Health care summit

[westvirginia]

Amazingly enough, Switzerland has mandated that people buy health care and yet they still score higher than the US in terms of Economic Freedom (as measured by the Heritage Foundation).

 

How does that fit with your rantings?

 

Damn, I guess I need to move over there. Can uncouth 'merica furreigners have guns over there?

[Azazello1313]

Amazingly enough, Switzerland has mandated that people buy health care and yet they still score higher than the US in terms of Economic Freedom (as measured by the Heritage Foundation).

 

How does that fit with your rantings?

 

I don't think their high score has much to do with health insurance mandates

[Jimmy Neutron]

I watched a couple hours of C-SPAN House coverage later that night. The thing that struck me is how few how few of these people can speak about health care with any personal experience at all. Their statements and arguments are contrived and clearly foreign to their own experience. In essence - they don't get it at all.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Damn, I guess I need to move over there. Can uncouth 'merica furreigners have guns over there?

yup

[driveby]

American Collectivism: A Record of Failure

By Ralph R. Reiland on 3.2.10 @ 6:07AM

 

The hype is always better than the real thing.

 

Boston's Big Dig sounded like a half-decent project in the beginning. Approved in 1982 with a price tag $2.6 billion, it was completed, however, more or less, in 2005 at a price of $22 billion.

 

"More or less" because concrete panels loosened and crashed from the ceiling of a connector tunnel in 2006, the first full year of operation, killing 38-year-old car passenger Milena Del Valle, a mother of three. The family was awarded $28 million.

 

Medicare, similarly, was optimistically projected in 1967 to have an annual price tag of $12 billion by 1990. The actual 1990 cost? $98 billion.

 

Just the parking lot at the Kennedy Center (not the center itself or its whole shebang of theaters, lounges, offices, restaurants, etc.) had a cost estimate in 1998 of $28 million, reports Reason magazine in its March 2010 issue. The actual cost of the parking lot, completed in 2003? $88 million.

 

These estimates and actual costs aren't even close, with final prices running eight and ten times off. But it works, just like fishing -- camouflage the hooks with the right feathers and bangles and a striped bass thinks he's at the Ole Minnie Buffet.

 

Now we're getting the biggest hype yet, the idea that Obama and his various czarinas and central planners have the expertise to re-work a sixth of the U.S. economy so that we'll somehow end up with universal health coverage, 30 million more people insured, and all done in a way that produces lower costs and higher quality while not adding a dime to the federal deficit.

 

It's like everyone gets a shiny new Mercedes and somehow, simultaneously, the sticker price goes down, the quality goes up, and there's no red ink.

 

Plus they're saying that billions can be cut from Medicare without cutting anything that seniors are getting from Medicare.

 

I get the feeling that we haven't learned much from our previous grand experiments. The list of failures in long.

 

During World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt distorted the free market by implementing wage and price controls in order to prevent "profiteering" and fight inflation. Employers, in order to attract labor, switched from giving raises to providing health insurance.

 

Today, we're paying a high price in the global arena for that government-created market distortion that produced the ongoing employer-based health system that consistently harms the ability of U.S. firms to compete against companies from countries that spread the costs of healthcare more broadly.

 

General Motors reports that healthcare costs add between $1,500 and $2,000 to the sticker price of every vehicle it makes. Bottom line, America's employer-based healthcare is selling Hondas and killing Detroit.

 

On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson delivered his first State of the Union address, calling for an "all-out war on human poverty," with special focus on black poverty and inner city revitalization. The following year, Sen. Daniel Moynihan sounded the alarm about the breakdown of the black family in his book The Negro Family: The Case for National Action. At the time, 1965, the black illegitimacy rate was 26 percent.

 

Today, $10 trillion later in federal spending on anti-poverty programs, the illegitimacy rate among blacks is 70 percent.

 

Most recently, seeking universal and equitable housing, the Carter and Clinton administrations passed legislation, with well-intended consequences, of course, that forced banks to make loans in lower income areas and to unqualified borrowers. The result was a massive expansion of high-risk subprime loans, a real estate bubble, a worldwide distribution of toxic assets, and the subsequent housing crash, financial panic and bank collapses.

 

And now, next up on the politicians' fix-it list -- healthcare. Just say No.

[Perchoutofwater]

An interesting perspective from someone that was once in the Democrats camp during the formulation of the health care bill.

 

 

For Obama and Pelosi, health care is ego trip

By: Byron York

Chief Political Correspondent

March 2, 2010

(AP)

 

In the entire health care debate, among all the competing lawmakers, politicians, experts and pundits, there's just one person who has seen things from both sides of the political aisle. That is Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama, who was elected as a Democrat in 2008 and was part of the House Democratic caucus until last Dec. 22, when he switched sides to become a Republican. (Republican-turned-Democrat Sen. Arlen Specter doesn't count, because he switched parties in April 2009, before the current health care debate got underway.)

 

Given Griffith's unique perspective -- he is also a doctor, with 30 years' experience as an oncologist -- perhaps he has some insight into why the White House and his former Democratic allies in Congress continue to press forward on a national health care bill despite widespread public opposition.

 

It's gotten personal, Griffith says. "You have personalities who have bet the farm, bet their reputations, on shoving a health care bill through the Congress. It's no longer about health care reform. It's all about ego now. The president's ego. Nancy Pelosi's ego. This is about personalities, saving face, and it has very little to do with what's good for the American people."

Conflicts driven by personal feelings can lead to self-destructive outcomes. Ask Griffith whether Speaker Pelosi, his old leader, would accept losing Democratic control of the House as the price for passing the health care bill, and he answers quickly. "Oh yeah. This is a trophy for the speaker, it's a trophy for several committee chairs, and it's a trophy for the president." It does not seem to matter that if Democrats lose the House, the speaker will no longer be speaker, the chairmen will no longer be chairmen, and the president will be significantly weakened.

 

As Griffith sees his former colleagues, Democratic leaders have become so consumed with the idea of achieving the historical goal of a national health care system that they are able to explain away the scores of opinion polls over the last six months that show people solidly opposed to the Democratic proposal.

 

The polls are wrong, they say. Or the polls are contradictory. Or the polls actually show that people love the health care plan. And even if the polls are right, and people hate the plan, real leaders don't govern by following the polls. So just pass the bill.

 

That's easy for Democrats like Pelosi, who occupy safe seats. Not so for dozens of moderate House Democrats whose votes are required for passage, but who face likely defeat for it. "I don't think there are that many moderate or conservative Democrats who want to be sacrificial representatives," says Griffith.

 

Just for the record, the RealClearPolitics average of polls on the Democratic health care plan shows 51 percent opposed and 40 percent in favor. A similar compilation of surveys by Pollster.com shows the gap at 51 percent to 43 percent. There have been more opponents than supporters of the plan since last July, when Democrats first began to unveil concrete health care proposals.

 

Can Democrats really ignore the polls all the way to the end? Yes, but it gets a little harder with each passing day. George W. Bush couldn't ignore public opinion when he wanted to remake Social Security and pass comprehensive immigration reform. Faced with broad opposition, Bush ultimately gave up.

 

And now Democratic leaders are showing signs of weakness. Why would they suddenly express interest, even feigned interest, in Republican ideas they derided for months? Why would they invite GOP lawmakers to a high-profile discussion of health care? Because they don't have the votes to pass the bill. "If they had the votes, we wouldn't have had the summit," said Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn on CBS Sunday.

 

That's a change from the heady days of last year, when Democrats, as Griffith says, "never really wanted anyone else's input" on health care. When a Republican offered a suggestion, "There was a polite smile and a comment like, 'That's very interesting, and we'll take a look,'" Griffith recalls. Of course, they never did. Now, they make a big show of listening.

 

But it's too late to make the fundamental changes that would be required to improve the bill. It's too late to change public opinion. It's too late to reassure nervous lawmakers. The Democratic leadership has made the decision to push the bill to the very end, and so they will.

 

It's personal.

 

Link to article above.

 

And here I thought the Republican's were just obstructionists and didn't offer up any ideas. It looks as though they were offering up ideas until it became apparent that they were falling on deaf ears.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[bushwacked]

Obama open to adding GOP ideas to Reform

 

Obama detailed the ideas, all of which were raised at a bipartisan health-care summit last week, in a letter to congressional leaders. In a nod to his 2008 presidential rival, Obama also said he had eliminated a special deal for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries in Florida and other states that drew criticism at the summit from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

 

The proposals Obama listed are: sending investigators disguised as patients to uncover fraud and waste, expanding medical-malpractice reform pilot programs, increasing payments to Medicaid providers and expanding the use of health-savings accounts.

[Ursa Majoris]

Today, we're paying a high price in the global arena for that government-created market distortion that produced the ongoing employer-based health system that consistently harms the ability of U.S. firms to compete against companies from countries that spread the costs of healthcare more broadly.

I take it you are now a fan of universal government health care?

[dmarc117]

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-american-age...plus-1-strategy

[Perchoutofwater]

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-american-age...plus-1-strategy

 

Oops, I didn't mean that.

[Perchoutofwater]

Obama open to adding GOP ideas to Reform

 

It is a shame he is just now open to GOP ideas. It would have been much better had he been open to them last spring and summer so that we weren't just trying to pin the tail on this donkey of a health care bill. Seriously, Obama and the dems have the chance to do some real good if they would just start over from scratch and work on a real bipartisan bill focused on controlling costs and expanding coverage instead of giving sweetheart exemptions to one particular group and expanding the role of government. I doubt they will find any additional support for the current bill just because they add a few GOP suggested measures, because the current bill is beyond redeeming and needs to be scrapped. I really don't understand it. They have completely over played their hand. If they would just start over and come up with a more reasonable bill that actually addressed cost they could get it passed without breaking senate rules and pissing off the public. If they go the nuclear option route, they are going to only magnify the divisiveness both in Washington and this country, which does nobody any good.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[bpwallace49]

It is a shame he is just now open to GOP ideas. It would have been much better had he been open to them last spring and summer so that we weren't just trying to pin the tail on this donkey of a health care bill. Seriously, Obama and the dems have the chance to do some real good if they would just start over from scratch and work on a real bipartisan bill focused on controlling costs and expanding coverage instead of giving sweetheart exemptions to one particular group and expanding the role of government. I doubt they will find any additional support for the current bill just because they add a few GOP suggested measures, because the current bill is beyond redeeming and needs to be scrapped. I really don't understand it. They have completely over played their hand. If they would just start over and come up with a more reasonable bill that actually addressed cost they could get it passed without breaking senate rules and pissing off the public. If they go the nuclear option route, they are going to only magnify the divisiveness both in Washington and this country, which does nobody any good.

 

Perch, what does the CBO say about GOP plans and how well they will "control costs"? TIA . . .

[Perchoutofwater]

Perch, what does the CBO say about GOP plans and how well they will "control costs"? TIA . . .

 

That it would reduce both the deficit and the cost of premiums.

 

But that is beside the point. We shouldn't be looking at the GOP health care plan or the Dems health care plan. We should be looking at a bipartisan health care plan that doesn't pander to special interests and unions. That looks at increasing coverage, and reducing costs. At this point we should try to look at something that doesn't add to the deficit, and I'm not talking about playing games were you pay for 10 yeas and get 6 years and it supposedly doesn't add to the deficit. We need reform, I won't argue that. We don't need the current bill.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[bpwallace49]

That it would reduce both the deficit and the cost of premiums.

 

But that is beside the point. We shouldn't be looking at the GOP health care plan or the Dems health care plan. We should be looking at a bipartisan health care plan that doesn't pander to special interests and unions. That looks at increasing coverage, and reducing costs. At this point we should try to look at something that doesn't add to the deficit, and I'm not talking about playing games were you pay for 10 yeas and get 6 years and it supposedly doesn't add to the deficit. We need reform, I won't argue that. We don't need the current bill.

 

But Perch . . do you REALLY think that a bipartisan bill is possible with Obama painted as "the devil"? How can you agree with the devil and maintain and credibility with your base after painting yourself into a corner?

 

Paul Ryan has some GREAT ideas . . but he assumes that the tax code will be changed to meet his objectives. How likely do you think that is? Ryan's plan calls for a SEVENTY FIVE YEAR PROJECTION. How likely is that for implementation?

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/201002100009

 

Thr current bill is crap, the proposal from the right is crap, does anyone have faith by marrying to crap proposals together we wont just get a bigger pile of crap? Not one politican has the balls to take on cost containment in DC . . .

[Perchoutofwater]

But Perch . . do you REALLY think that a bipartisan bill is possible with Obama painted as "the devil"? How can you agree with the devil and maintain and credibility with your base after painting yourself into a corner?

 

Paul Ryan has some GREAT ideas . . but he assumes that the tax code will be changed to meet his objectives. How likely do you think that is? Ryan's plan calls for a SEVENTY FIVE YEAR PROJECTION. How likely is that for implementation?

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/201002100009

 

Thr current bill is crap, the proposal from the right is crap, does anyone have faith by marrying to crap proposals together we wont just get a bigger pile of crap? Not one politican has the balls to take on cost containment in DC . . .

 

I agree with you the current bill is crap. I agree that marrying the two proposals is crap. I agree with the GOP leadership that has said we need to scrap the bill and start over.

 

ETA: and hasn't Obama done a pretty good job of making the GOP look like a bunch of devils too? I know this is childish, but who started it? Wasn't it Obama on the campaign trail?

Edited March 5, 2010 by Perchoutofwater

[bpwallace49]

I agree with you the current bill is crap. I agree that marrying the two proposals is crap. I agree with the GOP leadership that has said we need to scrap the bill and start over.

 

ETA: and hasn't Obama done a pretty good job of making the GOP look like a bunch of devils too? I know this is childish, but who started it? Wasn't it Obama on the campaign trail?

 

Simply showing the facts of the Bush presidency paints the GOP as devils . . interesting view perch . .

 

If the bill gets scrapped, I guaran-damn-tee that when the right wins more seats inb the next election it will never be addressed again . . . just like last tim under Clinton, until a majority Democrat congress brings it up again and starts the whole song and dance over with.

 

End result . . nothing gets accomplished . . again . . .

[Perchoutofwater]

End result . . nothing gets accomplished . . again . . .

 

I don't think that is necessarily true. I think a lot of conservatives want to see something done. Still even if that is the case, nothing is preferable to what they are currently proposing.

[bpwallace49]

I think a lot of conservatives want to see something done. Still even if that is the case, nothing is preferable to what they are currently proposing.

 

In response to your first question . . . . no way in hell. which is why it was killed under Clinton and never addressed under Bush. Perch you constantly defend the right, when they have screwed up just as much as the left . . .

 

To the second question . . on point I agree with you.

[Perchoutofwater]

In response to your first question . . . . no way in hell. which is why it was killed under Clinton and never addressed under Bush. Perch you constantly defend the right, when they have screwed up just as much as the left . . .

 

To the second question . . on point I agree with you.

 

You obviously are not a conservative, and while you might think you know how conservatives think, that doesn't mean you know. I am a conservative, and while I can't speak for all conservatives, I think we need some health care reform, and have even thought enough about it to list some of the things I would do to accomplish it that won't kill the economy and make another huge unfunded entitlement. I don't think any of the conservatives on this board have stated they want no health care reform, and most have stated they are in favor of legitimate cost effective health care reform, though you choose to ignore that. You say nothing was done under Bush, and you are right, but don't you think he was a little busy in his first term you know with the tech bubble bursting, 9/11, a war, and the attacks from the left? In his second term he had a small window to do something, but it could be argued that he should wait until we were back to running surpluses. It can also be argued that we would be in a lot better shape right now if Obama had been more concerned with the economy than with health care. Remember it is partially shortsighted over reaction by government that got us to where we are with health care today.

[bpwallace49]

You obviously are not a conservative, and while you might think you know how conservatives think, that doesn't mean you know. I am a conservative, and while I can't speak for all conservatives, I think we need some health care reform, and have even thought enough about it to list some of the things I would do to accomplish it that won't kill the economy and make another huge unfunded entitlement. I don't think any of the conservatives on this board have stated they want no health care reform, and most have stated they are in favor of legitimate cost effective health care reform, though you choose to ignore that. You say nothing was done under Bush, and you are right, but don't you think he was a little busy in his first term you know with the tech bubble bursting, 9/11, a war, and the attacks from the left? In his second term he had a small window to do something, but it could be argued that he should wait until we were back to running surpluses. It can also be argued that we would be in a lot better shape right now if Obama had been more concerned with the economy than with health care. Remember it is partially shortsighted over reaction by government that got us to where we are with health care today.

Actually perch I have worked for a very conservative congressman, and I am registered independent. You have been quite the Bush apologist the last few days, down to blaming "the left" for him not being more successful? really? That is not a mark of a conservative, that is the mark of a conservative REPUBLICAN. Nothinbg wrong with that . . but at least own your party! Hell every single one of your ways to reform health care could have been printed by Micheal Steele . . all solely Republican talking points. Own it man! be PROUD of your party!

 

Perch, can you point to ANY efforts made by the right to reform health care costs between Clinton's proposal and the current effort? You cant because it would never be addressed by the right. It just isnt a plank (or even a splinter) on their platform. Now all of a sudden conservatives care about reforming health care . . once it is a hot button subject. I have not said they dont want health care, they obviously do! But strictly on their terms(which is why it hasnt been addressed), which makes them just as bad as the Democrats and the current bill. I give Obama props for having the balls to bring the subject up, and want to kick him in the nuts for delegating the process to reid/Pelosi. But at least he has the courage to bring up a subject that aint exactly beneficial to his political career . . .

 

I was ecstatic when this process started, thinking we might finally have the political will to do something for Americans instead of other countries. I feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick a football everytime a proposal is brought up that has potential to help Americans. At the last minute the politicans of both parties bull the football away and bastardize the intent so it strays so far from the original premise that there is no point anymore.

[driveby]

Actually perch I have worked for a very conservative congressman

How did he take his coffee?

[bpwallace49]

How did he take his coffee?

 

I dont know. I mainly worked with his staff learning how to forge his signature and write letters back to constituents consistent with his public stance on issues and sit in on Congressional committee meetings taking notes for his permanent staff.

 

You want to get REALLy jaded about Congress? Work for a Congressman . . .

[Perchoutofwater]

You have been quite the Bush apologist the last few days, down to blaming "the left" for him not being more successful? really?

 

I guess you missed where I have said he spent way too much, and that Medicare D is on of the worst pieces of legislation ever signed by a Republican president. Your about as independent as the rank and file at MSNBC. Call yourself what you want, but I've never seen you take anything but a liberal view. With regard to my points on health care reform, they are my own, but I guess anything short of a single payer system would be considered a GOP idea by your standards.