what is it about our culture that allows someone to come from nothing and make something of themselves in one single generation and be able to pass that onto another generation if they so choose. Check the dot com millionaires and surprisingly they all seem to say they want their kids to EARN it instead of having it handed down to them.

that's a fundamental difference in culture right there.

...in America.

My general advice is, you want to be really careful making universal statements about things that are only true inside your own country. "Get sick and go to the poorhouse" is a truism in America, and in some places in the third world, and that's about it.

truism means that it's TRUE all the time. I have been hospitalized 3 times, total of 7 days, 7 days, 1 day. I'm not in the poor house and I have this horrible private insurance. I chose to work for a corporate company that provides benefits. Ohhh the soul sucking corporations!!!! well, you make choices and you live with those consequences of those choices, my soul may be sucked out, but I got health insurance.

and that's the wonderful part about having been born in America. I can't tell you how many times family members, friends, travelers, tell me, "My you're very lucky and fortunate to have been born in America."

And yet, knowing without health care, they still seem to be drifting on plywood and crossing valleys and streams to get here.

I wasn't aware that this was a uniquely American experience. Poor kids in France, Japan and Holland can't go from nothing to something in one generation?

But dude. You live quite comfortably in Manhattan. Please don't extrapolate from your financial situation to that of all Americans.

For instance, take me. I'm currently unemployed. I've carried private insurance since being laid off in 2004, and since that time I've done enough freelance work to keep myself and my family housed and keep my (absurdly expensive) insurance paid, among other things. When my last contract gig ended about six weeks ago, I earned the last dollar I've earned since then. I've been job hunting HARD--up to and including finding out this morning that I didn't land the job I interviewed for yesterday. Not a big surprise, it wasn't a great fit, but still, it sucks.

So I'm not crying over you selling your soul. I'd fucking LOVE to sell mine, but right now, nobody's buying souls with my background.

From inside your world view, you are the harder working of us. You're the more moral, the more deserving. To that I say a RESOUNDING: Fuck you.

You've got no idea what it's like out here. Don't you DARE tell me you "choose" to work for a corporation. For some of us, that's not a choice that's available. And yes, I take your flippancy about this GOD DAMN PERSONALLY.

What happens when I can't afford to pay both my mortgage and my insurance payment, which is the situation I'm facing next week? What then, Cynthetiq? You're the wise moral hard worker for whom luck doesn't play any factor. Tell me what I should do. Because I really honestly don't know.

I wonder how many people are denied this way? I read somewhere that only about 0.5% of total policies are rescinded. I also read that they usually scour the policies for descrepancies only after someone has made a large claim. I believe that only a small percentage of total policy holders make a large claim so the percentage of those dropped would seem to be rather high.

The examples the president gave at the town hall today seem to be particularly troubling.

It probably has something to do with bootstraps, pulling, hard work, and rugged individualism.

I'm really sorry to read about your current situation. That's fucking terrible. I hope things improve quickly.

I'm pretty sure that upward mobility is outlawed in socialist countries.

Perhaps, the key here is to not misrepresent material facts. If an insurance company acts inappropriately and you know it, my advise is to get the treatment and sue the hell out of the insurance company.

Thanks. I've wallpapered the local print and web design world with my resume, I trust something will bite soonish. In the meantime, I do have a little freelance stuff lined up. It'll be tight for a bit, but we'll make it. It just pisses me off to have Mr Rental Property in Vegas here moralizing about how great he has it. Forgive me if I think I have perhaps a bit more insight into the American struggle, at this particular moment of the world.

Edit: I removed my post, it was irrelevant.

The US (and the UK, too) are among the developed nations with the least social mobility. The intergenerational correlation of income is much, much higher in the US (and the UK) than in Sweden, Germany, Norway, Finland and Denmark, for example.

But at least we have the perception of social mobility.

..

Complete and utter douchebaggery. I'm in awe.

Not once did he say he expected his government to hand him ANYTHING. Not a single cent.

Let's say for a second we were to take a public option off the table. Then I believe the following reform would be needed.

1) Health insurance companies would have to put at minimum a fixed % of premiums into coverage. At the end of the year any amount over the required % would be refunded proportionally back to all policy holders.

2) All policy holders are placed into the same risk pool, that is everyone pays the same rate for said coverage. Essentially make it as if every person in the US were in the same group plan.

3) Everyone qualifies for every plan and no one can rescinded or denied coverage.


Insurance agencies could still complete with each other and could offer plans that meet peoples needs. Essentially each plan offered would carry its own risk and the insurance company would set premiums accordingly but everyone would have the same rates.

Right now greedy insurance companies are fleecing the sick and laughing about it all the way to the bank. They had their chance to play fair and they abused it and now they need regulation.

That doesn't matter. If someone disagrees with conservative ideology or their odd perspective on the world, they're automatically a far leftist socialist, they're automatically on welfare, and they're automatically fiscally irresponsible. That's just how it works. They're also automatically people that are incapable of questioning President Obama, which is generally communicated in some snarky remark like "drinking the coolaid" or "the Great One".

He didn't say anything about wanting anything from government.

By the way, I really hope no one on your family is a farmer, works on a subsidized industry, goes or teaches at a public school, has healthcare from VA or medicare or uses farm tax breaks to buy SUVs... because then you would be taking advantage of my tax money.

I'm not clear on what you mean here. If Insurance companies refunded any unused premiums because you didn't have any claims that year, there would be no money for them to pay out other claims, so that really isn't a realistic option

timalkin: this is my actual life we're talking about. I do appreciate you scoring political points on my difficulties, though. Thanks for that. At least you'll never be mistaken for one of those compassionate conservatives.

They refund premiums on the whole not to the individual.

Let me give you an example with some simple numbers (aka not realistic):

Let's say an insurance company has this plan A. On plan A there are 1,000 people. They each have a premium of $1,000 a year. Each year they take in $1,000,000. Let's say the % requirement is 90%. Then the insurance company must pay out $900,000. Let's say this year the insurance company only pay's out $500,000 in insurance claims, then they are $400,000 under what they must pay out. Thus each person would get a refund at the end of the year for the difference: $400 (400,000/1,000).

That's not a feasable option though. If you refund all the money at the end of the year, then there's no money to be paid out for the following year. Each person is only paying say $100 dollars a month, it will take time for the premiums to build up in order to pay out. If they have to pay out $600,000 in claims in the month of january they will go bankrupt and be unable to pay. Plus it wouldn't be fair. Think of your cell phone bill. say you pay $90 per month for 1,000 minutes. If you only use 600 minutes do you get a refund? of course not. You are paying a predetermined amount per month for a maximum amount of minutes. If you didn't use them all it's not your cell phone providers fault. Same with insurance. You are paying your premiums because you are affraid you MIGHT need to file a claim. You have a maximum benefit that will be paid out for a predetermined amount of premium. it's the same thing

they already do that, but the $400 goes to the CEO/stockholders instead

And that is the problem. It should go back to the people.


The fundamental problem is that the free market and health care do not work well together. When the opportunity cost is death there is no limit to what health care providers can charge and thus they can extort people for all that they own and in a true free market fashion that is exactly what they do.

---------- Post added at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 PM ----------

A smart insurance company would keep a large savings pool for this. The refund could also occur a year behind if it were needed but I'm not convinced it is needed. Alternatively the refund could also be applied to future premiums. Right now we need to limit how much money the insurance companies fleece from sick people.

How come the percent of premiums spent on actual health care has decreased substantially over the last 10 years?

Like every other business in America they want to make profits. You can not force a company to make mandatory refunds. The only way to get insurance companies to lower premiums is if a government plan that actually works forces insurance companies to in order to compete. The government can't tell the industry what to charge or when to refund, or what to do with their profits.

But they can. Where we live the government recently forced the energy companies to give rebates because they took in to high of profits. I think a public plan is the best solution because it would force the insurance companies to be more competitive. Here I was just offering an alternative to a public plan. I take it you are more supportive of a public plan then? Would you support a public option?

I would support a public plan if they left the private sector alone. Government telling the energy companies in your state how much money they are allowed to make is ludicrous. That is not the role of government. I agree a public option may make for better competition in the private sector but it depends on how effective the public option is. If it's anything like medicaid then no chance.

I come from a political perspective that says when private industry is ass-raping consumers, government MUST step in and correct the situation. The insurance cartel isn't the only ass-raper in the health care space, but IMO it's the biggest one, and the first and best leverage point for governmental intervention in the ass-raping.

The fact that I'm now conversing directly with a guy in the ass-rape business doesn't really change that for me. I hate for you that your job might go away, and I'd really prefer that not happen, or at least that whatever impact that might have be minimal or zero... but I'd also like your boss's cock out of my ass, if it's all the same.

On one hand I apologize for the graphic analogy, and on the other hand, suck it up because it's apt as hell.

yeah the government steps in often when businesses get out of hand. Look at how they break up monopoly's or oligopolies, look at windfall taxes, etc. One of the governments essential duties is to protect the US population from businesses. At least with non-health-care products consumers have the option of telling the company to fuck off by not buying their product. However, when it comes to health care and you are sitting in the emergency room with 24 hours to live because your appendix is about to burst you can't really tell them to fuck off can you? This is why the health care industry needs heavy regulation. Much in the same way that the government regulated banks when they were handing out mortgages just to turn around and say they needed full payment a few years later or else they would take your property.

Well I'm hoping the impact on my job will be minimal, I am in the supplemental market not directly in health insurance. But I stated in one of these threads that I've already lost several accounts due to all the uncertainty floating around this issue. Companies are reluctant to make any changes in their employee's benefits right now with everything going on, which I don't blame them, but I gotta eat ya know.

Why not? Isn't it the roll of government to regulate the market to make sure that it's greed doesn't hurt too many people? Medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcies in the US right now, with 1.5-2 million a year, and more than three quarters of those are insured. Health care insurance costs are rising at several times the rate of inflation (generally about 2x). People with coverage are regularly denied service that they are covered for because it would cost the insurance more than they're comfortable playing. On top of all that are the people that aren't insured, that 47 (probably higher now) million number.

The market is very good at some things and very bad at others. The market has demonstrated for the past few decades that it's incapable of providing a functional medical system.

And if they are conservative, they automatically have an "odd perspective" of the world. Amazing how half the arguments you point out, you are guilty of as well. Try to keep it factual.

So respond to Will's last post, then.

Odd simply means different from the usual. Are you asking me to demonstrate that the conservative perspective on this is different from usual? I can. I can also demonstrate that the vast majority of misinformation about HR 3200 is coming from conservative sources. I can demonstrate quite a few facts on this.

Don't get defensive because you're on the wrong side of this. Either come up with a better defense or change your position.

Well? I'm all ears, Will. Or eyes, as it were :)

I don't have to do either. I'm asking for facts. What is "usual"? 51%? Your take? The liberal take in general? Hillary Clinton's take? All I see is subjectivity.

I'll start with a very, very simple fact: Fox News viewers were "significantly more likely to have misperceptions" about the Iraq war than all other media consumers (I know it's a Pub Discussion, but this particular post required a verifiable source). As you can see from the study, people that watched other networks have a much more balanced and objective understanding of the Iraq War. Fox News viewers are significantly more conservative than any other 24 hour news station (please tell me you don't need a link for this), therefore conservatives have an odd perspective.

All you really need to do, though, is look at the recent national debates. Obama was born in Kenya (which over half of Republicans believe)? H.R. 3200 has death panels!? It seems the current conservative movement's creed is "absurdum ad nauseum", win by saying the most absurd things the most. Rigor mortis will be setting in soon at this rate. I wonder if the Whigs will come back...

Your reasoning is dim. I've never watched Fox news in my life. Not even 5 minutes of it. I'm somewhat conservative. So not having any "Fox" influence, I still have an "odd" view? That's not logical in the slightest. It makes no sense, on both counts. What percentage watches Fox? What percentage agrees with Fox? Based on your link (which refuses to load for me right now) it simply states that Fox viewers have misperceptions about the Iraq war. We are not talking about the Iraq war. You might as well say Fox viewers prefer oreo double-stuffed cookies over original, based on oreo double-stuffed commercials that Fox airs on a regular basis. I went to the top of the page and did a CTRL-F and typed in iraq. The first mention is your link. I checked the title. Wait. No that says healthcare, not IRAQ WAR. So based on views of the IRAQ WAR, which we all no doubt have misperceptions and misconceptions of, you say that all conservatives have an odd view? How very personal of you.

I'm not arguing the ad nauseum part. In fact I agree to a certain extent. That extent being the tactics used, which you seem to be doing here, honestly, as well. Absurd, indeed.

I've asked you for some tangible evidence or facts more than once and you always reply with nonsense. Nothing personal there, just damn man, gimme something to work with here. If you want to argue for the healthcare bill, argue what it will do that is good, instead of just rambling.

How about his post #230, which I asked you to respond to in my post #232? You don't have to look far for a post from Will with discussable facts, but you DO have to set down your presupposition that he's never posted any such thing.

I hope you like that dick, because you're all over his like white on rice. Just saying.

That's mature

Well, it is "pub banter" after all.

He is though. Why can't Will take care of himself? Is Rat Will's big brother? I'm trying to ask Will a thought provoking (hopefully) question, and all I see is this dude off to the side posturing and trying to get my attention.

Wow. Just.... Wow.

What you're saying, then, is that you can't respond to his facts? Gotta make a fag joke instead?

I'm trying to draw your attention away from the smoke-screen you're trying to throw up, and TOWARD the facts you claim to want to discuss.

One man's posturing is another's desperate attempts to have an actual discussion about something of substance.

Fucking pathetic.

Call it what you will. I posted an honest statement.
I'm asking him, without being completely direct, that I would like to see why the healthcare bill is good. Not 20 posts up, not in other thread, but right here right now. Why is it good?

I've been ignoring you. I apologize if that hurt your feelings. BTW that's not a "fag joke". A "fag" would laugh it off better than you did.

Not a problem. I was just calling it as I saw it. Consider my previous dropped and forgotten.

I still would like to see Will, who is pushing this so hard, tell me why the healthcare bill is so positive. I think that is a fair request.

I don't see that there's much productive left in this thread, frankly.

I don't plan to participate in it any longer.

I don't buy this premise. You may not watch Fox News, but the idea that you and your sources of conservative information are entirely separate from Fox News influence hasn't been established. You're welcome to attempt to establish this, but the fact that most of your talking points reflect talking points from Fox News would seem to suggest that you're "of the type", as it were.
That's irrelevant. We're talking about a general perception, therefore I cited the most obvious symptom of a problem with objectivity. It's absolutely relevant to the subject at hand.
Are you suggesting that I'm using the ad nauseum tactic? How many posts do I have in this thread?
This isn't a proper way to debate. Either present evidence or refute either my evidence or my conclusions.

"Of the type"? I'm in Texas, in case you forgot. I don't have to watch Fox to have conservative influence. I don't talk to anyone about Fox, or about what Fox talks about. I don't read a newspaper (any paper) or watch any news. Seriously. none. If I see it on my google homepage, I see the title, realize that the title was basically a summary of the story anyways, and move on. I spend very little time on details of a topic for which I have no control and very little concern. I'm almost a blank slate, except for general society around me and its influences.

And you are objective? Is this a case of I'm right and everyone else is wrong unless they agree with me? I'd like to see that one hold up in general discussion. LOL

I didn't check. I was scrolling through, saw something that caught my eye, and went with it.

What evidence? I'm still waiting for some information from you that shows the benefits of social healthcare.

This isn't a debate class. This is pub discussion. http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...iscussion.html
You've already broken one rule, and still have yet to give some meaningful benefits that I requested, fairly, for consideration. I'm serious, I have read basically nothing on the bill, and I'm curious. If you don't mind me asking, quit beating around the bush and provide something interesting :)
It's not like you have to quote it (you technically can't anyways), just mention something that seems to stand out as good.

Everyone is towing the Obama line and making such a villain out of the insurance companies but not a bad word has been said about the doctors that keep raising their rates or the hospitals and drug companies that always have to outdo last years profit at any cost to you and I. The insurance companies are in business to make money just like the hospitals and drug companies. Why is it some people's monthly prescription of life saving medicine sometimes costs in the thousands? Not that the insurance companies are all that and don't share part of the blame but they aren't the only problem but for whatever reason no one seems to care about everyone else involved in high unaffordable health care

I'm only going by what you post. You're a Second Amendment proponent, you're strongly in favor of individual rights, you follow the bootstraps philosophy, you feel "anything from the government is shitty" and when you feel cornered, you make personal attacks. These views strongly correspond with the professional politics of the right. If you're asking us to believe this is a coincidence, we'll have to simply agree to disagree on the point and move on.
This isn't a proper way to debate. Either present evidence or refute either my evidence or my conclusions.
All you had to do was ask:
First off, small businesses and individuals are having serious trouble affording private medical insurance right now, so much so (as I stated above) that it's the #1 cause of bankruptcies in the US causing about 1.5-2 million a year. This puts a substantial strain on our economy that would be lifted under the reduced overall costs of a public option. For evidence of this, we can look to every other industrialized country in the world, all of whom have a public option. Per capita costs for health care in places like France, Canada, the UK, Spain, Germany, Italy, Sweden and Japan are less than half the per capita costs of the US. In other words, they all pay substantially less in taxes than we pay in insurance.

Second, people living under public health care systems aren't turned down for profit, as the public option is not for profit. If you're ill in any way, you're treated. As much as the right is scared of the big bad R-word (rationing), the fact is that it's actually quite rare even in Canada. We have some friendly canucks right here on TFP that can personally attest to the effectiveness of their system vs. our for-profit system.

Third, this isn't socalized medicine. Just like in Canada, it's simply a doctor running a private practice that happens to be insured by the government instead of a private insurer. It's more similar to Medicare than NHS.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, you get to cover everyone. No more will people have to choose between paying $400 a month or running the risk of having to pay a $12,000 medical bill for an accident.

There's a lot more, but I figure this is enough to digest for the time being.
The reason debate class worked so well is that it kept people on point and it prevented people from using fallacious arguments.

Yes, this is good. We obviously have a little personality clash going on, but this is good stuff.

Now, I've talked to a few canucks and friends of canucks who have claimed to have had to come to the US for medical treatment. What's going on there? I'm not real interested in having to go to Mexico for some cancer treatment or something, know what i mean? I didn't ask at the time, so I'm curious as to why this occurs.

I just had a discussion with a good friend of mine who happens to be a med student in NY. He had some interesting points as well. I'll cover that later.

This is an interesting case. It's incredibly rare for a Canadian to come to the US for medical care, but it does happen. Sometimes people from the US go up to Canada for medical coverage, too (some going so far as marrying Canadian citizens for coverage). Why do Canadians come to the US for coverage? Some areas of Canada are very sparsely populated and due to Canadian medical regulations or perhaps temporary shortages don't have a huge amount of doctors at their disposal, which leads some to travel for medical coverage. Also, some procedures are considered to be quite unimportant and are thus prioritized lower in Canada. Who do Americans go to Canada for coverage? It's cheaper, it doesn't take into account bad credit or preexisting conditions, and if you're involved in a serious accident, they treat you almost immediately (just as in the US), but it doesn't cost you a dime (among other reasons).


It should be said, however, that the instances of Canadians coming to the US for health care are incredibly low but are reported so often by pundits that they seem common. Last I saw, it was around 50 Canadians per year. When you consider the population of Canada is about 33 million, you're just as likely in a year to be hit by lightening as you are to be a Canadian coming to the US for health care.

People go to Cuba for medical treatments.

In Canada, sometimes people go elsewhere so they don't have to wait, sometimes its because the treatment isn't available. Either way, they're doing it outside the system for one reason or another. This is not a unique kind of circumstance, and it in no way suggests that universal health care is a failure or doesn't work adequately to maintain a healthy population.

As will suggested, it's the exception, not the rule.

Some Myths about Canada and its Health Care system:

1. Myth - Canadian taxes are high mostly because of our health care
The truth is that taxes are nearly equal in the US and Canada. Canadian taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. but Canadians have many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.

2. Myth - Canadian Health Care has a massive bureaucracy
Actually it is the US that currently has the most bureaucratic health care system. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.

[b]3. Myth - the Canadian system is incredibly expensive
Canada spends 10% of its GDP on health care for 100% of its population. The US spends 17% of its GDP but leaves 15% with no coverage (and many more with inadequate coverage). As it works out, the US system is considerably more expensive and part of the reason is that those who are uninsured and underinsured still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.

What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.

4. Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it. (death panels and the like)
While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.

There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.

5. Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.
There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S.

6. Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.
Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.

7. Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.
Single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.

8. Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada.
There are plenty of doctors in Canada. The problem is one of geographic location rather than numbers. There are not enough doctors in the more rural or remote areas. This is also true of the US system as well and not a symptom of single-payer system.

I was listening to Rush the other day(i know i know, i just like to hear the latest bat shit crasy things he says) and he suggested that if the current bill is passed, in ten years time there will still be 17 million people uninsured. Will, you've read the bill, do you know if that is the case or just more BS?

H.R. 3200 is about voluntary public health care coverage If those 47 million currently uninsured choose to go with it, no one will be uninsured in 10 years, if some decide to remain uninsured, they'll be uninsured. Most of us on the left, myself included, are a lot more interested in a single payer system—which H.R. 3200 absolutely is not—which would be compulsory.

I figured it was more bs.

It's not BS insomuch as it's a part of a larger strategy of fearmongering. For whatever reason, many people on the right are absolutely convinced that because the government does screw up from time to time—which I readily admit it does—it will absolutely screw up everything without exception and any time that the government gets more responsibility it's a step towards Nazi-style fascism. These fears, which are almost entirely unfounded, are reinforced at nearly all levels of conservative controlled media with a consistency that would make Adolf blush with envy. And man, could that guy blush.

While it's possible that through many changes the US government could sink towards a place where Nazism once was, it's almost certainly not going to happen because of an attempt to offer a public health care program. For evidence of that, we need not look any farther than our friends to the north, the Canadians. They're not living in an Orwellian nightmare or are entering the first phase of state/military sponsored social Darwinism and military expansionism. Things are actually doing okay up there right now. It's not a perfect system, but it's really quite nice and I *think* that if more Americans really understood how well it worked we would be able to get over this hurdle and on to more pressing matters.

I just can't understand how a party that is seemingly not in power currently is able to rally such a following, and cause the dems to take out the public option. This seems to be a recurring thread, Democrats backing down even when they have a clear majority. They should be able to pass this and many other pieces of legislation on their agenda.

Part of it has to do with how afraid many conservatives/Republicans/evangelicals are of President Obama and part of it is that the Democrats haven't been good at asserting themselves in well over a generation.

Barack Obama is half black, his middle name is Hussein, he's slightly to the left of Bill Clinton, and he happened to take office during a time when nationalization of certain market entities is the only real way to go to prevent decades of recession/depression. He's the perfect storm of scary leftism, and he's easy to caricature by those on the right. The hilarious thing (at least imho) is that he's not really all that liberal. He's a centrist, he plays a lot of things safe, and he's not quite as powerful a leader as we need right now. It makes me wonder what the right would be doing if we elected a Franklin D. Roosevelt instead of a Jimmy Carter.

As far as the Dems are concerned, Clinton, who is to be perfectly honest more of a centrist than a liberal, only did as well as he did because he demonstrated this interesting combination of fiscally conservative and socially moderate that was closer to the comfort zone of the right. Until he had a sex scandal. For some reason, most Democrats only have testicular fortitude when they have support from the left, the center, and the right. Without that, they're quivering masses of insecurity and fear. This, more than anything else, is why I'm not a Democrat.

I would say, as a conservative, I guess (I'm not really that conservative compared to most that live around me) that the reason the right is afraid of agreeing with anything that Obama pushes is that they fear the give an inch, take a mile concept will come into play. If they give him one thing, he may run wild with the rest. I'm not saying I agree with that logically, but it has run across my mind from time to time. If it runs across my mind, it must run across others as well.

Is that rational? Of course not! And I don't think that is the case, but it's just something I'm tossing out there.

New Gallup Poll Shows More Conservatives Than Liberals in Every State.

The horror...

It's because the Dem's didn't do it Bush administration style. To get this amount of bullshit to pass you have to do it after a huge crisis and promise people that this is the only way to solve it. IE you have to do this after the swine flu kills tens of thousands not introduce it randomly at the beginning of a term. Also, you can't use vague rhetoric to explain a bill that contains over 1500 pages (is that the latest count I don't even know).

I do agree with you, however, that the Dem's backing off seems to be a reoccurring theme. Even now that they have the majority it still feels odd. No backbone at all with these people.

This political backlash in the town hall's does have at least one good outcome. It has forced debate about this bill. No bill this massive should be pushed through as quickly as it was going to happen without discussing it.

Not trusting the "other side" isn't necessarily about rational/irrational, it's more about crossing ideological waters. As a moderate collectivist, I'll probably never understand extreme individualism like that associated with anarchocapitalism, but I'm honestly trying. How can I provide an objective view of a given situation if I can't, when necessary, step outside of whatever ideologies and principles have emerged as a part of the development of my perception? I can't. Moreover, how can I speak to someone with a different ideology without the ability to put myself inside that ideological though process? I can't.

Speaking only for myself, I was concerned that, with the GWOT after 9/11, President Bush was going to take a lightyear given all the power he was given by congress. He did take things waaaay too far, obviously, but he could have done a lot worse. Would he have been more likely to be overthrown had he gone further? Probably, but that doesn't always stop the more tyrannical-minded in our society.

You have a point on Bush. I was prepared to join any cause, should he declare a 3rd and probably more permanent term. I was honestly half expecting him to try that.

Maybe because "conservative" vs "liberal" are broad terms hard to define, much like the "pro life" label.

support for keeping abortion legal has remained in the 60s and 70s percentage wise, a majority of the population support cap and trade, a majority support allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the US, a majority now supports at least civil unions for same sex marriage, social security and medicare are as popular as ever, and so on and so forth.

The "conservative" and "liberal" labels mean nothing at the level of policy.

Now, to get back to the issue at hand, I find it simply absurd that of all the elements of the bill, the part with a public option that is federally mandated to break even every year and cannot negotiate special deals is the one that is getting killed off. I mean, how can anyone who supports reform be against an additional option that is mandated to be self sufficient? That right there is the best example of the lobbying power of insurance companies.

it's the irony of the right; providing a public option that drives competition with the private insurers is the very essence of free market capitalism, and yet the private insurers are doing everything they can to sabotage it. In other words, free market capitalism is the ideal unless your pockets are being lined by a company who isn't willing to compete

I was thinking about this today. An appendix removal (one of the most common and basic surgeries) costs 10's of thousands of dollars. A breast augmentation costs a few thousand dollars. What accounts for the factor of 10 difference in cost?

Is it that one is life threatening and the other isn't? Is it that insurance covers one and not the other?

It may be that a breast augmentation isn't life threatening so you have ample time and multiple doctors to choose from so the competition drives down the prices. You don't have much choice when your appendix bursts and you need treatment right away. There's no competition there to choose from so they can charge whatever they want.

So in the case of life and death the free market does not work? Does this then suggest the government should add regulations to protect the population when life and death health care is involved?

The free market doesn't have a chance to work in this case. And I don't know what regulations the govn't could enact that would help.

I lot of people wouldn't like this but one solution would be to set a maximum price for such operations. Someone in the process is taking more than their fair share and we need a way to stop that. This would also have the effect of lowering insurance premiums (unless it is the insurance company that is taking more than their fair share).

Pub Discussion be damned....I'm not starting another thread on this:

Mike Enzi, Gang Of Six Republican, Admits He's Simply Blocking Health Care Reform


and here's a shocker, look at Enzi's main campaign fund contributors:

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/8416/21090666.png

I agree about the public discussion. This thread has gone on quite a long ways as a public discussion but I think it is time for it to grow into a normal thread so that useful discussion can continue. Mods is it possible to take off the public discussion tag?

I found this video interesting:

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- PUB DISCUSSION Rules have been lifted by request of the OP.

That's a lot of good, and very useful, information that you've provided. Thanks. It does seem, to me, that Canada gets the finger pointed at it, all too often, as an example of a public system in chaos. I'm really not sure why, other than most Americans really have no clue, and therefore accept that Canada's healthcare sucks. You are not the first Canadian here to put us to rights on what is really going on up north. Some of us are listening. The problem is that I do not trust the U.S. government to get it right. If your healthcare really is as good as you've described (not that I don't believe you, but for something this important I really want someone a lot smarter than myself to look into it first) then I would have absolutely no problem at all with the U.S. copy and pasting the Canadian healthcare system, and replacing the words Canada with U.S.A., Province with State, kilometer with mile, bacon with ham, and centre with center. But...that's not going to happen. Why? Because we didn't think it up first. We'd rather fuck it all up that admit that someone else got it right and got it right first.

I don't know what the President is going to say tonight, but there is still the potential that he or someone can sell me on the public option. I simply have questions and need to understand how they plan to address the potential consequences of having a public option. My gut tells me a public option will lead to a single option and that eventually it will bankrupt the country.

First, I need to know if a public option is going to play under the same rules as private options, how will the public option avoid adverse selection (meaning the sickest or people with the biggest needs ending in the public option and the private carriers cherry picking the healthiest people)?

If the public option can operate at lower costs what will prevent everyone from moving from the private sector to the public option? If the public option can not operate at lower costs what is the point of the public option?

Who is going to run the public option? Where is the expertise going to come from? Are they going to cannibalize employees from the private sector? If so, why do they think the public option will be run different than companies in the private sector?

Is the public option going to be regulated by each state the way the private sector companies have to be regulated? If so, how are they going to address the issue of portability?

With the public option what is going to prevent abuse, for example, if I am healthy I don't participate - if I come down with a medical issue, I sign up, get treated and then cancel. If they don't have pre-existing condition restrictions, guarantee issue or no waiting periods - I think this would be a problem.

In states where one private insurer has 60-80% market share, do they understand why that is true? Why do they think other carriers have decided to opt out of those markets? If private insurers are forced to compete with the public option on price, will that destabilize the financial stability of the entire market in that state? What safe guards are they going to put in place to guard against that?

I have more questions and I actually hope Obama or someone begins to go a bit deeper into the issue rather than them saying if you don't support what we want, you just don't like us or you don't support us so you don't think we need to do anything.

Speech over.....strong enough for you, ace?

there are still many problems with the plan. One being if the president wishes to make all insurance companies accept everyone regardless of pre-ex's, minimize out of pocket expenses, and have no anual or lifetime maximums then premiums are going to skyrocket. they have to or insurance companies are going to go bankrupt, there's no way around that. If they have to pay out more than they take in then that equals bankruptcy, it's simple math.

incorrect. there is plenty of room for cuts within private insurance (which have been mentioned repeatedly in this and other threads). you can start by not making health insurance decisions based on profit margins and stock holders

There's no way around it unless you have a single payer system, which obama said is not in the cards at this time. Without a single payor system he can't decide for a company whether or not they can seek profits.

It seems like bankruptcy of insurance companies is the only possible outcome if what you're saying is true (I haven't had time to review the speech).

After bankruptcy it sounds like the government is faced with the option of letting them fail, or bailing them out. The first leads to single payer, and the 2nd leads to government controlled insurance which basically seems like the same outcome to me.

to me it's equivelant to the sub prime mortgage situation. the govn't forced banks to lend money to people who couldn't afford it. The same is going to be true with insurance. They are going to force insurance companies to accept everyone and eliminate annual and lifetime caps, as well as reduce out of pocket maximums. There is no feasable way this can work unless they also force hospitals and doctors to take a considerable pay cut in terms of what procedures cost. I'd love to see how the AMA would react to that.

I completely disagree. Insurance rates are what they are because there is no viable competition to drive prices down.

This is something I don't understand. In my state of ohio there are numerous insurance companies competeing. The big ones are MMO, United Healthcare, Blue cross blue shield, Cigna, Summa Care and Humana. There are also several smaller companies. Ohio is not a large state population wise and there are alot of companies competing. Again from a mathematical and economic standpoint prices have to rise if you impose these regulations on insurance companies, there's no two ways about it.

I'll take the over under of no.

As I understand the mortgage melt down it was not so much the bad loans that were the problem but the Wall Streeters who bundled them into investment vehicles leveraged to the hilt so that even a small drop in real estate values made the swaps and dirivatives worthless. I think the banking system could have easily absorbed the mortgage losses if it wasn't for the casino style gambling they engaged in.

Also I believe the thinking is that increasing the health insurance pool by requiring everyone to purchase insurance will go a long way to offset the costs of the pre-condition and cap reforms proposed. I guess alternatives to these insurance reforms include having our government pick up the costs directly or just let those sick people go bankrupt and/or get sicker.

One thing Obama didn't touch on was how they would enforce mandatory minimum coverage. With auto insurance, you can suspend driving privileges. You can't really suspend living privileges

My guess is it would be done similar to taxes. If you don't pay they garnish your wages.

Among other things, I am not clear on how the plan is going to be paid for. I understand what he said, but I need more detail. If it is that easy to save 100's of billions in medicare why haven't they done it already? I generally did not feel he added any value to the debate.

My question was stemmed in the fact that you have been berating Obama for being weak on the message and not dispelling the lies and half truths in a strong manner. I feel like he did all he needed to in that realm last night. Do you agree or disagree?

On the issue of "death panels" he did not address how the government will allocate limited health care resources. He actually did the opposite pretty much promising to do more that is possible without increasing costs or reducing benefits.

On the issue of illegals, he failed to address the fact that the existing house bill does not proactively require proof of citizenship for benefits.

I think he parsed his words in a very crafty manner. I doubt anyone with an opinion going into the speech had that opinion changed. In my view the speech added no value to the debate and did not dispel "lies and half truths" - I thought he was weak.

http://cloudfront.mediamattersaction...images/lie.jpg

HR 3200.

You were saying?

Full text: http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/1...ext-071409.pdf

you must have been watching a different speech, because he answered every question you had. If you refuse to listen to (or believe) his answers, there isn't much point in you even watching.

Are we going to play pretend games? Just because your fearless leaders say something, doesn't mean that is how things are actually going to be. The issue is - does the legislation proactively prevent illegals from being covered. One method to help with the issue is to demand proof a citizenship. All Obama did was restate something that did not address the underlying concern. It is like saying we are going to post a speed limit of 45 mph, and then pretending that will stop people from speeding. Am I really not being clear or are you just pulling my chain? Do you really think Obama put that concern to rest?

---------- Post added at 07:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:06 PM ----------

How does Obama reconcile the difference in projected costs with the CBO? Do you know?

Oh, I put another ball in the air...this is related in the area of how is he going to pay for this? Are the CBO folks liers too?

I still don't see how it's possible to pay for it. Nothing the government ever does comes out within budget. They are going to have to borrow massive amounts of money to fund healthcare I don't see anyway around it frankly.

Yes lets play pretend games. Lets pretend robbing banks is a crime, that way there would be no bank robberies. Wow it's fun to play pretend!

The government rarely does anything within budget because there's usually nothing in it for the agency to be within budget. I worked for the State of Oregon for a long time, seems we were constantly running around at the end of a budget spending money on crap we didn't need. We were always told if we don't spend it next year we'll get less. I really have no idea if thats how other government agencies work but that's way mine did. Used to piss me off.

Now if the Obama plan goes in with a -0- budget effect mandate and the program does run over there will have to be cuts elsewhere to make up the losses. That is if I heard the speech correctly.