Mike K where are your numbers on AARP membership being down “50 percent?” I’d be curious to see them.
Myron (6a93dd) — 10/13/2009 @ 3:02 pmMyron, The left wingers are complaining but reading between the lines, you can see that renewals, which is what I was referring to, are down. As far as your other comments on numbers, my default position would be that, if I don’t know what it will cost, vote no. Yours seems to be vote yes and hope for the best. Sounds like the road to bankruptcy to me.
MIke K (187f3b) — 10/13/2009 @ 3:13 pmI guess it’s time for a reminder that people are missing the point. The merits of the study are debatable, but largely irrelevant. Instead of seeing it as a study, see it as Harry Reid waking up with a horse’s head under his covers. Followed by millions of dollars of TV ads.
Karl (f07e38) — 10/13/2009 @ 3:14 pmLook, this is simple. Myron can’t afford health insurance and wants someone else to pay for his care. He says doing nothing is not acceptable because he wants free stuff now.
What’s wrong with projections? Is only Al Gore allowed to make projections? Without projections, there wouldn’t be any Economics departments. Yet even without relying on projections or estimates, we know how government health care will work out by observing human behavior. The parasite will always seek out a host.
Official Internet Data Office (4514e0) — 10/13/2009 @ 3:17 pmDo not answer the Troll, Mike. It just regurgitates DNC Talking Points while offering not a scintilla of actual objective evidence.
Doing nothing, as you advocate, is not acceptable.
That line pretty much says it all for the Troll’s worldview. Do not accept facts that don’t fit your narrative, while insisting that something must be done about an “emergency” whose plans won’t even go into effect until 2012, if not later.
I wonder what an actual “emergency” timeline figures in the Troll’s estimation. If it’s such a ginormous emergency, why is it not going into effect until far in the future? Won’t the healthcare system be in complete financial ruin by then? And if not, why? Don’t bother expecting an answer from the Troll that refutes any of these questions, for it is only here to blab incoherently for it’s own braying pleasure in the reflection in it’s mirror.
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/13/2009 @ 3:20 pmMyron can’t afford health insurance and wants someone else to pay for his care. He says doing nothing is not acceptable because he wants free stuff now.
Exactly. It’s just another Trojan horse of income redistribution masquerading as some kind of “fairness” test for the unbelievers.
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/13/2009 @ 3:22 pmOne of the things that supporters of the Baucaus bill don’t take into account is the fact that although the benefits don’t kick in until 2013, the taxes and fees kick in immediately. So, the true cost is hidden because although fees are being collected, the benefits aren’t provided until after three years’ worth of money is in the pot. That just delays the true expense down the road. Anyone could balance their budget if they were able to report income but defer expenses.
Rochf (ae9c58) — 10/13/2009 @ 3:29 pmKarl: I understood what you were saying. But I think you are letting your hopes carry you away, and I don’t think you grasp what this means to the majority party.
I have no doubt that Big Insurance will bring out the big guns. I’ve been waiting on it, frankly. But it won’t stop a bill, not this time. The Dems have taken this thing through five committees.
The house bill is a lock. Nancy doesn’t play.
Dems won’t let decades of work go by the way side b/c of a few bought-and-paid-for senators. The can’t go back to their constituents with nothing. They will pursue reconciliation as a last option, but I don’t think it’s going to come to that. They’ll wheel Robert Byrd in the Senate for vote No. 60 first, if he’s wheel-able.
If Big Insurance truly wants to kill this bill — and I am doubtful that’s their true goal — they waited too late. I think what is really happening is that they are trying to shake a few more coins from our pockets. They want more customers and higher penalties for people who don’t get insurance. But their pursuing those goals in a rather inartful way that could backfire by giving substance to the left’s worst arguments against “evil” insurance. I think, and in fact, hope, they may get stuck with a public option for their efforts.
The White House negotiator who talked to them LAST WEEK says she was led to believe the public option was the main thing that concerned them. This dirty pool does not do them any favors.
It gives aid and comfort to Republicans to be sure. But that’s the wrong party to try to influence in this debate, no? The GOP is no longer involved in this process in any meaningful way, outside of Snowe.
Myron (6a93dd) — 10/13/2009 @ 3:29 pmand that should be “THEY can’t go back to their constituents …”
Myron (6a93dd) — 10/13/2009 @ 3:31 pmOfficial Internet Data Office: I can’t afford health insurance? Really? Tell me more about myself, since you have special powers to discern details about the life of someone you don’t know. How many brothers and sisters do I have? What is my religion, or do I have one? Do I like boxers or briefs?
Dmac: Who is “Troll”?
Myron (6a93dd) — 10/13/2009 @ 3:44 pmDo I like boxers or briefs?
Depends.
Official Internet Data Office (4514e0) — 10/13/2009 @ 3:49 pmYou is
Icy Texan (ed4e45) — 10/13/2009 @ 3:50 pmDmac, I also think you are wrong.
AD - RtR/OS! (48d3c8) — 10/13/2009 @ 3:51 pmHe is no troll, but he is an a$$hole!
63 is re:61
re:62 — *rimshot*
Icy Texan (ed4e45) — 10/13/2009 @ 3:51 pmMike K – I do not know how to get a hold of you, but I will be up there tomorrow night. You free for dinner?
This is a safe assumption, Myron, any projected cost of a program is off by at least an order of magnitude. See initial 10 year Medicare, and the evil prescription drug bill.
But this has nothing to do with costs, quality, etc… They want power and control. Period. Full stop.
JD (4827fd) — 10/13/2009 @ 3:59 pmRe: #59
I think, and in fact, hope, they [“big” insurance] may get stuck with a public option for their efforts.
— Yeah! That’ll show them (and, by default, us as well).
The GOP is no longer involved in this process in any meaningful way, outside of Snowe.
— Grammatical correction: Snow is no longer involved, in any meaningful way, with the GOP.
Nancy doesn’t play.
— Well, not charades, anyway. Her face is too botox-frozen to express anything . . . kinda like the way that her brain is too calcified to express any cogent thoughts.
Icy Texan (ed4e45) — 10/13/2009 @ 4:00 pmDepends.
OK. Now that’s funny. 🙂
Myron (6a93dd) — 10/13/2009 @ 4:00 pmSnowe (arrrrgghhh!!! [that refers to my spelling mistake, not to her. Well . . .]).
Icy Texan (ed4e45) — 10/13/2009 @ 4:03 pmI stand corrected, AD, especially when you read fatuous and assinine comments like this one:
The house bill is a lock. Nancy doesn’t play.
Does the Troll expect some kind of sexual favor from Granny McBotox (h/t daley rocks) for this suck – a** type of “analysis?” He’s making Chrissy Matthews look like the model of restraint by comparison. And note the eleventeenth time this statement of fact has been pronounced, despite no evidence offered.
The GOP is no longer involved in this process in any meaningful way,
Which the Troll has stated for months now, ad nauseum. Why keep bringing it up and stating a fact that is not possibly proven if the Troll’s not worried sick that the whole thing’s on the way to a spectacular Gotterdammerung?
Dems won’t let decades of work go by
Decades of work? Try a few months, Einstein. And it’s still a clusterf-ck of monumental proportions – but what do I know, they’ve been working on this for decades.
The White House negotiator who talked to them LAST WEEK
I don’t know about you, but BOLD CAPS always convince me of an argument’s merits. Project much?
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/13/2009 @ 4:07 pmDmac: Who is “Troll”?
Comment by Myron — 10/13/2009 @ 3:44 pm
The Emperor (1b037c) — 10/13/2009 @ 4:08 pmThat would be those who embarrass me by presenting a better argument and indisputable facts.
Re: #68 — Have we never heard of Wendy Liebman?
Icy Texan (ed4e45) — 10/13/2009 @ 4:09 pmIn a certain sense, Love, that is the most meaningful comment that you have ever made here. 😉
Icy Texan (ed4e45) — 10/13/2009 @ 4:10 pm“The can’t go back to their constituents with nothing.”
“I think what is really happening is that they are trying to shake a few more coins from our pockets.”
Myron – How about if they go back to their constituents with a bill their constituents actually like. It’s clear once more you don’t actually understand the import of the study, flaws and all, that 87% of the costs will be borne by people making less than $250,000 dollars and that insurance will beoocme more expensive rather than less expensive. That’s a FAIL according to Obama’s goals. Why not consider some of the Republican alternatives such as interstate competition that they refuse to acknowledge exist to actually lower prices and achieve Obama’s purported goals?
daleyrocks (718861) — 10/13/2009 @ 4:13 pmAs pointed out in Karl’s post of 10-12, the insurers were relying on an understanding with the White House that “guaranteed issue” would be accompanied by a provision requiring everyone to purchase insurance or be covered by a government policy. The insurers think it was the Committee that played dirty pool by weakening the requirement.
Stu707 (0981d5) — 10/13/2009 @ 4:13 pmBy the way, while it’s true the bill will not be completely enacted until 2013, when people will be required to purchase coverage (and government help with that purchase will be made available) states would be required to set up the health care exchanges (i.e. co-ops) by next year. Also, the insurance changes re: pre-existing conditions will take effect more or less immediately.
Myron (6a93dd) — 10/13/2009 @ 4:14 pmIcy Texan: A public option is not about payback to Big Insurance. It’s about keeping everyone’s premiums in check.
This business about premiums rising if a bill passes is slight of hand. Premiums are rising anyway.
Myron (6a93dd) — 10/13/2009 @ 4:20 pmIcy Texan: A public option is not about payback to Big Insurance. It’s about keeping everyone’s premiums in check.
This business about premiums rising if a bill passes is sleight of hand. Premiums are rising anyway.
Myron (6a93dd) — 10/13/2009 @ 4:20 pmStu707: Yes, it is true they were promised that everyone would be covered. So were those of us who support health care reform. In this area, I agree with health insurers: 94 percent is not good enough and one of the biggest holes in the Baucus bill.
Myron (6a93dd) — 10/13/2009 @ 4:22 pm“Why not consider some of the Republican alternatives such as interstate competition …”
Hey, I would consider that. It’s a great idea.
But I’m not in Congress.
I think if Dems had any hope of getting any more Republicans they would be amenable to many ideas they are not listening to now. Look how much the bill was altered — stripped of its centerpiece, the public option — just to get Snowe and a few moderates.
But if the Party of No is just going to vote no, why waste time? They need for Obama to take an “L” on this one, so will not vote for anything. Vitter basically exposed the strategy: “Waterloo,” etc etc.
Myron (6a93dd) — 10/13/2009 @ 4:25 pmMaybe Snowe’s involvement can get portability in there. It would be something else insurers would fight tooth and nail.
Myron (6a93dd) — 10/13/2009 @ 4:31 pm“… states would be required to set up the health care exchanges…”
Except, the Congress cannot require the States to do something that the Congress is not prepared to pay for…one of those unfunded mandates thingies.
AD - RtR/OS! (48d3c8) — 10/13/2009 @ 4:36 pmWhere is the funding for these exchanges?
The bottom line is that the Democrats’ repeated breaking of their deals has ramifications.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/13/2009 @ 4:40 pmSorry, Myron. I was referring to mandatory coverage, and the
Icy Texan (ed4e45) — 10/13/2009 @ 4:40 pmtaxfine for not enrolling in ‘something’.“states would be required“
— STOP right there
Icy Texan (ed4e45) — 10/13/2009 @ 4:42 pmWhat the f*ck does more or less immediately mean? It is either a crisis, that must be fixed immediately, or it is not. My taxes will go up immediately. But the actual crisis part will not go into effect until after the next Presidential election, which shows this is all about power, and not about the alleged healthcare crisis. Convenient, that.
JD (b9cdd4) — 10/13/2009 @ 4:44 pmYou will not get an answer – just more verbal diarrhea. Speaking of which:
That would be those who embarrass me by presenting a better argument and indisputable facts.
I’ll just use another commenter’s response here from an earlier thread:
This is not turning out at all as Lovey had envisioned and she is depressed and reduced to lashing out in bizarre ways through confused comments on internet blogs.
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/13/2009 @ 4:49 pmTort reform = lower malpractice insurance rates = lower costs for services
Less restrictions on portability and coverage across state lines
Allow lower-priced legitimate generic drugs from Canada & Mexico
No public option required
Icy Texan (ed4e45) — 10/13/2009 @ 4:53 pm“A public option is not about payback to Big Insurance. It’s about keeping everyone’s premiums in check.
This business about premiums rising if a bill passes is sleight of hand.”
Myron – A public option is sleight of hand for putting private insurance companies out of business. Premiums will rise under the new system because you are covering people regardless of preexisting conditions, covering preventive care, reducing deductibles, etc. The only way to mitigate the increase in premiums was to force everyone to participate so that the young, healthy participants subsidize the premiums of older of chronically ill people added to the pool. This is very basic stuff, Myron, and if you have not picked it up it just means you have not been paying attention. The only reason the insurance companies agreed to cooperate was the promise of a mandate because with guaranteed issue and community rating they were most likely to take pipe at any reasonable level of premiums without a group of healthy participants added to the pool over which to spread the costs.
Sudsibizing participants’ purchase of private insurance or the losses of a public option are merely the mechanics of the cost shifting.
daleyrocks (718861) — 10/13/2009 @ 4:55 pm“Hey, I would consider that. It’s a great idea.
But I’m not in Congress.”
Myron – I thought you have been insisting here that Republicans have had no ideas and wanted to preserve the status quo. Which one is it? Are you lying now or were you lying then?
daleyrocks (718861) — 10/13/2009 @ 4:58 pmI was listening to lefty radio today, and the on-air dork said it all: [par.]”it’s necessary for us to have mandatory health insurance so that we have a healthy, productive, workforce”.
Freedom? Choice? Liberty?
Hello?
HELLO?!?!?!?!?
Icy Texan (ed4e45) — 10/13/2009 @ 5:02 pmwhile it’s true the bill will not be completely enacted until 2013, when people will be required to purchase coverage (and government help with that purchase will be made available) states would be required to set up the health care exchanges (i.e. co-ops) by next year. Also, the insurance changes re: pre-existing conditions will take effect more or less immediately.
The mandate for purchase is weakening day by day. Without it, the ban on pre-existing condition clauses is worthless and a straight line to bankruptcy or withdrawal from the market.
The bill is a fake set of conditions that means nothing. If passes, it will wreck the insurance market. Democrats then plan to waltz in and provide the “public option” but they will be run out of town first. It will be a disaster and, I suspect, blue dogs with a sense of self preservation will balk.
This quality of thinking behind this bill makes stupid a new definition of legislation skill.
MIke K (187f3b) — 10/13/2009 @ 5:08 pmMike K – I sent my contact information to DRJ and Patterico to pass along to you. Dinner on me tomorrow night, if you can get away …
JD (b9cdd4) — 10/13/2009 @ 5:22 pmInteresting how the Republicans hate lobbyists, till it’s their lobbyists.
BTW, the head of AHIP was interviewed on NPR. And aidmitted the study was a ‘worst case scneario’ and only studied the cost increases and no savings.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113764409
PS. Also interesting how people put words – like socialism – in my mouth.
JEA (330886) — 10/13/2009 @ 5:28 pmInteresting how you avoided answering every direct question asked of you, JEA, the non-partisan civil talker of the truth.
JD (3fc3d5) — 10/13/2009 @ 5:31 pmYou try to teach others the concepts, they try to teach you the label. Seems fair.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 10/13/2009 @ 5:34 pmMyron – The unions, at least those with Cadillac health insurance plans, don’t like the Baucus Vapor Bill. I don’t think they like the prospect of being taxed on those benefits. Since the Dems owe the unions so much it would be SUHWEET if they carved them out of the tax provisions – that wouldn’t cause too much of a problem would it? Ya think?
daleyrocks (718861) — 10/13/2009 @ 5:39 pmAlso interesting how people put words – like socialism – in my mouth.
Comment by JEA — 10/13/2009 @ 5:28 pm
If the glove fits, you must convict.
daleyrocks (718861) — 10/13/2009 @ 5:40 pmJD, I’ll be around for lunch or an afternoon beer tomorrow. E-mail me at my web site.
MIke K (187f3b) — 10/13/2009 @ 5:42 pmDone
JD (ebf60b) — 10/13/2009 @ 5:59 pmMike K – I sent my contact information to DRJ and Patterico to pass along to you. Dinner on me tomorrow night, if you can get away …
JD,
I just forwarded your e-mail.
Patterico (64318f) — 10/13/2009 @ 6:00 pmJEA, there are no savings.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/13/2009 @ 6:01 pmComment by SPQR — 10/13/2009 @ 6:01 pm
If there are no savings, that must mean (horrors) that the Dems are l y i n g !
AD - RtR/OS! (48d3c8) — 10/13/2009 @ 6:26 pmOh No, say it isn’t so.
So major insurers, drug companies, Dr’s, and union members take it in the shorts from O’Dumbo. Did they bend over of take it standing up. I’ll bet the purple shirt jackbooted thugs of SEIU are hoping for an exemption. They are getting what they ask for, bankrupcy and government takeover.
Scrapiron (996c34) — 10/13/2009 @ 6:34 pmYep, AD, and rather brazenly at that. One would have to be pretty stupid to think that the Democrats are really going to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare. With unicorn farts and fairy godmother magic wands.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/13/2009 @ 6:48 pmAny cuts to Medicare and those Dem Chrmn are going to find out that Danny Rostenkoski got off easy…we might find out whether or not tar&feathering is a hate-crime, or environmental clean-up?
AD - RtR/OS! (48d3c8) — 10/13/2009 @ 6:51 pmHere is the biggest problem with government-run health care
“The only people who would enroll are those with big medical
problems. The people who need it can’t afford to pay much into it. ”
Corporations have a duty to not lie, cheat, or steal.
Of course, that applies to everyone .
Whom did Exxon cheat?
Whom did Exxon steal from?
By the way, why do you blame the insurance companies for medical costs? After all, no one blames the high cost of gasoline or oil changes on insurance companies. Should not the blame go to doctors and hospitals?
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 10/13/2009 @ 6:59 pmJEA writes: “Do you honestly think Exxon’s $40-something billion profit doesn’t come with any expense to society at large?”
… and shows his utter ignorance of economics, modern business or even the rate of return on capital / sales etc. that would – if JEA had a clue – be evidence that Exxon’s profits are in fact not excessive.
But since emotional vapid rhetoric trump logic, facts and knowledge in the Democrats’ minds, that is the kind of stupid rhetoric we get.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/13/2009 @ 7:05 pm#54 Karl:
Ah, one could dream…
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 10/13/2009 @ 7:29 pm#108 SPQR:
Even so, they have to engage is SOME kind of business…even if it’s buying veggies at Whole Foods or something.
Don’t they realize that if the vendor they buy something from doesn’t profit, they won’t be there to buy veggies from anymore?
The whole “Do you honestly think Exxon’s $40-something billion profit doesn’t come with any expense to society at large?” line of thinking is just truly bizarre. Of course there is an expense to society, and one that “society” is happy to pay…that’s how people 1) stay in business, by providing something that somebody else wants enough to pay for, and 2) providing that something else at a price that “society” is happy to pay…else they wouldn’t buy it in the first damn place.
You don’t want to pay that price? Fine, go ahead and don’t.
But don’t come whining to me that I’m not willing to pay that price, because you haven’t got a snowball in hell for brains.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 10/13/2009 @ 7:48 pmMyron said:
It gives aid and comfort to Republicans to be sure. But that’s the wrong party to try to influence in this debate, no? The GOP is no longer involved in this process in any meaningful way, outside of Snowe.
So, what’s the problem and why are you posting?
I’m a broken record. Jeez Louise, I wish the Dems would just go ahead a pass their all-important assurance that everyone can have a thermometer stuck up their butt when they want it — for free.
The Democrats have it all. No one can stop them. And, yet, you still have these goobers who keep telling us how all-important it is to pass health-care NOW!
I’m sorry, Myron, you’re probably not a goober. But, man, can I please get a break from every lefty turning red and screaming on a constant basis how important it is to have health care for every speck of soul in the U.S. and how the GOP is thwarting them at every turn?
Snowe voted for it. There’s your bipartisanship.
Just do it.
Ag80 (2a7a2a) — 10/13/2009 @ 7:52 pmdaleyrocks: You are to be forgiven for not having read everything I’ve written on this blog. More than once I’ve praised portability.
But GOP ideas are not going to get into the bill if the party is only interested in killing the bill. They will remain on the sideline.
Myron (6a93dd) — 10/13/2009 @ 8:35 pmDaley: I Googled and dug up one of my comments from September:
I think bipartisanship is worthy only if the other side has something to offer. And, no offense, but I’ve seen little useful the GOP can bring to this bill, if they’re talking about “death panels” and other such rot.
What good ideas they do have (portability, for instance) is lost in all the other garbage.
Comment by Myron — 9/3/2009 @ 12:50 pm
Myron (6a93dd) — 10/13/2009 @ 8:36 pmYou keep saying that, Myron, but its still a false claim on your part. GOP ideas are not getting into the bill because Democrats fear that a real moderate bill would pass and mean the defeat of their more radical ideas. The Democratic leadership is keeping the GOP out.
But you just keep misrepresenting what’s going on, its the Democrats’ main tactic.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/13/2009 @ 8:36 pmAD said: “… Congress cannot require the States to do something that the Congress is not prepared to pay for……”
AD: You are confusing “can’t” and “shouldn’t.” Congress does unfunded mandates all the time, NCLB started out as one.
Myron (6a93dd) — 10/13/2009 @ 8:38 pmIcy Texan: I know your side has a fetishistic attachment to tort reform, but evidence suggests it is not the panacea you think it is. From The Washington Independent:
Although damage award caps could slightly limit the future growth of liability insurance premiums – about 6 to 13 percent over time, says Mello, “it tends to be oversold as a solution and it’s pretty unfair to patients.”
Annual jury awards and legal settlements involving doctors amounts to “a drop in the bucket” in a country that spends $2.3 trillion annually on health care, Amitabh Chandra, another Harvard University economist, recently told Bloomberg News. Chandra estimated the cost of jury awards at about $12 per person in the U.S., or about $3.6 billion. Insurer WellPoint Inc. has also said that liability awards are not what’s driving premiums.
And a 2004 report by the Congressional Budget Office said medical malpractice makes up only 2 percent of U.S. health spending. Even “significant reductions” would do little to curb health-care expenses, it concluded.
A study by Bloomberg also found that the proportion of medical malpractice verdicts among the top jury awards in the U.S. declined over the last 20 years. “Of the top 25 awards so far this year, only one was a malpractice case.” Moreover, at least 30 states now cap damages in medical lawsuits.
The experience of Texas in capping damage awards is a good example. Contrary to Perry’s claims, a recent analysis by Atul Gawande in the New Yorker found that while Texas tort reforms led to a cap on pain-and-suffering awards at two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, which led to a dramatic decline in lawsuits, McAllen, Texas is one of the most expensive health care markets in the country. In 2006, “Medicare spent fifteen thousand dollars per person enrolled in McAllen, he finds, which is almost twice the national average — although the average town resident earns only $12,000 a year. “Medicare spends three thousand dollars more per person here than the average person earns.”
link here: http://washingtonindependent.com/55535/tort-reform-unlikely-to-cut-health-care-costs
Myron (6a93dd) — 10/13/2009 @ 8:43 pmMyron:
So, your OK with unfunded mandates, right or left, just to be clear?
Ag80 (2a7a2a) — 10/13/2009 @ 8:43 pmCrap,
not
.
Ag80 (2a7a2a) — 10/13/2009 @ 8:44 pmMore info: There will be initial federal funding for the state exchanges.
The pre-existing condition changes go into effect within a year of enactment.
This under-reported information is pulled from chairman’s mark of the bill: http://www.opencongress.org/baucus_bill_health_care.html#TITLE_I_SUBTITLE_A
Myron (6a93dd) — 10/13/2009 @ 8:53 pmSo, just to clarify: The exchanges are NOT an unfunded mandate. So you can retire that talking point for now.
Myron (6a93dd) — 10/13/2009 @ 8:54 pmNote how not one thing Myron writes has anything to do with decreasing costs, increasing quality, or increasing access. He wants his free healthcare, and dammit, they had better give it to him. Get the f*ck out of the way, wingNazis and STFU while doing so.
JD (b57e6e) — 10/13/2009 @ 8:57 pmThe Democratic leadership is keeping the GOP out.
SPQR: Where is your evidence?
Here is mine on the other side: Kent Conrad said today the Gang of Six — 3 from each party — met 61 times.
Many of us wondered why the GOP would even get 50 percent participation when they were down 20 seats in the Senate.
I think if the other two GOP senators from “the gang” had joined Snowe they could have practically written the bill themselves.
Myron (6a93dd) — 10/13/2009 @ 8:58 pm“But GOP ideas are not going to get into the bill if the party is only interested in killing the bill. They will remain on the sideline.”
Myron – There you go again with your false choices. Just in this very thread you told another commenter the GOP wanted to do nothing. You can find that comment as easily as I. Why don’t you tell me how many amendments the Republicans have offered in the House that have been rejected? The GOP would like to see a bill passed that makes sense and so would the American public. The Democrats tried to sneak something through before the summer break the contents of which nobody knew or understood and it backfired. It’s still backfiring on them because the American public no longer trusts them.
Republicans want to get it right, whereas Democrats, as you pointed out above just want to get it, whatever it is, because they don’t want to go home empty handed.
daleyrocks (718861) — 10/13/2009 @ 9:09 pmMyron – Why haven’t the Democrats passed what they want to pass yet since there is no Republican involvement? Isn’t the Democrat house in order, all lined up in a row ready to do what leadership wants them to do?
daleyrocks (718861) — 10/13/2009 @ 9:14 pmThey certainly do not want to talk about how much it will cost, how it will be paid for, or rather, not paid for.
JD (b57e6e) — 10/13/2009 @ 9:14 pmNote how not one thing Myron writes has anything to do with decreasing costs, increasing quality, or increasing access.
Yes, JD, I’m sure you’re so concerned about those things. Please. You want a black eye for the president, plain and simple.
There is no version of health care reform you would approve. Admit it and be free, dude.
Myron (6a93dd) — 10/13/2009 @ 9:20 pmdaley said: The GOP would like to see a bill passed that makes sense
Sorry, have to call bull on that one. If the GOP were so interested in reform, why didn’t they pass a bill when they had both chambers and the White House?
You may have forgotten recent history, but I assure you, I haven’t.
Myron (6a93dd) — 10/13/2009 @ 9:22 pmAnd neither have the American people. They know which party is serious about health care, whether they like all the specific plans or not.
Myron (6a93dd) — 10/13/2009 @ 9:23 pmThat was a lie, and you are a liar.
JD (b57e6e) — 10/13/2009 @ 9:25 pmYeah, we do.
And it ain’t the Democrats.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 10/13/2009 @ 9:32 pmMyron,
I admit there is no version of government-run health care I would support … nor do I support government-run car companies, government-run housing, or government-run energy. And I’m starting to have serious doubts about government-run education, too.
DRJ (7fbae6) — 10/13/2009 @ 9:51 pmMyron, which party do you think is serious about health care?
Because, I think a lot of American think taking health care seriously means treating it like something precious that shouldn’t be tampered with. A lot of the problems in health care were created by government. Sure, we need an FDA and some basic rules. But what we also need is health care that is so damn profitable that it comes up with super space laser nanotech cures for diseases. Obama knows he’s taking that away from us. So that wealth can be transfered, as usual.
I do not think, no matter how specific that plan is, that it is a serious approach to my right to choose health care. I think my right to not pay for health care is implicit to the concept of ordered liberty. I think all those who argue Roe v Wade is good law and also support this ‘reform’ are not clear thinkers.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 10/13/2009 @ 10:04 pm“Sorry, have to call bull on that one. If the GOP were so interested in reform, why didn’t they pass a bill when they had both chambers and the White House?”
Myron – Sorry, gotta call bull in return. The Repubs were working on other priorities, like trying to save social securitiy, rein in Fannie and Freddie, fight terrorism, all of which the Democrats either filibustered or fought. You may not remember that, but I do, plus the Republicans did not have the same supermajorities in either house the the dems enjoy and actually invited input on bills. Keep on spinning Myron, you’ve really got nothing.
daleyrocks (718861) — 10/13/2009 @ 10:32 pmdaley’s right. It’s not like Bush and the GOP got their way anytime they wanted. They spent almost all their capital to win in Iraq. Sickeningly, many times, simply funds to keep our troops supplied in Iraq were used as a negotiation point for things the left wanted.
The idea of a GOP style health care reform in that environment is preposterous. After 9/11, the GOP changed quite a bit in priority. It’s a shame things didn’t work out better, and it’s great they didn’t work out any worse. We barely won Iraq, and the main adversary was John Kerry on the main battlefield… Capitol Hill.
Myron has a point, of course, that the left is more interested in regulating the economy than the right. I fail to see why this makes them ‘better’ on the issue. Big gov types want big gov.
Dustin (bb61e3) — 10/13/2009 @ 10:37 pmI don’t know why anyone thinks they’ll get a straight answer from Myron – he does not debate honestly, no matter what perspective he’s coming from.
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/14/2009 @ 6:44 amWhy not have reform in the auto, life, fire, and homeowners’ insurance industries as well?
Michael Ejercito (6a1582) — 10/14/2009 @ 9:24 am“But GOP ideas are not going to get into the bill if the party is only interested in killing the bill. They will remain on the sideline.”
GOP ideas are not going to get into the bill in any case. We saw this again and again. So many GOP amendments, all shot down.
Travis Monitor (9e3371) — 10/14/2009 @ 12:04 pm“And I have absolutely no problem with profit. But profits can be excessive.”
You contradict yourself. You have a problem with profits.
” Are unlimited profits okay with you? ”
Nothing is unlimited. The largest companies annual profits are less than what the Federal govt spends in undre 24 hours. Is $20 million for Tom Cruise for one movie okay?
“Does our country pay a price for it?”
Doue our coutry pay a price for the high pay of pro athletes?
” Would you like, for example, a contractor to make 100% profit?”
If the contractor is doing mundane work, not needed, if it is specialized, it might be justified. e.g. a company invents a new UAV and sells to DoD.
“Do you honestly think Exxon’s $40-something billion profit doesn’t come with any expense to society at large?”
It benefits society – the profits come from sales, which are of products people want. the company pays wages and make capital expenditures, helping othre folks. And the profits are taxed.
… you get paid back 4 different ways on the profits.
” Do you think – honestly, do you – that the behavior of Wall St comes without consequences?”
Yes, capitalist money-raising drives business. This has positive consequences for our economy and prosperity.
“Do you think corporations have some sort of obligation to the public or not?”
Travis Monitor (9e3371) — 10/14/2009 @ 12:20 pmTheir main obligation is to customers, stockholders and employees. If they make a legal profit, and uphold serving their customers, they are being good stewards and fulfilling their civic obligations.
Myron writes: “You may have forgotten recent history, but I assure you, I haven’t.”
Myron has rewritten recent history in brazen misrepresentations and writes this drivel?
Truly unbelievable.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/14/2009 @ 12:41 pm