Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[mykevermin]

And, penalties should be distributed to the the ins companies themselves, not kept by the gov't. If you can't afford it, you are likely already getting medicaid and thus are insured.

So people's penalties should come in the form of money handed over from citizens to private insurance companies that provide them with no service, no work, nothing - and not go to the government, the body who, via medicare, is paying for the services these citizens are not?

You make it so hard to take you seriously sometimes.

Then we need to get rid of some of the regulations like forcing people to pay for substance abuse/alcoholism. If you don't have it on your policy and need it, either pay a fee to upgrade or pay out of pocket for the service.

Again...what?

Get rid of frivolous lawsuits. They are a big part of the problem.

This is total horseshit.

[Ruined]

So people's penalties should come in the form of money handed over from citizens to private insurance companies that provide them with no service, no work, nothing - and not go to the government, the body who, via medicare, is paying for the services these citizens are not?

Citizens don't pay for Medicare/Medicaid? Taxes? Hello?

Yes, the penalties should go to the ins. companies especially because those typically electing not to get coverage would be those in the age bracket/demographic served by private insurance companies, not the gov't. Generally it would be younger people who feel they are healthy and thus don't need insurance b/c they'd rather spend their money elsewhere, which drives up costs as you have less amount of healthy people (profitable people) paying into the plan. And the gov't already gets a hefty cut of everyone's money via taxes.

You make it so hard to take you seriously sometimes.

Personal attack. Not unexpected from you.

Again...what?

In NJ you can't buy health insurance without paying for insurance for substance abuse, alcoholism among other things, because the gov't forces the ins. companies to offer those things. There is no such thing as a "basic" or "average" package, thus the pricetag is much higher.

This is total horseshit.

"Defensive medicine" is one of the many reasons doctors test more than their education might lead them to - because they don't want to get sued for a ridiculous amount that bankrupts them.

[mykevermin]

Citizens don't pay for Medicare/Medicaid? Taxes? Hello?

Yes, the penalties should go to the ins. companies especially because those typically electing not to get coverage would be those in the age bracket/demographic served by private insurance companies, not the gov't.

No, no, no.

We have your system in place.

You elect to not get coverage.

You go to the hospital to cure yourself of foot-in-mouth disease.

That's subsidized by the government, not humana.

By your plan, humana gets the money anyway. Your proposal says that private insurance companies should freely receive money that they don't incur any expenses or effort on anyway. You're saying "government pays for medical treatment, via medicaid, that covers the cost of citizens who opt to not receive health insurance. therefore, when these same people are penalized for not getting insurance, that money should not go to the government who is shouldering the costs of treatment, but to insurance companies, who aren't doing anything with the uninsured person seeking treatment for foot in mouth disease."

It's not hard to understand how ridiculous your proposition is. It's free money for health insurance companies for something they aren't doing. That's why I said it's hard to take you seriously sometimes - what you suggest is fucking stupid.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Then we need to get rid of some of the regulations like forcing people to pay for substance abuse/alcoholism. If you don't have it on your policy and need it, either pay a fee to upgrade or pay out of pocket for the service.

If somebody WERE to pay for substance abuse/alcoholism, you create a social stigma. Also, nobody really knows what the future holds. Maybe you'll never use drugs, but are you sure nobody in your family plan will? Opting out of certain coverage is akin to only covering certain types of cancer or certain bones breaking.

Get rid of frivolous lawsuits. They are a big part of the problem.

No, they're 1-10% of the problem. In between personal attacks, Msut has graced with several articles detailing how small a part lawsuits play into driving up costs. If you want to continue this line of thought or trot out "bipartisanship", either provide a link or replace your paragraph with "2 + 2 = 5". That way, the person who stumbles into this thread doesn't have to skim through the 100 pages of replies where that idea has been pummeled into dust.

If that person can prove rejection of coverage why not? You can't require someone to get insurance if the insurer won't insure. But if everyone were required to buy insurance and penalties for not buying went to insurance companies, denied coverage for preexisting conditions would likely go down anyway.

Would JolietJake's few dozen rejection letters suffice?

Unless you want the insurance companies to PAY penalties for denying coverage, there is no incentive for them to take on anything but very profitable clients. Even if the insurance companies PAY the penalties, those costs will simply be shifted to their customer base. Why not cut out the middle man with his need for profit and costs of advertising and go to single payer?

[elprincipe]

Sorry to resurrect...

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2510700

"Newfoundland premier set to have heart surgery in the U.S."

[mykevermin]

Meh.

Brock Lesnar panned Canadian health care the other week. You should post an article to that, too.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/01/ufc-champ-brock-lesnar-canadas.html

I liked this: http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/09/teotwawki-call.html

[mykevermin]

:rofl:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/10/exclusive-thomas-jefferson-on-hannity.html

WTF!?!?!?! :rofl:

[fatherofcaitlyn]

What a softball interview!

Not one questions about owning slaves or knocking them up.

[The Crotch]

Helloooooo quote mines!

[elprincipe]

Helloooooo quote mines!

I was hoping to get your comment on how Newfoundlanders are knuckle-dragging morons.

[mykevermin]

I like how he was given the nickname "Danny Millions" among Canadians who dislike him.

That's clever. But nevertheless, just as this is an anecdote about a single extraordinarily wealthy non-American seeking American care, we can go tit-fot-tat in terms of anecdotes, each well-to-do Premier or otherwise wealthy person coming to the US being mooted by Americans who participate in "medical tourism."

[The Crotch]

I was hoping to get your comment on how Newfoundlanders are knuckle-dragging morons.
Ah, the east coast if fine by me. Coulda done with less absolute devastation of the fish stocks, but hey, like we in the west have any room to talk 'bout that sort of thing.

[SpazX]

Ah, the east coast if fine by me. Coulda done with less absolute devastation of the fish stocks, but hey, like we in the west have any room to talk 'boot that sort of thing.

ftfy

[Msut77]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/health/policy/09hospital.html?hpw

[Msut77]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/having-it-both-ways-on-medicare/

[fatherofcaitlyn]

We should just do away with all socialized medicine and make any insurance illegal.

Then, sit down and break out the fiddle.

[speedracer]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/having-it-both-ways-on-medicare/
I love the Ryan bill proposal. A Republican finally got caught being honest. They run from it like roaches with the lights on.

[Msut77]

I love the Ryan bill proposal. A Republican finally got caught being honest. They run from it like roaches with the lights on.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/ryan-roadmap-also-includes-sweeping-tax-changes---big-cuts-for-the-rich.php?ref=fpa

Heaven help us if they ever get back in power.

[Koggit]

"Ryan says the consumption tax for businesses will make it easier for the companies to "invest and create more jobs in the U.S.""

One of my favorite (the worst) talking points: "helping the rich by hurting the poor will create jobs, which helps the poor! i wanna raise the little guy's taxes to help him, you see!"

it's probably the most entertaining of political stances

[Msut77]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2010/02/bipartisan_health-care_summit

[mykevermin]

Wow, when the Economist disagrees with Republican proposals, you know it's terrible.

[elprincipe]

Wow, when the Economist disagrees with Republican proposals, you know it's terrible.

I still am confused as to how you think a pro-market centrist publication is conservative, but whatever.

The Republican proposals are indeed terrible, just terrible in a different way than the Democrats' plans are terrible. Both plans don't strike at the heart of the issue, which is that we have a health-care system designed for 1940s/50s America instead of 2010s America. It's time to sever the link between health care and employment. Sadly, because most people are satisfied with their "free" health insurance through their employer, they won't realize it will be positive for them (and everyone else) to sever this link and will oppose such a plan - not to mention neither party will support it because it would be so easy for the other side to whip up fears over it (oh no! they're going to take away your benefits!!1!!11!).

[thrustbucket]

I've always wanted to be able to opt-out of healthcare and collect the money directly that my employer pays the insurance company. Will anyone's proposals allow this?

[Msut77]

I've always wanted to be able to opt-out of healthcare and collect the money directly that my employer pays the insurance company. Will anyone's proposals allow this?

Morning Bob.

[mykevermin]

pro-market centrist

Do you see what I see?

[Koggit]

I've always wanted to be able to opt-out of healthcare and collect the money directly that my employer pays the insurance company. Will anyone's proposals allow this?

do you understand group health care?

not trying to be a dick, i'm for serious. do you understand group health care?

your wish would worsen the problem for those who are already being fucked, if met.

allowing the healthy to opt out of coverage is exactly what makes the prices extreme for the sick. corporations providing group health to their employees -- making blanket deals with providers, "we'll pay you $x for every employee we have and you keep them all healthy", is small-market socialized medicine, we have it now and it works a shit of a lot better than individual coverage. but it's just our toe, just our toe is dipped, we need to dive.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

do you understand group health care?

not trying to be a dick, i'm for serious. do you understand group health care?

your wish would worsen the problem for those who are already being fucked, if met.

allowing the healthy to opt out of coverage is exactly what makes the prices extreme for the sick. corporations providing group health to their employees -- making blanket deals with providers, "we'll pay you $x for every employee we have and you keep them all healthy", is small-market socialized medicine, we have it now and it works a shit of a lot better than individual coverage. but it's just our toe, just our toe is dipped, we need to dive.

Thrust is just being shortsighted.

For the last two years, my family was having trouble meeting our deductible to clean out our HSA. We had to buy new glasses, visit the dentists and have physicals. Three weeks ago, she spent eight hours in an emergency room wondering if she was having a stroke or Bell's palsy. Problem solved.

[thrustbucket]

My company already pays every employee $100 extra per month to help cover premiums.

I am simply saying that, as someone that hasn't used health insurance at any of my company's in the past 8 years, I can't help but wish I'd had all that money those companies paid out in my behalf.

What's the difference if I opt out of health care coverage and the company saves it's $400 bucks a month or if they give it to me?

I can see why you guys would say I am just being willfully ignorant or obtuse, but this is one time I'll just have to be and be ok with it.

[speedracer]

The problem is the second you fall and crack your face open or wake up with an asploded organ, you're going to go to the hospital. You're going to get a bill for $75,000. And you're going to default, socializing that cost.

When someone chooses to not have health care (or just flat doesn't have it), they're choosing to socialize the costs of any care. Not only that, but by skipping check ups (people that feel fine without insurance don't do checkups), you're significantly increasing the chances that something will be found later than sooner, invariably skyrocketing the cost of fixing it.

Our health care provider PAYS EACH MEMBER OF MY FAMILY $50 a year to get a check up because it's cost effective for them.

I hate insurance dude. I hate my car insurance, my renter's insurance, my health insurance, my life insurance, and my flood insurance (renter's doesn't cover it). I hate the money I pour down the drain year after year. I have never filed a claim for anything other than dental cleanings and a single filling.

But not having it means the taxpayer or provider gets to eat the costs that I can't. Insurance is not only ethical, it's only fair to everyone. That's why I support mandatory single payer. It's only fair that I don't stick you with my bill.

[mykevermin]

But that's not going to happen to thrust. He knows he won't need to go to the hospital.

[elprincipe]

I've always wanted to be able to opt-out of healthcare and collect the money directly that my employer pays the insurance company. Will anyone's proposals allow this?

Of course not, insurance companies wouldn't like that, would they? Do you think insurance companies only contribute to Democrats or Republicans, or both of them? And who got the most from them a couple years back (hint: his last name begins with an O).

Do you see what I see?

Sorry, I can't see anything (I usually have NoScript and the like running and sometimes it causes me not to see pictures). But I do consider them to be centrists who are totally pro-market. I guess from a European perspective they could be considered conservative, but definitely not to an American.

[CaseyRyback]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-11-2010/the-apparent-trap

Sometimes they just knock it out of the park. Dog will show everyone the way!

[Msut77]

That was crazy awesome.

BTW there are some noises coming out about a tentative deal struck on passing a bill.

[UncleBob]

But not having it means the taxpayer or provider gets to eat the costs that I can't. Insurance is not only ethical, it's only fair to everyone. That's why I support mandatory single payer. It's only fair that I don't stick you with my bill.

dot dot dot

[speedracer]

My wife and I lived on the island of Hawaii.

The bummer about the health care system is that you have to work 20 or more hours a week to get it. In Honolulu (and Oahu) where they were dying for skilled and unskilled workers, it was really easy. Our island was much more dependent on tourism and we had the worst economy in the state. It was tough to find a job that would give you 20 hours. You had a choice of many 19 hour jobs.

[Msut77]

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/15/wellpoint-fox-business/

[SpazX]

Well, that's how they seem to operate in general. It's all just whether or not the right team is scoring political points, not the actual effects of anything.

[Msut77]

They don't view anyone not in their little bubbles of wealth and privilege as human beings.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

What do you expect?

If your way of life was going to end in a few years, wouldn't you try to make as much money as possible in the little time you had left?

[RAMSTORIA]

just read an amazing article, you guys really should read this if you care about our country.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/01/obamas-health-care-myths/

[fatherofcaitlyn]

"The WHO publishes reams of data that may more accurately describe the medical care a country receives. For instance, life expectancy is a decent proxy for the overall level of health and healthcare in a country. The life expectancy of those born in the U.S. was 78 years in 2007, up from 77 in 2000 and 75 in 1990."

Translation: The life expectancy is a fact instead of a myth.

"In fact, in 2007 -- the most recent year for which we have data -- health care spending decelerated, to 6.1% from 6.7% in 2006. More interesting is that the rate of growth has dropped every year since 2002, and that the average increase so far this decade -- 7.4%, though modestly ahead of the growth rate in the 1990s, trails far behind the 11.3% increase rate of the 1980s and 12.7% of the 1970s. Health care spending may be growing too rapidly, but it is not accelerating."

Translation: Health care costs are still growing faster than overall growth of the economy. The gap between the two is still growing, but not as fast as before. So, Fox is right. The problem isn't accelerating and getting worse. It is only getting worse.

"In fact, some argue that the growth in the sector stems directly from the aging of the population and advances in medical technologies. Knee replacements are expensive, but they are also now commonplace. Lipitor and other statin drugs cost a great deal, but they also prolong life and can eliminate heart disease. (The unfortunate reality is that prolonging life costs money, too.)"

Translation: Our population sucks. Other countries with older populations don't have the same problems.

"Our fourth healthcare myth is that Americans overwhelmingly want to see the system changed. It just ain't so. A Gallup poll conducted late last year showed that 49% of respondents wanted to maintain the current system, while 41% wanted it to change. In a more recent Rasmussen poll, only 50% of all voters are in favor of the president's reform plan. A mere 12% of respondents think their healthcare coverage will improve under the proposed overhaul, while 37% expect their coverage to be worse. The remaining 37% do not expect to see any change. In other words, 74% of Americans do not see healthcare reform improving their own situation."

Translation: We trust the people saying things like "Get your government hands off of my Medicare." to have an intelligent and informed opinion.

"In fact, a recent Kaiser Foundation poll found that 54% of Americans are not willing to pay more -- either in higher health insurance premiums or higher taxes -- to increase the number of Americans that have coverage. As a country, we are concerned about the rise in healthcare expenditures, and are heartbroken when we hear of people who have been denied medical treatment, but we do not want to pick up the tab for them."

Translation: People won't pay for deadbeats, but forget that hospitals jack up their rack rate because of deadbeats. So, people are already paying for deadbeats whether they know it or not.

[Msut77]

just read an amazing article

I like how proud you are you read one "article", apparently the only one you ever read on the subject.

you guys really should read this if you care about our country.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/01/obamas-health-care-myths/

I care about my country, I am not so sure that you or the Fox organization via this silly bint does.

If you're trying to follow the health care debate, you know there are some "truths" which have been repeated so frequently, and with such vehemence, that they have become gospel. How often have you heard "the costs are skyrocketing" or "our system is broken" or "Americans overwhelmingly support reform"? Here's a heads-up: Some of these are simply baloney.

I was wondering why her breathtakingly clueless and self absorbed tone sounded familiar.

http://news.muckety.com/2009/04/23/liz-peek-outed-as-author-of-confessions-of-a-tarp-wife/14791

What was I saying before about bubbles of wealth and privilege?

For instance, those pushing reform have described our healthcare system as "broken," thus in desperate need of overhaul. The primary evidence for this claim is a report issued by the World Health Organization in 2000 which ranked the U.S. 37th in overall "health performance" despite being number one in spending. (It is noteworthy that the WHO no longer publishes such a ranking -- deeming the process "too difficult.")

Noted that this is the best she could do in trying to set up a strawman and still manages to damn those against reform in one of her first paragraphs.

Betsy McCaughey, in a recent talk before the Manhattan Institute, noted that the rankings were heavily weighted towards social goals, and less towards the effectiveness of medical care. In other words, the WHO studied the distribution of medical attention, and the fairness in financial contribution, placing as much weight on such issues as on actual performance.

Speaking of Stepford Wives past their sell by date:

http://gawker.com/5337724/betsy-mccaughey-liar

Further, according to Princeton professors Uwe Reinhardt and Tsung-mei Chung, the rankings "are not based on the actual values achieved by the nation, but on the ratio of the achieved values to the values that ought to have been achieved, given the country's educational attainment and spending." They point out that the rankings, in effect, were determined by the opinions of those surveyed. In short, this is hardly a scientific assessment.

Uwe Reinhardt may have said this and I am more than willing to state the rankings aren't perfect but this does not even begin to attack the notion that it is ok for Americans to spend multiple times what other countries do for the privilege of enriching a relative few while subjecting tens of thousands of fellow citizens to pain and death and millions more to medical bankruptcy.

Meanwhile has op or the author read anything else by Uwe Reinhardt?

http://www.usnews.com/health/articles/2009/07/01/uwe-reinhardt-plain-talk-on-health-reform.html

The guy is an expert undoubtedly but also vehemently pro universal healthcare.

Even against this bias, the U.S. ranked number one in "responsiveness" -- that is in actually delivering care, but got hammered on "fairness of financial contribution." The country that scored highest on that metric -- Colombia -- ranked 82nd on responsiveness. Would you rather be treated in Colombia or in the U.S.?

The WHO publishes reams of data that may more accurately describe the medical care a country receives. For instance, life expectancy is a decent proxy for the overall level of health and healthcare in a country. The life expectancy of those born in the U.S. was 78 years in 2007, up from 77 in 2000 and 75 in 1990. This figure is not at the top of the heap -- Japan's sushi-eaters can hope to live to 83, for instance, while a number of Western countries (Iceland, Italy and Australia among others) are at 82, but it is certainly respectable and better than most. The Russian Federation, for instance, has a life expectancy of only 66 years. Another gauge of a country's medical support is infant mortality. In the U.S., the WHO says, 4 out of every 1,000 births ends in death; only a handful of countries report a lower figure. Statistics show that 99% of births in the US are attended by "skilled health personnel" -- a figure only surpassed by Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tuvalu, among others. (Do we detect the challenges confronted by the WHO's data collectors?)

I honestly don't know what to say to this "We may live 5 years less but at least we don't eat raw fish" or "At least we ain't Russia".

Myth number two about our healthcare system is that the growth in spending on healthcare has accelerated in recent years. In fact, in 2007 -- the most recent year for which we have data -- health care spending decelerated, to 6.1% from 6.7% in 2006. More interesting is that the rate of growth has dropped every year since 2002, and that the average increase so far this decade -- 7.4%, though modestly ahead of the growth rate in the 1990s, trails far behind the 11.3% increase rate of the 1980s and 12.7% of the 1970s. Health care spending may be growing too rapidly, but it is not accelerating.

If you are going after healthcare "lies" you might want to parse a bit less before you admit you got nothing.

If one wasn't a professional troll they might compare growth in healthcare costs to income, something Rand Corporation does or which you can read about here:

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/26/1/154

Myth number three about health care spending is that the increases in outlays portray a system "out of control" and bloated by greed and inefficiency. In fact, some argue that the growth in the sector stems directly from the aging of the population and advances in medical technologies. Knee replacements are expensive, but they are also now commonplace. Lipitor and other statin drugs cost a great deal, but they also prolong life and can eliminate heart disease. (The unfortunate reality is that prolonging life costs money, too.)

The fact that medical technology is helping to fuel rising costs isn't in doubt but that still does nothing to explain why we spend so much more than countries facing the same challenges. "Some" say greed and inefficiency does.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, from 1997 to 2007 the number of prescriptions purchased in the US rose 72%, while the population grew just 11%. Over half of Americans take one prescription drug on a regular basis; one in five takes four or more. Overall, prescription drugs account for only 10% of the healthcare dollar, but this category has grown faster than overall spending. The reality is that Americans choose to spend money on the best treatments available.

The reality is that a prescription drug plan was passed designed to enrich corporations to the detriment of everyone else.

Our fourth healthcare myth is that Americans overwhelmingly want to see the system changed. It just ain't so. A Gallup poll conducted late last year showed that 49% of respondents wanted to maintain the current system, while 41% wanted it to change. In a more recent Rasmussen poll, only 50% of all voters are in favor of the president's reform plan. A mere 12% of respondents think their healthcare coverage will improve under the proposed overhaul, while 37% expect their coverage to be worse. The remaining 37% do not expect to see any change. In other words, 74% of Americans do not see healthcare reform improving their own situation.

There is so much fail here... I can find hundreds of polls saying Americans are pro reform, as for her "analysis" someone not seeing (note whether that means they are effected or otherwise) a change isn't an argument against reform. Not those numbers include the millions of people covered under various communist programs such as medicare.

The fifth myth is that Americans are deeply concerned about extending health insurance to those not covered. In fact, a recent Kaiser Foundation poll found that 54% of Americans are not willing to pay more -- either in higher health insurance premiums or higher taxes -- to increase the number of Americans that have coverage. As a country, we are concerned about the rise in healthcare expenditures, and are heartbroken when we hear of people who have been denied medical treatment, but we do not want to pick up the tab for them.

I was wondering if she was going to deign to mention the uninsured and she manages to do it in the most incredibly horrid way imaginable.

Note to her and other Americans you are already paying for the uninsured WHEN THEY GO TO THE fucking Emergency Room you are paying in the least efficient and most expensive fucking way possible.

The United States does have to confront the reality that some people in this country are crushed by medical costs, and some receive inadequate treatment. But the debate over how to remedy these problems should be framed by facts, not myths.

Yes.... they should.

[RAMSTORIA]

oh man, thats was great. i didnt even read that article, just googled "health care reform myths" and it came up, saw it was from fox, posted it. i was really hoping i would get msut worked up, and i did. thanks guys, made my morning a little more fun.

[Msut77]

Figures, back on my ignore list you go.

[RAMSTORIA]

Figures, back on my ignore list you go.

lawls

[Msut77]

Now back to substance:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/what-is-affordable-health-care/

[speedracer]

just read an amazing article
i didnt even read that article
Fail troll is fail.

[The Crotch]

Did... did I just see some of the weakest fuckin' sauce in the history of the Vs forum?

[RAMSTORIA]

Fail troll is fail.

must have been a typo.

Did... did I just see some of the weakest fuckin' sauce in the history of the Vs forum?

i know, its amazing. :applause:

[fatherofcaitlyn]

i know, its amazing. :applause:

And you're proud of it.

Nice.

Are you interested in any honest debate today or should I come back tomorrow?

[RAMSTORIA]

And you're proud of it.

Nice.

Are you interested in any honest debate today or should I come back tomorrow?

bad day at work, im trying the best i can to keep myself entertained. honest debate, not today, maybe when im off work. but if you want to debate about health care costs rising rapidly as part of a reptilian plot to bankrupt the united states, then yes. lets talk.

[thrustbucket]

Here is some debate fodder that might have been covered in this thread already but I'm too lazy to look:

Is health care a human right? Why or why not?

[dmaul1114]

Is health care a human right? Why or why not?

Sure. If the "pursuit of happiness" is a right, health care should be as well right? Can't pursue happiness if you don't have your health.

On top of that--though a bit beyond the right issue--a society is pretty worthless if it can't at least take care of it's citizenry on a basic level of making sure everyone has access to essential health care, no one is going bankrupt over medical costs etc.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Here is some debate fodder that might have been covered in this thread already but I'm too lazy to look:

Is health care a human right? Why or why not?

Nope. Neither is food, water or air.

Is a society that allows a large portion of its people to suffer good or bad?

[SpazX]

I think I'm kinda going with FoC here. What the hell is a human right in the first place? We make all this shit up, so what's with the categories? And I don't think we're trying to extend health insurance to all humans at this point, so I don't know if it's even really a legitimate question.

But if you're asking if I think all Americans should have access to health insurance and think that it's feasible and better than the current system, then yes. When I'm the supreme leader of the world then maybe we can talk about what I think all humans should be getting and how we'll go about doing that.

[dmaul1114]

I think I'm kinda going with FoC here. What the hell is a human right in the first place? We make all this shit up, so what's with the categories? .

Exactly. It's not like human rights are some set in stone list of things. Again, pursuit of happiness is pretty damn vague, yet it's an unalienable right per the declaration of independence.

If that can be an unalienable right, so can health care. Especially since, as I noted, it can piggy back on that one as you can't pursue happiness, success etc. if you're not healthy enough to do so.

[SpazX]

Not really gonna fare too well with the life part either, and the liberty is debatable considering what debilitating preventable illnesses can do to your ability to do shit, but then again, the liberty party is pretty much always debatable.

[speedracer]

Is health care a human right? Why or why not?
It absolutely is and that's the root of the whole problem. No one advocates refusing health care to people in need. The entire system is broken precisely because the market cannot refuse to provide its services.

Which means market forces probably shouldn't be the only barometer for success in this one instance of the economy.* We can debate it as if it matters, but in reality it is the de facto conclusion.

*Surprise! You're a socialist pig.

[Msut77]

What do you expect?

If your way of life was going to end in a few years, wouldn't you try to make as much money as possible in the little time you had left?

One of the reasons why they get away with it even with those who aren't rich is that the average Fox News viewer is 109 years old and so is enrolled in medicare and has been for so long they have forgotten what it is like to be at the mercy of the so called market.

[Msut77]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/21/AR2010022102915.html

Above all, Obama is trying to force Republicans to put their own health-care ideas on the table. On Monday, he's posting his own proposal, which will draw on the bills passed by the Senate and the House. Suddenly, the debate is no longer just about the flaws, real and imagined, in Democratic proposals. It becomes a choice between what the Democrats want to do and what the Republicans want to do. That's a fair fight.
----
To say that the one legitimate way to pass bills is to get a lot of Republicans to vote for them is to insist that election results don't matter and that only conservative legislation will ever get through Congress. All the Republicans have to do is be stubborn and yell a lot about being "excluded."

[UncleBob]

lol... Canada has the BESTEST HEALTH CARE EVER!!!
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5h0QC7bditrEb3wYz_6_b-gsGGDxA

[SpazX]

Lol, you should read the third link in that article Bob.

Hell, I'll make it easy, here it is: http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/02/23/canadian-health-care-survives-danny-williams-surgery/

[fatherofcaitlyn]

"Williams also said he paid for the treatment, but added he would seek any refunds he would be eligible for in Canada."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dick

[mykevermin]

We've already discussed Danny Millions in this thread.

[UncleBob]

I just find it amusing that a wealthy, well to do Canidian chooses to have major health care done in the US - and pay for it himself. I also like the part where he's concerned he might be "perceived as jumping a line or a wait list" - I mean, that's just crazy talk! There are no lines in Canada! There are no lines in Canada and the streets are paved with cheese! There are no lines in Canada, so set your mind at ease!

[SpazX]

There are going to be lines, there are lines here (or do you think every doctor here is just sitting around waiting for somebody to come and no more than 1 person ever wants care from the same doctor at the same time). The issue is whether or not they affect people's health.

[mykevermin]

You spent a lot of time putting together a couplet when you could have read more than one article on Danny Millions and coming to a conclusion.

One dude? That's the same mentality that sees snow outside one day and claims global warming must be false.

[UncleBob]

You spent a lot of time putting together a couplet when you could have read more than one article on Danny Millions and coming to a conclusion.

One dude? That's the same mentality that sees snow outside one day and claims global warming must be false.

Umm... I didn't really put that together... It's really not an original work by any means. Replace "Canada" with "America" and "lines" with "cats" and perhaps it'll come back to you.

And, for the record, I even read Spaz's article - including the comments. Fun times.

PS: Love the "Danny Millions". Nothing like throwing a little wealth envy and name fudging around. Oh, look, it's Bill Gate$! And Steve No-need-for-a-Jobs! Comeon everyone, let's go watch some Faux News! About as mature and awesome as "OwlGore"

[mykevermin]

Why do you bring up his case, then? Are you or are you not indicting the Canadian system? Are you or are you not bolstering the US system? Specifically, what do you find this lone case indicts or bolsters?

Might as well bring up Brock Lesnar's case. He was in a canadian hospital that took three days to get a replacement part for a machine. OMG Canadian health care in the entire nation is totally fucked and everyone dies and no one gets help!

*sigh*

[UncleBob]

I brought up his case because it had some interesting aspects to it. I like that he's a rather smart guy who made the fully informed decision that it was better for him to pay for his health care so that he could be assured to get the quality he wanted rather than let the government pay for it and get whatever they felt was best.

[mykevermin]

right.

because he didn't have access to the same procedure in Canada. Wait, that's not right.

because he had to wait in line. Wait, that's not right.

because he had another procedure recommended. Well, that's right, but that doesn't mean he could not have gotten the less invasive procedure done there.

because the United States developed and perfected this procedure. Wait, that's not right. It was Canada.

What's so "fully-informed" about the decision? What makes it the "best" decision? What makes it a "better" decision? You're risking a tautology here. Is it the best inherently because he chose it or did he chose it because it is the best?

Select and defend your response.

[SpazX]

When did he consult the government about what they thought was best? I'm pretty sure he was talking to doctors.

[mykevermin]

No, they held a gun to his head. And told him he was just getting half a bottle of expired "Triaminic."

And it wasn't even the orange flavour.

[UncleBob]

right.

because he didn't have access to the same procedure in Canada. Wait, that's not right.

because he had to wait in line. Wait, that's not right.

because he had another procedure recommended. Well, that's right, but that doesn't mean he could not have gotten the less invasive procedure done there.

because the United States developed and perfected this procedure. Wait, that's not right. It was Canada.

What's so "fully-informed" about the decision? What makes it the "best" decision? What makes it a "better" decision? You're risking a tautology here. Is it the best inherently because he chose it or did he chose it because it is the best?

Select and defend your response.

You're right. I bet he risked his life and political career just because he wanted some Miami sunshine. Can say I blamed him... All those Canadians living in igloos.

[SpazX]

So you're going with the tautology?

[The Crotch]

You're right. I bet he risked his life and political career just because he wanted some Miami sunshine. Can say I blamed him... All those Canadians living in igloos.
He is an incredibly popular politician in his province who has built his career - and a sort of really, really wimpy personality cult - on pissing off other parts of the country.

I don't think he's all that worried.

[IRHari]

Weiner Offends The GOP On House Floor: You’re All ‘Owned’ By The ‘Insurance Industry’! » (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/24/anthony-weiner-subsidiary/)

Today, the House of Representatives debated the Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act, legislation that would repeal the 65 year exemption (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/24/840223/-House-Takes-Up-Anti-Trust-Repeal) health insurance companies have from anti-trust regulations.
Speaking on the House floor this afternoon, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) lambasted Republicans for being “a wholly owned subsidiary of an insurance industry,” prompting an offended Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) to lodge a complaint:
WEINER: You guys have chutzpah. The Republican Party is the wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry. They say this isn’t going to do enough, but when we propose an alternative to provide competition, they’re against it. They say we want to strengthen state insurance commissioners and they’ll do the job. But when we did that in our national health care bill, they said we’re against it. They said we want to have competition but when we proposed requiring competition they’re against it. They’re a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry. That’s the fact!
LUNGREN: Mr. Speaker I ask that the gentleman’s words be taken down.
WEINER: You really don’t want to go there, Mr. Lungren.
A minute later, Weiner returned to the floor and withdrew his words, and then substituted them by clarifying, “Make no mistake about it, every single Republican I have ever met in my entire life is a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry!”
Lungren once again immediately demanded that Weiner’s words be taken down. Weiner once more finally returned to the floor to withdraw his words, and ended his statement by saying that he has had “enough of the phoniness. We are gonna solve this problem because for years our Republican friends have been unable to and unwilling to. Deal with it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOQ2GEGm3v0)!” His colleagues applauded his remarks.



Watch it:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOQ2GEGm3v0


At the end of the debate, the House voted 406-19 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35560878/ns/business/) to repeal the insurers’ long-held exemption from anti-trust laws.

[Msut77]

Good for Weiner although I am not particularly proud of Democrats for only being the Insurance Companies whores on weekends.

At the end of the debate, the House voted 406-19 to repeal the insurers’ long-held exemption from anti-trust laws.

Watch this die in the Senate.

[elprincipe]

Weiner Offends The GOP On House Floor: You’re All ‘Owned’ By The ‘Insurance Industry’! » (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/24/anthony-weiner-subsidiary/)

Today, the House of Representatives debated the Health Insurance Industry Fair Competition Act, legislation that would repeal the 65 year exemption (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/24/840223/-House-Takes-Up-Anti-Trust-Repeal) health insurance companies have from anti-trust regulations.
Speaking on the House floor this afternoon, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) lambasted Republicans for being “a wholly owned subsidiary of an insurance industry,” prompting an offended Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) to lodge a complaint:
WEINER: You guys have chutzpah. The Republican Party is the wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry. They say this isn’t going to do enough, but when we propose an alternative to provide competition, they’re against it. They say we want to strengthen state insurance commissioners and they’ll do the job. But when we did that in our national health care bill, they said we’re against it. They said we want to have competition but when we proposed requiring competition they’re against it. They’re a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry. That’s the fact!
LUNGREN: Mr. Speaker I ask that the gentleman’s words be taken down.
WEINER: You really don’t want to go there, Mr. Lungren.
A minute later, Weiner returned to the floor and withdrew his words, and then substituted them by clarifying, “Make no mistake about it, every single Republican I have ever met in my entire life is a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry!”
Lungren once again immediately demanded that Weiner’s words be taken down. Weiner once more finally returned to the floor to withdraw his words, and ended his statement by saying that he has had “enough of the phoniness. We are gonna solve this problem because for years our Republican friends have been unable to and unwilling to. Deal with it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOQ2GEGm3v0)!” His colleagues applauded his remarks.



Watch it:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOQ2GEGm3v0


At the end of the debate, the House voted 406-19 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35560878/ns/business/) to repeal the insurers’ long-held exemption from anti-trust laws.

I guess that makes Democrats only mostly-owned subsidiaries:

http://www.campaignmoney.com/Health_Insurance.asp

[Msut77]

What really shocks me is how insurance companies are still trying to kill the bill, I suppose they figure drowning them with cash is still drowning them.

[mykevermin]

What shocks me is how Wellpoint seems to be indirectly trying to support the bill with their massive, highly publicized rate hikes.

WAIT UNTIL AFTER WE KILL IT! YOU KNOW THE RULES!

[RAMSTORIA]

evidently republicans have said they have a better plan. no words on what those plans are, but they have it!

i kinda wish i could watch this at work, but not really. im sure id just be bored or angry.

[IRHari]

The best opening speaker was Senator Lamar Alexander, no doubt. I think he's a great speaker. Anyways, this isn't really interesting, they came up with at least one compromise (undercover patients) but a lot of it has been talking points.

[Msut77]

What shocks me is how Wellpoint seems to be indirectly trying to support the bill with their massive, highly publicized rate hikes.

WAIT UNTIL AFTER WE KILL IT! YOU KNOW THE RULES!

Which are still going through btw:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/24/business/la-fi-insure24-2010feb24

[fatherofcaitlyn]

You have to understand what a last harvest is.

[Koggit]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting

without a teleprompter obama is by a far the most eloquent straight-talker in the room, i really dont get why the right pretends the man can't talk. he can talk. he just has no balls.

[IRHari]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting

obama is by a far the most eloquent straight-talker in the room, i really dont get why the right pretends the man can't talk. he can talk. he just has balls.

fixed.

[Msut77]

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/michael-steele-says-obama-should-hav

[SpazX]

Fucking Boehner I swear to fucking god.

[Quillion]

Fucking Boehner I swear to fucking god.
What did Boner say? I'm curious because I live in his district and love extra reasons to vote against him.

[SpazX]

His comments were probably the most worthless in the whole thing so far. Nothing but talking points. He should get put in the corner for that shit.

Btw, I like how Obama's nametag is slightly bigger than all the others (or at least appears that way).

[IRHari]

I actually think Grassley & Boehner might be tied for the most partisan talking point filled comments. Enzi's & Lamar's were the best from the Republicans side (so far) and I thought Durbin's and Kent Conrad's were good from the Democrats side.

EDIT: add Iceman McConnell to Grassley & Boehner's group.

Obama apparently told McCain 'John, the elections over'.

At least McCain has health insurance, to help pay for his burn treatment.

[dmaul1114]

Only caught the last 90 minutes or so.

Seemed pretty pointless with just the same talking points on both sides we've heard for ages.

Only positive I took away (from again only catching the end) is that they want progress by the end of March, and it sounds like pushing it through with 51 votes if they can't compromise and get to 60 may be back on the table.

[mykevermin]

Obama pretty much ended with a challenge for Congress to "shit or get off the pot."

Good to hear.

[dmaul1114]

Yep, that was another positive to see Obama finally getting involved, sticking his neck out and telling them to get something done and quit this stalling bullshit.

[SpazX]

There was some good stuff, I missed maybe the first 2 hours or so, I think I started watching it around 12. When they just used some talking points Obama at least called them on it so it wasn't just left at that. We'll see how much of an effect it has on both popular opinion and the passage of the bill.

[usickenme]

Obama apparently told McCain 'John, the elections over'.




Not for McCain, he faces a Tea-Partier and has to re-establish his conservative cred.

[The Crotch]

Obama pretty much ended with a challenge for Congress to "shit or get off the pot."
A billion points if he says, "Are you gonna smoke that thing or making love to it?"

[dmaul1114]

One question/worry I have though is.....Is it really worth the political fall out to push the bill--in it's current form or something similar--through?

If it was a full on national health care bill with a strong public option I'd say hell yes. Force it through and if it costs dems both houses and makes Obama a one termer, go for it as that's worthwhile change.

But with this gimped bill, I'm not sure it's worth the consequences of being back under republican majorities and having a republican president in Jan 2013, which would probably be the fall out--at least the former. Things might settled down again before the 2012 presidential election.

[Ruined]

IMO reconciliation will lead to a gimped bill and Democrats and as a result of the fallout/anger over using it losing the house, the senate, and possibly the presidency by 2012. But, they may feel it is worth it.

[dmaul1114]

Yeah, that's my worry. If they're going to go that route, they need to say fuck it and put a strong public option back in as long as they can get the 51 votes for that.

I just don't see this gimped bill being worth that as it will kill any chance of changes in other areas.

[Ruined]

Yeah, that's my worry. If they're going to go that route, they need to say fuck it and put a strong public option back in as long as they can get the 51 votes for that.

I just don't see this gimped bill being worth that as it will kill any chance of changes in other areas.

They can't put a public option back in w/51 votes. What they could do is have the house pass the senate bill, then have the senate using reconciliation modify some parts of the senate bill the house did not like (i.e. excise tax on "cadillac plans"). Since the public option never passed at all in the senate w/60 votes (unlike the house), there would be no feasible way to get it in a 51 vote bill.

IMO at best you'd be looking at a slightly modified senate bill w/ reconciliation, and at the likely cost of losing both the senate and the house by 2012, possibly even the presidency.

[IRHari]

I think the Democrats have been called out on their hypocrisy, doing things the Republicans are doing now (cept related to judicial nominees and such), complaining about the filibuster and such.

However in the end they got a lot of those things through, with reconciliation. So Democrats, suck it up and do what Republicans did. With a public option. Sounds like a toilet seat at the train station doesnt it? Why not medicare for all...ah fuck this we've had this discussion. Old people are going to die quickly, right Dr. Coburn?

[Msut77]

The political fallout from letting the bill die will be worse than getting this admittedly crappy bill through.

Also this is pretty much it for years, after Republicans killed Clinton's attempt it took more than a decade for another whack at it.

The bill has some good things in it and there is plenty to build off of.

[Msut77]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/opinion/26krugman.html?src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman

Don’t take my word for it. Look at the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House G.O.P. plan. That analysis is discreetly worded, with the budget office declaring somewhat obscurely that while the number of uninsured Americans wouldn’t change much, “the pool of people without health insurance would end up being less healthy, on average, than under current law.” But here’s the translation: While some people would gain insurance, the people losing insurance would be those who need it most. Under the Republican plan, the American health care system would become even more brutal than it is now.

[Msut77]

http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2010/02/are-right-wingers-even-same-species-as.html

[fatherofcaitlyn]

http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2010/02/are-right-wingers-even-same-species-as.html

I have to start listening to Limbaugh. I'm trying to lose weight. Disgust might suppress my appetite.

[Papa Neorev]

One question/worry I have though is.....Is it really worth the political fall out to push the bill--in it's current form or something similar--through?

If it was a full on national health care bill with a strong public option I'd say hell yes. Force it through and if it costs dems both houses and makes Obama a one termer, go for it as that's worthwhile change.

But with this gimped bill, I'm not sure it's worth the consequences of being back under republican majorities and having a republican president in Jan 2013, which would probably be the fall out--at least the former. Things might settled down again before the 2012 presidential election.

it's a little late to be worried about political fallout. I say force the dems into ramming it through, taking heavy casualties in politics. Essentially allowed at some point a republican majority again which can then turn around and force bills through and the dems can choke on them.

And maybe even some attempts at rollback or changing policies that the "democrat healthcare bill" affects.

[Msut77]

I have to start listening to Limbaugh. I'm trying to lose weight. Disgust might suppress my appetite.

I was just thinking about how Republicans just kept repeating "Best Healthcare in the World" ad nauseum, the example they used was of incredibly rich people coming here for surgeries.

So yeah we have the best healthcare for millionaires on the planet.

America fuck Yeah.

[SpazX]

If everybody could go to the doctor, wouldn't that make them worse? The best shit is always limited access man.

[speedracer]

A letter to the president from Boehner and Cantor:
If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand? Our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency.
Then when Obama releases his plan 4 days before:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) criticized the White House's plan to post a health care reform proposal online, just days before the upcoming health care summit. "You know, apparently we're going to be there most of the day and have an opportunity to have a lot of discussion," said McConnell. "But if they're going lay out the plan they want to pass four days in advance, then why are -- what are we discussing on Thursday?"
Your modern GOP.

[mykevermin]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y55/silverbeam/CSM%20Blog/LucyFootball.jpg

I feel like this image should be used more in the modern political discourse.

[Msut77]

A letter to the president from Boehner and Cantor:

Then when Obama releases his plan 4 days before:

Your modern GOP.

They spent months carting around copies of the bill in a wheelbarrow and then complain about Obama's suggestions for coming in about 15 pages.

They are children.

The only question is whether they are really that stupid or just evil.

[Msut77]

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/02/hayek-on-health-care.php

This one threw me for a bit of a loop.

[mykevermin]

Well, Hayek is clearly a Marxist.

what?

[dmaul1114]

Well, Hayek is clearly a Marxist.

what?

:lol:

Shows where my brain is when I had to click the link and see what the hell was up with Salma Hayek and health care! :D

[Msut77]

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/deaths-rising-due-to-lack-of-insurance-study-finds/?hp

[Msut77]

http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2010/02/health-care-holocaust.html

[mykevermin]

Eric Cantor was on MtP this morning repeating the GOP's arguments on health care. When pressed for an actual platform for health care, it came down to two things:
1) tort reform
2) across-state-insurance purchases

Now, let's set aside for a moment that the CBO says cost savings from tort reform would be modest (around a 3% decline in health care costs, to say nothing of the fact that this debate is centered around the accelerated year-over-year *increase* in costs, making a tiny one-time decline so moot it's silly).

I want to ask about the logic of interstate insurance sales. The idea I keep hearing is akin to this great options = greater competition = the great wheel of capitalism keeps turning and costs go down.

Ok, fine. People will seek out the care that they want and at the rate they're willing to pay for. Great.

How will this solve the issues of cost of care for anybody but the healthy though? I see healthy people all running to the state with the cheapest insurance available to them. Some of you in here have asked for as much. This state, by virtue of maintaining low costs, will have to deny somebody - remember, mandatory insurance is not a part of the GOP plan.

So who gets kept out of the clubhouse? The high risk folks: smokers, overweight, preexisting conditions, long-term treatments, cancer patients, etc. The very people for whom the current crushing burden of the cost of medical care is a problem. Without low-risk (i.e. profitable) persons to offset the cost of care for these sick-people-loss-leaders, there won't be many/any insurance companies willing to take them on. I foresee an outcome of interstate competition where the very people who are harmed under the current health care system will fare worse as a result of the GOP's proposal of interstate commerce.

The logic of interstate competition is based not on a well-thought-through policy analysis but by somebody who buys into the idealist philosophy of capitalism - that the market will always work, and will always work best. I don't see any possible outcome but a cluster effect where low-risk people get as far away from high-risk people as possible - after all, avoiding them leads to a reduced premium. So the high-risk high-cost folks end up high and dry.

So, if you are someone who supports the idea of interstate competition - thrust, ruined, or anyone else who despises the Democrat plan versions House or Senate - I'm beggin' ya, explain the logic to me that interstate competition leads to a beneficial outcome for all patients. How do high-risk insurance holders benefit from this?

[dmaul1114]

Well, to be fair to those guys, I've not seen any of them say they're opposed to reforming insurance to stop denials for pre-existing conditions etc.

I think even a lot of the republican's are OK with that (did Cantor say he wasn't, or just not bring it up as he didn't want to bring up any area where the dems and repubs are in agreement?).

They just don't want a public option, national pool of providers etc. and think a free market of interstate competition can get prices down, along with tort reform. I don't think many are opposed to deal with problems in the system like being denied coverage etc.

[Msut77]

I've not seen any of them say they're opposed to reforming insurance to stop denials for pre-existing conditions etc.

As dumb as Republicans are they aren't quite that dumb.

Marketing and framing is where Republicans are kings anyway.

I think even a lot of the republican's are OK with that (did Cantor say he wasn't, or just not bring it up as he didn't want to bring up any area where the dems and repubs are in agreement?).

It is more than fair to say by now that they do not give a fuck.

They just don't want a public option, national pool of providers etc. and think a free market of interstate competition can get prices down, along with tort reform.

Even if they were to honestly believe all that (and if there is one thing I learned over the years it is treating someones argument in good faith is earned) it doesn't mean anything since they are unequivocally wrong and this was explained to them.

I don't think many are opposed to deal with problems in the system like being denied coverage etc.

They are opposed to anyone getting anything that isn't either a corporation (preferably a donor) or a extremely weatlhy person (preferably a donor). What measures exactly, did the GOP take to help the uninsured or those with insurance squeezed by the system while they were in charge?

[dmaul1114]

As you say, I don't think they care per se. I just think there not opposed to the reforms to stop coverage denials for pre-existing conditions etc.

But they're not going to talk about that as they're going to focus on being obstructionist and not acknowledge any compromises they're willing to make, while they keep spouting the interstate options and tort reform bullshit as the panacea to the insurance problem.

[mykevermin]

Well, to be fair to those guys, I've not seen any of them say they're opposed to reforming insurance to stop denials for pre-existing conditions etc.

I think even a lot of the republican's are OK with that (did Cantor say he wasn't, or just not bring it up as he didn't want to bring up any area where the dems and repubs are in agreement?).

They just don't want a public option, national pool of providers etc. and think a free market of interstate competition can get prices down, along with tort reform. I don't think many are opposed to deal with problems in the system like being denied coverage etc.

I think the fact that we're not certain whether or not denying preexisting conditions is an important aspect of interstate competition to Republicans is emblematic of how vapid the GOP's solutions are. They haven't elaborated on the benefits or conditions of "freeing up the market," they've merely asserted that it stands that greater competition means lower prices.

Moreover, forcing insurance companies to take on high-risk pools is contrary to free-market principles, and won't reduce insurance costs. Could increase premiums since you have a whole caste of insurance "untouchables" in the current can-deny system who will be forced to be taken on by companies.

Worst of all is that this free-market pro-market ideal could easily be subverted. If I'm an insurance company, I'd just offer low yet profitable premiums to low-risk healthy folks and price the high-risk pool out of joining. Yeah, I'll offer you insurance, but your premiums are so high - higher than before - so that you will look elsewhere for insurance. I didn't deny them, they *chose* (coughcough) to take their business elsewhere. And you can't regulate the price of premiums relative to risk, unless you want people to debate on news channels, without joking, whether or not you're a socialist.

The GOP plan is a disaster, it's poorly thought through, and I see no possibility how it will expand coverage and lower costs at the same time. I guess at this point the best way to expose that is to discuss the logical absurdity of what aspects of reform they exalt as crucial.

[IRHari]

I definitely heart the professor at the lecturn, he did a good job explaining what the problem was with creating separate pools of people (high risk, low risk, etc.) as opposed to one giant pool to spread the risk around.

[IRHari]

ok dude i didnt say that, what the hell is that. why would you do that.

BUT:


"Write those letters now; call your friends and them to write them. If you don't, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country...And if you don't do this and if I don't do it, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free."

Your hero Ronald Reagan said that about Medicare. Not sure what 'freedoms' we've lost.

[mykevermin]

The freedom to dispute ketchup's status as a vegetable for starters.

[dmaul1114]

The GOP plan is a disaster, it's poorly thought through, and I see no possibility how it will expand coverage and lower costs at the same time. I guess at this point the best way to expose that is to discuss the logical absurdity of what aspects of reform they exalt as crucial.


Agree 100%.

The only way to expand coverage and lower costs is to have a strong public option.

Otherwise, as you note, the costs of insuring the "'untouchables" will just get passed on to everyone by the insurance companies, and will more than offset any small savings from tort reform and interstate competition.

The only way to keep prices down is to have a public option that's ran as a non-profit that forces private companies to keep rates down and take less profit.

Medical insurance never should have been a for profit enterprise. It should been ran as a non-profit with premiums set at the lowest possible levels to keep the system afloat and to keep cash reserves for unexpected costs in the system etc. Not set up to find ways to make as much money for the insurance companies as possible. Public health shouldn't be a capitalistic enterprise motivated by greed.

[Msut77]

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/once-more-health-care-cost-control/

[tivo]

The only way to keep prices down is to have a public option that's ran as a non-profit that forces private companies to keep rates down and take less profit.

Medical insurance never should have been a for profit enterprise. It should been ran as a non-profit with premiums set at the lowest possible levels to keep the system afloat and to keep cash reserves for unexpected costs in the system etc. Not set up to find ways to make as much money for the insurance companies as possible. Public health shouldn't be a capitalistic enterprise motivated by greed.

"According to the most recent Fortune 500 rankings (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/performers/industries/profits/), health insurers are not even among the top-30 United States industries in profit-margin. Health insurers rank 35th, with a profit-margin of just 2.2 percent — less than one-fifth the profit-margin of railroads. None of the ten largest American health insurers made profits of more than 4.5 percent, and two of them lost money. Health insurers’ collective profit-margin is less than one-eighth that of drug companies and less than one-seventh that of companies that sell medical products or equipment. It’s also less than that of medical facilities. Yet when was the last time you heard President Obama rail against greedy hospitals?

The combined profits of America’s ten largest health insurers are $8.3 billion. That’s less than two-thirds of the profits of Wal-Mart alone, less than half of the profits of General Electric alone, and less than one-seventh of what Medicare loses each year to fraud. Health insurers collectively have one-eighth the profit-margin of McDonald’s or Coke, one-ninth that of eBay, and one-fifteenth that of Merck.

Why don’t these much more profitable companies or industries need to be taken over by the federal government? Why don’t they need to be subjected to something like President Obama’s proposed Health Insurance Rate Authority, which would be run by the same U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that already loses $60 billion of taxpayer money to Medicare fraud each year? (Not that I want to give the Obama administration any ideas.)

In all, the combined profits of the 14 largest American health insurers (the ones who crack the Fortune 1000) are $8.7 billion. That’s less than 0.4 percent, or 1/250th, of overall U.S. health-care costs, which are $2.5 trillion.

Anyone but an ideologue could plainly see that insurance profits aren’t the problem. The problem is having a health-care system with too many middlemen (government or otherwise); too little competition and choice; and too little opportunity for Americans to control their own health-care dollars, shop for value, or even see prices.

If you can’t identify the problem, you aren’t likely to stumble upon the solution. Maybe that’s why the Congressional Budget Office says that, under Obamacare, which would cost $2.5 trillion in its real first decade (2014 to 2023), the average family’s insurance premiums in the individual market would increase by $2,100 in relation to current law — while under the House Republican health bill, which would cost $61 billion (just 2 percent as much as Obamacare), the average premiums would be reduced by 5 to 8 percent.

President Obama likes to say that the Republicans don’t have any ideas, but the House GOP bill would clearly make the American health-care system better. The small bill would make it better still. Obamacare would raise nationwide health costs, siphon billions out of barely solvent Medicare and spend them elsewhere, cut Medicare Advantage benefits by an average of $21,000 per beneficiary in its real first decade, politicize medicine, reduce liberty, raise taxes, cost jobs, and inevitably lead to rationed care...
"

Read more + sources.....
http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Njk4NmQ3YmI1N2QzMWFjMzFiY2ZlMmVjNGUxZTNiMGM=

[dmaul1114]

The difference again is whether or not you view health care as a basic human right.

If you do, then you probably share my view that the top insurance companies shouldn't be making $8.3 Billion profits.

You're right that waste and costs need to come down, but part of that ideally would be a national health care system that worked to make sure every citizen had access to their health care which I view as a basic right, not to make as much profit as they can.

Wal-mart and other companies can make as much profit as they want, as consumerism isn't a basic human right. Consumerism should be a private industry, and should be driven by the market and designed around capitalistic notions of maximizing profit.

Health care should not IMO.

[mykevermin]

Wellpoint had enough money to buy nearly $40 *B*illion of its own stock last year.

So there's something wrong in the accounting in the op-ed you're citing.

[tivo]

Small-Bill Proposal for Sensible Health-Care Reform

To make health insurance more accessible, affordable, and portable — without increasing government
control, jeopardizing the quality of care, or breaking the bank:

1. Cut costs by preventing runaway malpractice lawsuits. Relieve doctors from having to practice costly
defensive medicine, by capping noneconomic and punitive damages, while continuing to allow unlimited
economic damages to compensate for financial loss. (No increase in government spending. Savings: $53
billion to the federal government, and billions in additional savings to private citizens.*)

2. Cut costs by allowing Americans to buy insurance across state lines. Allow Americans to shop for coverage
from coast to coast — whether from lower-mandate states at lower prices, or from higher-mandate (additional-
coverage) states at higher prices. Allow plans bought in one state to be transported to another. (No increase in
government spending.*)

3. Cut costs by allowing lower premiums for healthier lifestyles. Federal regulations ban companies from
offering more than a 20 percent discount to those who eat and drink in moderation, exercise, or don’t smoke. Such
regulations handcuff private cost-cutting efforts and should be eliminated. (No increase in government spending.*)

4. Increase access to health insurance by ending the unfair tax on the uninsured (and self-insured), giving
them a tax-break similar to that which is already available to those with employer-provided insurance.
Provide refundable annual tax-credits of $2,500 per person or $5,000 per family — directly to the American
people, not to insurers. Leave employer-provided insurance, its tax-exempt status, and the rest of the tax code,
intact. (Increase in government spending: approximately $80 billion (for credits beyond taxes paid). Reduced
revenues: approximately $120 billion (for refunds of taxes paid).*)

5. Provide further help for those who are uninsured and have expensive preexisting conditions, by
increasing federal support for state-run or state-organized high-risk pools. Thirty-four states already have
pools to help those who can’t get affordable coverage because of expensive preexisting conditions. We should help
all 50 states to establish or organize such pools. (Increase in government spending: $100 billion.*) (See ** below.)

6. Convert some federal funds into block grants to states, and reallocate the savings resulting from reducing
the number of uninsured. Disproportionate Share Hospital (or DSH (“dish”)) payments reimburse hospitals for
treating the uninsured in emergency rooms. With fewer uninsured, some of these funds can be allocated more
efficiently, helping to fund the above proposals. Start the block grants at 75% of each state’s current federal DSH
funding level, reduce them by 5 percent annually until they reach 50% in year-6, and then index them to the consumer
price index minus one percentage point. (No increase in government spending. Savings: approximately $180 billion.*)

7. Implement additional reforms from the House Republican health bill. Adopt regulatory reforms in the
small group and non-group markets, standards for electronic administration, an abbreviated approval pathway for
follow-on biological products, and HSA reforms). (Increase in government spending: $0. Savings: $20 billion.*)

*Tallies are estimates for 2011 to 2020, based largely on
previously published Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
projections. Additionally, an estimated $50 billion would
be saved through associated effects on revenues and
outlays, based on CBO scoring of the House GOP bill.

**A federal survey cited by the CBO indicates that 1-1.5
million Americans are uninsured because of preexisting
conditions. Safely assuming twice that many (2-3 million),
each person would get $3,333-5,000, plus a tax credit of
$2,000, for a total of $5,333-$7,000 in yearly federal relief.

www.smallbill.org

[mykevermin]

What I'd like to see you do, if you support those measures, is look at the discussion a few posts above in this thread, about buying insurance across state lines. If you support it, you certainly understand the logic of buying across state lines.

So, since you support it and understand it, you can help us rationalize the logic that explains how it will be a good thing that reduces costs and expands coverage for everyone - and won't, as I claim, be a race to the bottom that excludes more people than the current system does.

thanks in advance.

[SpazX]

lol

[tivo]

What I'd like to see you do, if you support those measures, is look at the discussion a few posts above in this thread, about buying insurance across state lines. If you support it, you certainly understand the logic of buying across state lines.

So, since you support it and understand it, you can help us rationalize the logic that explains how it will be a good thing that reduces costs and expands coverage for everyone - and won't, as I claim, be a race to the bottom that excludes more people than the current system does.

thanks in advance.

It will be a race to the bottom. Lots of healthy young people will buy really cheap, low coverage insurance and they will sign up, instead of going uninsured, because of the affordability. The people in the middle (health wise) will also have the chance to buy a range of coverage plans, similar to auto insurance. And lastly the generally older, sicker people will also have the ability to shop around for the best coverage per dollar but also get subsidized in the form of #5 of the small bill, yearly federal relief. This will be paid for by the savings introduced in the other parts of the plan.

Is that acceptable?

[mykevermin]

Not really. This 'small bill' uses sleight of hand that isn't revenue neutral by a long shot. The increases in gov't spending are per-year listings, while savings (like in #1) are ten-year estimates - so they need to be divided by 10 relative to the spending increases. It's not even close to revenue neutral.

And I can't take seriously any proposal that words something as "convert some federal funds." From where? For what? This is essentially asking the fed to repackage funds - from somewhere, anywhere - and reclassify them as state-level block grants. It's fascinating that folks who are so anti-federalist demand that the state-level funding come from the fed. Moreover, there's no way the proposed credits for the high-risk pool will cover the differential in their premiums - this is even more pointed since you admit the high-risk pool will be a race to the bottom. Lastly, if you have the healthy-people-opt-for-minimum-coverage approach from the race to the bottom based on interstate commerce, you'll have billions in uncovered, unpaid medical costs due to catastrophic coverage.

In short, where the small bill fails is in lacking substantial detail that helps bolster the rationale for longer, more detailed bills - this proposal is exactly the reason why it's not sensible to get bent out of shape over the length of proposed legislation. Where it succeeds, it does so by ignoring the fact that catastrophes happen to people who don't expect them to happen. And where it succeeds, it does so by reducing costs by parlaying high-risk pools into a government-subsidised program that won't pay for the coverage required and won't pay for itself by the spending reductions it proposes, thereby creating an unsustainable deficit-increasing welfare state problem for the people who need health care most.

Deficit-increasing, welfare expansion, quality-of-care reducing proposal: the very problems the GOP argues the House/Senate bills are guilty of, this bill has in *spades*.

[usickenme]

The shop across state lines is a red herring. Insurers want this so that they can move to states with less regulation and increase rates unfettered.

[mykevermin]

the shop across state lines is a red herring. Insurers want this so that they can move to states with less regulation and increase rates, reduce coverage offered, and increase the categories of high-risk patients they can deny coverage to unfettered.

ftfy.

[Msut77]

Just more whack-a-mole.

[speedracer]

Obama sent a letter to Congress today saying he was planning on added four of the Republicans' ideas on health care.

Surely they'll see that he's trying to build a consensus with them and seeing his good intentions, will come back to the table to talk about what else they can hash out on a possible agreement.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2010/03/obama-writes-to-congress-on-health-care.php?page=1

[Papa Neorev]

Obama sent a letter to Congress today saying he was planning on added four of the Republicans' ideas on health care.

Surely they'll see that he's trying to build a consensus with them and seeing his good intentions, will come back to the table to talk about what else they can hash out on a possible agreement.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2010/03/obama-writes-to-congress-on-health-care.php?page=1


If you can't beat them.......get them to join you?

[mykevermin]

Obama knows he still not going to get their votes - after all, the whole frame of "start from scratch" is empty because no matter what the bill looks like, Republicans won't vote on it.

But politically if you make it appear like you're behaving in a bipartisan manner and not getting bipartisan support, then the Republicans will be viewed as the obstructionists they truly are.

[Dr Mario Kart]

They're not going to vote for it anyway though. If the options are make them look like douches or have a better bill by not including any of their stuff, I'd rather have a better bill. Good policy is good politics.

[KingBroly]

If Obama passes the bill with reconciliation the Republicans will more than likely gain control of the House this fall. Or at the very least, it'll be close to the point of where nothing gets done.

[dmaul1114]

But politically if you make it appear like you're behaving in a bipartisan manner and not getting bipartisan support, then the Republicans will be viewed as the obstructionists they truly are.

And that will be they key in the elections this fall.

The republicans are going to try to say the systems broken yada, yada, yada. Obama, the DNC, each democratic candidate etc. has to do a masterful job of getting the message to our dimwitted populace that it's broken because republicans have been 100% obstructionists with no interest in compromising on any issue.

And a representative democracy is broken pretty much only when that happens and one of the controlling parties abjectly refuses to compromise on any issue.

They have to sell that the republicans are the PROBLEM, not the solution.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

If Obama passes the bill with reconciliation the Republicans will more than likely gain control of the House this fall. Or at the very least, it'll be close to the point of where nothing gets done.

If 1.2 million more American suddenly have no income and it stays that way, we'll have riots long before elections.

[thrustbucket]

They have to sell that the republicans are the PROBLEM, not the solution.

That's going to be very tough when the polls look like they do for reform, and the only "solutions" anyone can come up with require deficit spending on a massive and/or cost us all greatly.

I believe the polls are still showing that Americans feel the Economy/debt is a higher priority than health care reform. As long as that holds true, Republicans have the upper hand - simply because almost all solutions the Democrats come up with for everything have huge price tags.

Republicans have everything to gain, politically, by letting the Dems pass a neutered half baked bill through that doesn't really fix anything but costs a ton (all because they promised to), and I think that's their plan.

[mykevermin]

You should vote Republican, then, thrust. That'll get 'em on the right track.

And, of course, because the health care bills never end up paying for themselves at all. That's true. Fuck the long term estimates, they're just lies. Get real conservatives in there; they'll get the job done.

[thrustbucket]

Not only do I hate Republicans, but it's pretty clear they aren't interested in fixing health care. The problem with health care between repubs and democrats are that they see the fundamental problems differently, so their solutions are totally different.

My take on health care is that the system is clearly not ideal as is. That being said, I've not seen one idea that I feel sounds like a good one, from anyone. Someone is just going to have to DO SOMETHING. Change it up. Shake it up and hope for the best - because it can't stay the way it is (kind of like the American Idol judge panel).

[Msut77]

If Obama passes the bill with reconciliation the Republicans will more than likely gain control of the House this fall. Or at the very least, it'll be close to the point of where nothing gets done.

You guys keep saying that and im certain you have the Democrats best interest in mind...
/concern trolls

[willardhaven]

Why not just have public health care that is mandatory for everyone? If you are too poor you get a refund with your income tax refund. If you are rich you can pay extra to go to a private doctor.

[mykevermin]

Should we just declare a "reset" like you proposed we should do with the economy a couple years back?

[willardhaven]

I don't think that was directed at me but what are you referring to?

[mykevermin]

thrust. some vs threads from years ago describing our mounting national debt and growing deficit spending - thrust's deadly serious suggestion was just that we "hit the reset button," which, I guess, meant that we would no longer acknowledge or pay any of our outstanding debt.

It's sitting in committee in the House - the "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU Recovery Act of 2006."

[IRHari]

Republicans are trying to revive the MO of constitutionality of the individual mandate. O'Reilly was grillin some dudes about it.

[willardhaven]

Well a large-scale proletariat uprising might cause a sort of "reset." Either that or turn the entire country intro Detroit.

[mykevermin]

Republicans are trying to revive the MO of constitutionality of the individual mandate. O'Reilly was grillin some dudes about it.

?

[elprincipe]

thrust. some vs threads from years ago describing our mounting national debt and growing deficit spending - thrust's deadly serious suggestion was just that we "hit the reset button," which, I guess, meant that we would no longer acknowledge or pay any of our outstanding debt.

It's sitting in committee in the House - the "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU Recovery Act of 2006."

The politicians' biggest problem with this is that, if we did it,nobody would lend to us anymore. Thus, it would require massive budget cuts. And it follows that the politicians won't allow it.

But something has to happen. What we are doing now can't continue for much longer. We either (1) default; (2) bring budgets into balance and start paying off debts; or (3) inflate our way out. Sadly, for those of us who are responsible in their lifestyles, (3) is by far the most likely since it is easily the most painless way for politicians and thus the path of least resistance. As a nation we would prefer (2), and (1) would be an unmitigated disaster that could shake the very foundations of the world economy.

[IRHari]

They think forcing people to buy ANYTHING (in this case health insurance) is unconstitutional. O'Reilly was arguing that point yesterday on his show.

[mykevermin]

No, elprincipe, the idea of a "reset" is preposterous because it's economically childish (or something more 10 degrees beyond 'infantile' because it's such a poorly thought through idea).

Not to mention it'll start us off at a debt already due to the military spending we'll engage in defending ourselves from...*cough* "Collection Agencies."

As a nation we prefer to have our cake and eat it too. People pay lip service to wanting to see reduced spending, but those attitudes fall by the wayside anytime something moderately negative occurs. Look at political rhetoric; the people who want no health care reform have no problem with health care, those that want it can't afford it right now.

Bottom line is that folks 'round here call me biased, but I show my ability to think outside my own worldview time and time again. I'd have listed the three options you did above, as well as a key fourth that I find it shameful you omitted as one of the more 'moderate' conservative folks around here: (4) return marginal tax rates to pre-Reagan levels - which is a part of your (2) above, possibly. You don't state it outright and I know you hate taxes. But soak the rich to get out of debt. It's a possibility; after all, most of our national debt didn't start accruing until after Reagan's first round of massive, massive tax cuts for the wealthy.

[thrustbucket]

I don't advocate a 'reset button' for healthcare, no. I don't have an answer - which is why I've largely stayed on the sidelines in this debate. I have not studied the problem enough to really form an opinion on the solution. What I have done is read enough of the two parties plans to know I really dislike them, or the consequences, they would ultimately have.

As far as the economy goes though, I do think we are past the point of no return already. The only thing left to discuss is the best way to mitigate the coming economic apocalypse coming down the pike. At this point, everyones 'bandaid' ideas are usually just going to make it worse.

You can interpret that to mean I advocate a big reset button, maybe I do, I don't know.

[Msut77]

I have not studied the problem enough to really form an opinion on the solution.

Never stopped you before.

What I have done is read enough of the two parties plans to know I really dislike them, or the consequences, they would ultimately have.

I sincerely doubt you have done even that.

[mykevermin]

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/03/04/3978658-best-graph-ever

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2796/4407033126_a8a6d28d37_o.jpg

[IRHari]

Reality...IT BURNS US!!!!11

[elprincipe]

No, elprincipe, the idea of a "reset" is preposterous because it's economically childish (or something more 10 degrees beyond 'infantile' because it's such a poorly thought through idea).

Not to mention it'll start us off at a debt already due to the military spending we'll engage in defending ourselves from...*cough* "Collection Agencies."

As a nation we prefer to have our cake and eat it too. People pay lip service to wanting to see reduced spending, but those attitudes fall by the wayside anytime something moderately negative occurs. Look at political rhetoric; the people who want no health care reform have no problem with health care, those that want it can't afford it right now.

Bottom line is that folks 'round here call me biased, but I show my ability to think outside my own worldview time and time again. I'd have listed the three options you did above, as well as a key fourth that I find it shameful you omitted as one of the more 'moderate' conservative folks around here: (4) return marginal tax rates to pre-Reagan levels - which is a part of your (2) above, possibly. You don't state it outright and I know you hate taxes. But soak the rich to get out of debt. It's a possibility; after all, most of our national debt didn't start accruing until after Reagan's first round of massive, massive tax cuts for the wealthy.

Um, "bring budgets into balance" (which is word for word what I said) does not foreclose on the possibility of tax increases. I do think taxes are incredibly too high, but have consistently advocated on these boards higher taxes on the wealthy until our fiscal mess is sorted out. Additionally, I would support estate taxes and closing all sorts of vile tax loopholes/giveaways to the well-connected. The real difficult part of such a plan is the government following through by (1) using the money (along with drastically reduced spending) to solve our fiscal crisis; and (2) after that lowering taxes dramatically and keeping spending in check.

[elprincipe]

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/03/04/3978658-best-graph-ever

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2796/4407033126_a8a6d28d37_o.jpg

Sadly, the graph is completely wrong when it comes to Obamacare. The reality is it's even worse for the budget than the irresponsible tax cuts shown alongside it.

[mykevermin]

Yeah, what does the CBO know compared to elprincipe's gut instinct?

You'll have to do better than just say "oh, no, it's worse than that."

[elprincipe]

Yeah, what does the CBO know compared to elprincipe's gut instinct?

You'll have to do better than just say "oh, no, it's worse than that."

Gut instinct has nothing to do with it and you know that. Don't play dumb. The CBO is grading the bill that the Democrats put in front of them, nothing more, nothing less. That bill has all sorts of accounting gimmickry to make it seem like it doesn't massively increase the deficit, when the effect would be to do just that.

Here's a video to help you understand:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs

[UncleBob]

Does the CBO take into account how badly the government will eventually screw it up?
:)

[mykevermin]

It is your gut instinct, elp, that the CBO are willing participants in chicanery and accounting tricks - and also your gut instinct that Paul Ryan is correct in his claims.

You're combatting the analysis of a nonpartisan org with a Republican. Please.

[UncleBob]

In regards to the CBO, it doesn't help that we were hearing one thing from the CBO, then Obama calls a very unusal meeting with Douglas Elmendor and then we starting hearing different things...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/republicans-assail-president-obama-meeting-with-congressional-budget-office-director-as-inappropriat.html

[Msut77]

Even if prince wasn't full of it he is and the numbers didn't add up the Democrats at least tried to contain costs, there are cost saving mechanisms that are in place.

/Obamacare my ass

[IRHari]

'account gimmickry'...must be a technical term.

[mykevermin]

In regards to the CBO, it doesn't help that we were hearing one thing from the CBO, then Obama calls a very unusal meeting with Douglas Elmendor and then we starting hearing different things...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/republicans-assail-president-obama-meeting-with-congressional-budget-office-director-as-inappropriat.html

You're not handling the numbers. You're not dealing with a criticism of the analysis. You're taking one blog from mid-2009 (remember how the public option wasn't dead at that point?) and trying to make a wholesale claim about the CBO's analysis of the health care bill.

Whereas the image I linked to explicitly is based on the Senate version of the bill.

Don't divert. Tackle it head on.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

You're not handling the numbers. You're not dealing with a criticism of the analysis. You're taking one blog from mid-2009 (remember how the public option wasn't dead at that point?) and trying to make a wholesale claim about the CBO's analysis of the health care bill.

Whereas the image I linked to explicitly is based on the Senate version of the bill.

Don't divert. Tackle it head on.

Here's a foolproof and complete criticism: Nu uh.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

'account gimmickry'...must be a technical term.

I wish he had said "Shenanigans". Then, I could use that Super Troopers picture.

[UncleBob]

You're not handling the numbers. You're not dealing with a criticism of the analysis. You're taking one blog from mid-2009 (remember how the public option wasn't dead at that point?) and trying to make a wholesale claim about the CBO's analysis of the health care bill.

Whereas the image I linked to explicitly is based on the Senate version of the bill.

Don't divert. Tackle it head on.

I'm saying that the CBO lost some credibility over that ruckus (and it's not just one blog - go google it.).

I mean, perhaps if this meeting between Obama and the CBO had been on CSpan where we could have known exactly what went on...

[mykevermin]

You people and your circular logic. "debate" to you is the snipe hunt for an analog, settling for a chinese knock-off of a comparable situation, and calling it a career.

Take on the estimate. I double dog dare ya.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

You people and your circular logic. "debate" to you is the snipe hunt for an analog, settling for a chinese knock-off of a comparable situation, and calling it a career.

Take on the estimate. I double dog dare ya.

The correct responses were :wall: or #-o

Try to be succinct.

[UncleBob]

Here's the first major flaw in that graph, Myke. Just for you.

The Senate bill isn't what would go into law.

Someone could propose a bill where we tax the evil, filthy rich 98% of their wealth. The CBO could make a pretty chart. None of it would mean crap because the bill wouldn't pass.

This chart is just pretty colors to distract you from reality. If they could have some how made it metallic, you'd be so mesmerized by the shiny you probably wouldn't have been able to post it.

[mykevermin]

drat! (that was for foc, not bob.)

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Here's the first major flaw in that graph, Myke. Just for you.

The Senate bill isn't what would go into law.

Someone could propose a bill where we tax the evil, filthy rich 98% of their wealth. The CBO could make a pretty chart. None of it would mean crap because the bill wouldn't pass.

This chart is just pretty colors to distract you from reality. If they could have some how made it metallic, you'd be so mesmerized by the shiny you probably wouldn't have been able to post it.

Do you know which bill is going to pass?

[thrustbucket]

I think the only thing clearly certain about cost for this thing is that not one person on the planet has a clue as to how much it will really cost.

[Msut77]

Watching Bob trying to be condescending to myke is like watching a hamster attempting to savage a pitbull.

[mykevermin]

I think the only thing clearly certain about cost for this thing is that not one person on the planet has a clue as to how much it will really cost.

We have a word for that: "estimate."

Care to dispute the CBO's with your own, or will you just sit and pout and be dejected at anything and everything the government does in your self-fulfilling worldview?

[UncleBob]

Quick - someone go back and find official estimates of how they said Social Security was going to be doing in 2010 when they were trying to set that program up...

[Dr Mario Kart]

In the scenario where the CBO did exist back when Social Security was first started, they would not have accounted for every Republican Congress since then poking holes in it and slowly making it more insolvent.

[mykevermin]

Quick - someone go back and find official estimates of how they said Social Security was going to be doing in 2010 when they were trying to set that program up...

I would say that burden of proof lies on the person making that argument.

I ain't doin' your heavy liftin', son.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

In the scenario where the CBO did exist back when Social Security was first started, they would not have accounted for every Republican Congress since then poking holes in it and slowly making it more insolvent.

Or life expectancy improving by 15 years.

[elprincipe]

It is your gut instinct, elp, that the CBO are willing participants in chicanery and accounting tricks - and also your gut instinct that Paul Ryan is correct in his claims.

You're combatting the analysis of a nonpartisan org with a Republican. Please.

You're either not understanding or don't want to understand. And there's a reason that no Democrat has been even interested in offering a rebuttal to what Ryan says: because what he says is irrefutable.

CBO scores the bill in front of them. If someone loads a bill up with 10 years of tax revenue and only 6 years of costs, for example, or doesn't include $371 billion of doc fix costs, as another example, those aren't included in the score of the bill. CBO did their job just fine; the problem is that the bill just shifts the costs somewhere else. Unfortunately, shifting the costs to another bill or raiding other funds doesn't eliminate those problems, it just moves them to a different piece of legislation or sets them to be dealt with down the road.

[Msut77]

You're either not understanding or don't want to understand.

Pot, Kettle something something.

And there's a reason that no Democrat has been even interested in offering a rebuttal to what Ryan says: because what he says is irrefutable.

I posted a rebuttal, what he said was refutable QED.

Unfortunately, shifting the costs to another bill or raiding other funds doesn't eliminate those problems, it just moves them to a different piece of legislation or sets them to be dealt with down the road.

Those are what are generally known as offsets, they are perfectly legitimate.

Compare that to the Republican option everything entirely on the deficit, refusing not to pay for anything does not equal fiscally responsible.

[Msut77]

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/sink-or-swim

[Msut77]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/opinion/07sun1.html?hp

[UncleBob]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article7052606.ece

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/mar/05/051146/doctor-patient-part-ways-over-health-care-debate/news-politics/

[Msut77]

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/how-much-fraud-and-abuse-is-there-in-u-s-health-care/

[Msut77]

“We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada,”

Guess.

[mykevermin]

Context, please.

We all know she's box-of-rocks stupid. But not even she can be that stupid.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

http://blog.buzzflash.com/alerts/802

[depascal22]

From bob's link: http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/mar/05/051146/doctor-patient-part-ways-over-health-care-debate/news-politics/

So she pulled posters down and then demanded that they take them down? I"m confused how this is relevant. Doctors' offices are private enterprises and you should be banned from returning if you're ripping the posters off the walls and complaining like a baby. This has nothing to do with political views and everything to do with civilized behavior.

As for the other link, I'm saddened the system doesn't work. Why can't we learn from the Brit's mistakes and make it better instead of just saying it won't work and going back to a system that we know doesn't work?

[IRHari]

So Obama wails on insurance companies today yet the bill gives them 30 million new customers...why no public option again? Why no medicare for 55+? What makes 55+ bad & socialism but 65+ is just socialism?

[Msut77]

It's a toss up between they are playing it safe and they never really gave a shit anyway.

[IRHari]

bah.

bit off topic but glenn greenwald had a great article about Obama and the 9/11 trials

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/05/obama/index.html

I kinda like what Sarah Silverman said. I've never experienced blind faith before, and its kind of fun.

[UncleBob]

I'd assume that they put posters back up after she took them down.

Anywhoo, I'm not really saying that link had any bearing on the direction we should take with health care reform/deform - just thought it was an interesting article that was mildly related.

[Feeding the Abscess]

bah.

bit off topic but glenn greenwald had a great article about Obama and the 9/11 trials

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/05/obama/index.html

I kinda like what Sarah Silverman said. I've never experienced blind faith before, and its kind of fun.

Glenn Greenwald almost always writes a great article. He's easily one of the best journalists in Western media.

[mykevermin]

^ No joke.

[IRHari]

Yeah I only recently starting going on salon.com, I've really missed out lol.

They have a great interview of both the black dude and the white lady from the Oscars during the 'Kanye' moment.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6275T720100308

They're coming for our sugar!

This idea seems ass backwards.

We're subsidizing agricultural products leading to obesity so that we can tax people consuming products leading to obesity.

[RAMSTORIA]

We're subsidizing agricultural products leading to obesity so that we can tax people consuming products leading to obesity.

end corn subsidies now!

[fatherofcaitlyn]

end corn subsidies now!

Wouldn't that have the same effect as taxing sugar?

The cost of high fructose corn syrup goes up. The price of products with high fructose corn syrup goes up. People consume less products with high fructose corn syrup.

Same effect as imposing a fat tax, but the money doesn't change hands twice over.

[JolietJake]

But then the government would be up to its ears (hah) in complaints from farmers.

[UncleBob]

We're subsidizing agricultural products leading to obesity so that we can tax people consuming products leading to obesity.

Welcome to your government. Is it any surprise that so many people distrust the government to run in a way that makes any sense?

[RAMSTORIA]

Wouldn't that have the same effect as taxing sugar?

The cost of high fructose corn syrup goes up. The price of products with high fructose corn syrup goes up. People consume less products with high fructose corn syrup.

Same effect as imposing a fat tax, but the money doesn't change hands twice over.

it would give a huge insentive for companies to use real sugar instead of HFCS

But then the government would be up to its ears (hah) in complaints from farmers.

giant corporations are by far the biggest benefactor of corn subsidies.

[JolietJake]

Probably, but they'd all be pissed off about it.

[mykevermin]

it would give a huge insentive for companies to use real sugar instead of HFCS



giant corporations are by far the biggest benefactor of corn subsidies.

more mountain dew throwback?

less HFCS?

win motherfuckin' win.

[UncleBob]

more mountain dew throwback?

less HFCS?

win motherfuckin' win.

Hell yeah. I'm tired of spending $18 on what 24/12oz bottles of real Coke imported from Mexico. :(

[elprincipe]

What about this radical plan?

1. End agricultural subsidies and trade barriers.
2. Let people eat what they want without trying to socially engineer our choices of what to eat with taxes.
3. ???
4. Profit!

[SpazX]

I gotta say I do like the "social engineering" line whenever I hear it. Just like "death tax" it has a nice negative connotation without really meaning anything. It's also interesting to think of the "social engineering" that went into proliferating the phrase "social engineering."

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I gotta say I do like the "social engineering" line whenever I hear it. Just like "death tax" it has a nice negative connotation without really meaning anything. It's also interesting to think of the "social engineering" that went into proliferating the phrase "social engineering."

Dear Subscriber,

It appears your account is about to be suspended. To prevent disruption in your account status, please login into www.notcheapassgamer.com/clearly_a_phishing_attempt.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Your Web Security Team

[mykevermin]

:lol: That's the idea, though. We talk about things like taxing the fuck out of HFCS/soopa-engineered mega-chemical foods, and the next thing you know, we're being called fascists without exaggeration or assumed hyperbole by the accuser because they think that a giant tax on "Little Debbies" is the next coming of Mussolini.

Can't make that shit up. But I do agree with elp that corn subsidies should largely go away. Yet I also agree that shitty foods should be taxed more. Y'all have stuck it to the smokers for probably two decades now, right? Aren't cigarettes like $10 in NYC? C'mon, time to move along and point the finger at the honey bun eaters.

[UncleBob]

Some of us disagree with higher taxes on cigarettes as well though.

[SpazX]

I could go with the corn subsidies being removed, or restricted to actual edible corn rather than the shit they grow for processing. I don't know if I'd rather the junk foods be taxed or the healthy foods be subsidized though. The latter might end up with high fructose broccoli syrup or some shit.

[thrustbucket]

I absolutely hate smoking and smokers, but I am against cigarette taxes. I'm also against taxing anything deemed 'unhealthy'.

Along with that though, I am also for removing most subsidies on food manufacture, especially corn.

[UncleBob]

I hear being poor is unhealthy. We should tax that.

[elprincipe]

:lol: That's the idea, though. We talk about things like taxing the fuck out of HFCS/soopa-engineered mega-chemical foods, and the next thing you know, we're being called fascists without exaggeration or assumed hyperbole by the accuser because they think that a giant tax on "Little Debbies" is the next coming of Mussolini.

Can't make that shit up. But I do agree with elp that corn subsidies should largely go away. Yet I also agree that shitty foods should be taxed more. Y'all have stuck it to the smokers for probably two decades now, right? Aren't cigarettes like $10 in NYC? C'mon, time to move along and point the finger at the honey bun eaters.

Smoking and junk food are not the same at all, though. Smoking harms other people, while you eating junk food only potentially harms you. Aren't you in favor of legalizing marijuana?

[bmulligan]

Smoking and junk food are not the same at all, though. Smoking harms other people, while you eating junk food only potentially harms you. Aren't you in favor of legalizing marijuana?

No, El, that's old school thinking. Now, eating junk food will be a burden on society because of the societal costs of your resulting bad health. Remember, freedom means making sure everyone else is being taken care of...

[elprincipe]

No, El, that's old school thinking. Now, eating junk food will be a burden on society because of the societal costs of your resulting bad health. Remember, freedom means making sure everyone else is being taken care of...

Ah yes, I still remember when alonzo replied to my post with that quote in your sig. To be honest, I couldn't quite believe it at the time that someone has actually written that, but then again I didn't expect to see this being said on American streets either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1-QcAPiunk&feature=player_embedded

[JolietJake]

Damn free and open education, it will be the down fall of this country. Once everyone starts going to college and becomes indoctrinated into the liberal socialist mindset, we'll all be doomed. We need to do everything we can to keep this from happening, the first step should be to convince people that a higher education is unnecessary, maybe even that graduating high school is unnecessary. Only then will we be able to retain our freedom and rights as American citizens.

[UncleBob]

Do you know which bill is going to pass?

Brand spankin' new 2,300+ page bill!

Whoo-yah!

http://budget.house.gov/doc-library/FY2010/03.15.2010_reconciliation2010.PDF

[IRHari]

Jesus are people still harping about the length of the bill? Legislation is always long shitbricks.

[Koggit]

do they always use such enormous font and wide margins? i've never really read a bill like that, but i've never really read a bill.. if it were written differently (isn't single-spaced 8.5x11 typically 500 words per page?) it'd just be a few hundred pages. might be a long day, but i imagine it could be read in a single day, which really isn't all that to much to ask of our lawmakers.

[mykevermin]

do they always use such enormous font and wide margins?

yep. that's why I find so much of the hand-wringing over length so laughable.

i also find it to be yet more evidence of general anti-intellectual sentiment in our nation, but it's not like I'm ever hurting to find those.

[UncleBob]

do they always use such enormous font and wide margins? i've never really read a bill like that, but i've never really read a bill.. if it were written differently (isn't single-spaced 8.5x11 typically 500 words per page?) it'd just be a few hundred pages. might be a long day, but i imagine it could be read in a single day, which really isn't all that to much to ask of our lawmakers.

A quick cut and paste into OpenOffice with a font change to 12 pt Ariel put it at 1,257 pages and 429,280 words - or, about 5 words per second, if you read non-stop for 24 hours straight. Quick check at (ugh) Wikipedia puts "average adult readers" at 2 words per second. And, of course, that's not even getting into things that the average person wouldn't understand and would need to look up. Or sleeping. Or eating. Or pooping. But, hey, if they print this out, they could have something to wipe with afterward.

Quick check at Amazon puts the complete works of William Shakespeare at 1,280 pages. It's probably a smaller font though.

[Koggit]

Yeah and actually this isn't too easy a read, it's technical so I'd imagine it's a bit slower than 2 words per second. So it's probably like 70 hours of reading (1.75 words a minute is 68 hours). That's not too short. Then again, this is their whole job pretty much. Write, read what others wrote, vote. With that consideration, it's really not much work.

[Msut77]

I read the unabridged Les Mis (which is something like thirteen hundred pages) when I was 14. It took me three weeks but that was in between school and extra curriculars etc.

Myke eviscerated this particular brand of stupidity ages ago.

Bob cannot construct an argument to save his life but one has to admire his tenacity in trying to derail a thread for as long as he has.

[UncleBob]

Yeah and actually this isn't too easy a read, it's technical so I'd imagine it's a bit slower than 2 words per second. So it's probably like 70 hours of reading (1.75 words a minute is 68 hours). That's not too short. Then again, this is their whole job pretty much. Write, read what others wrote, vote. With that consideration, it's really not much work.

My favorite is the people who try to explain away the length of the bill that it's not a big deal, but will defend politicians who openly admit to not reading bills/no interest in reading bills.

[RAMSTORIA]

:lol: That's the idea, though. We talk about things like taxing the fuck out of HFCS/soopa-engineered mega-chemical foods, and the next thing you know, we're being called fascists without exaggeration or assumed hyperbole by the accuser because they think that a giant tax on "Little Debbies" is the next coming of Mussolini.



well, i figure there are two types of people (i think) that push for so called fat taxes. people who want a healthier ameria and people who want to increase revenue. the prior group are neither here nor there for the discussion of subsidies. but the latter are.

one of the things thats so absurd about soda taxes and such is that we are subsidizing corn so much that its significantly cheaper than good ol fashion cane sugar. anyone who wants to tax soda or other items that are HFCS items (damn near everything these days), but dont want to end corn subsidies are out of their mind. its just giving mega corps like conagra and kraft tax breaks and putting that burden on middle america.

[mykevermin]

cutting the subsidies first is fine by me.

[RAMSTORIA]

cutting the subsidies first is fine by me.

nothing like a little forum partisanship

[IRHari]

Bob, who the fuck defended someone who didn't read the bill? Examples please.

[elprincipe]

Damn free and open education, it will be the down fall of this country. Once everyone starts going to college and becomes indoctrinated into the liberal socialist mindset, we'll all be doomed. We need to do everything we can to keep this from happening, the first step should be to convince people that a higher education is unnecessary, maybe even that graduating high school is unnecessary. Only then will we be able to retain our freedom and rights as American citizens.

Nice way to twist things into a strawman argument where you knock down those who devalue education (I don't know any of them, but I'm sure they're out there). Why not discuss how he says people have a "right" to "free" housing, health care, job security, etc., as well as higher education? Of course, it's not free; they use our (mine and yours) tax dollars.

[UncleBob]

Bob, who the fuck defended someone who didn't read the bill? Examples please.

Oh, a few...

I think they know what's in it.

There's some cognitive disconnect (or, rather, unintentional dishonesty) involved when people accuse politicians of not reading bills.

1) Those who levy the criticisms don't read the bills themselves (which is fine by itself, as that's an arduous task, right?)

2) They allow their online networks of like-minded colleagues to do the legwork, citing their critiques with virtually no follow-up to verify those criticisms.

So they (like elprincipe above) rely on the "knowledge of the aggregate" to take care of the burden of being expected to read, crossreference, and critique a several thousand page document.

The disconnect happens because folks seem to think that the "knowledge of the aggregate" technique works for them, but could never work in Congress. No explanation is given, and we are led to believe that this is the case based on stereotypical assumptions of laziness and ineptitude on Capitol Hill. It's not quite that self-evident, really, and the dishonesty in crab-assing about "they don't read the bills!" is quite tiresome.

I see what you're trying to point out. Nevertheless, what I'm trying to say is that there are more than 638 people on Capitol Hill who come across the bill. Call it a division of labor, call it relying on gophers, call it what you will - reading the text of a given bill is not the only way to come across knowledge of what it contains and implies.

In short, criticizing politicians for not reading legislation is an apt criticism if you want them to read it. But criticizing them for not knowing what is in the bill because they have not read it personally is not an inherently factual claim.

Absolutely. One can have a firm grasp of all the facets of a bill from detailed bullet points put together by staffers etc. Bills have a ton of useless language and can be condensed into summaries and bullet points that accurately outline the laws it would put in place etc. And the congressmen can go by that and look up the parts of the bill that concern them based on those summaries in the real bill.

I do the same sometimes in my research work with having an assistant read and summarize a stack of articles related to the topic so I have that as my starting point and can just read the ones that are most pertinent in more detail.

Country--hopefully. As we won't look like a third world country in terms of health care (lack of) for the working poor.

Daily lives? Not really. Some will be better as they have access to health care. The rest of us that have always had health care will be relatively unaffected. Maybe premiums will go up or down for some, but I don't see my daily life changing at all since I did well for myself and will never have issues getting jobs with good benefits.



Again, they can do just as well with having other prepare detailed summaries for them. Sure one staffer may miss some key point--but across all the 100s of congressmen and 100 senators, every key point will come up and be addressed in floor debate, so I don't see it as a huge issue personally.

Reading ≠ knowledge. Clinging onto the "they must read it" argument is simply tenuous, because you're not addressing that people come across plenty of knowledge and understanding without actual hands-on work. Copy notes, read summaries, cliffs notes - so many people do it in education as is.

Would you hold so strongly onto this idea if a given politician could accurately and immediately respond to any question about the bill, thereby demonstrating their knowledge? Of course you wouldn't, as you inherently distrust politicians. Not a bad starting point by itself, mind you, but let's be honest: you're holding steadfast onto a ritual that is absolutely separable from the problem that you think results from it. You therefore have little reason to hang onto the exaltation of that ritual.

No worries. I have 0 desire to every do anything related to politics or public office. :D

But I agree wholeheartedly with Myke. The key is that they have a knowledge of the bills. And they can acquire that without reading these stupid, overly long and wordy pieces of legislation by having trusted aids condense it down to a more usable format. Every key issue will be raised at some point by someone in the house or senate. Pork and other things get through as people don't care about it, or as you note, bills just get rushed to votes etc. Less from senators going off bullet points/summaries which probably included the pork anyway.

Honestly, there should probably be a congressional office tasked with condensing bills down to a more digestible format that's approved by a committee as being 100% representative of the bill so there's an official "cliff's notes" version of each bill--at least each bill over a certain length.

[thrustbucket]

I hope after we are done with this health care atrocity that congress moves on to limiting the size any bill can be.

[mykevermin]

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/nation_shudders_at_large_block_of

Dumbfounded citizens from Maine to California gazed helplessly at the frightening chunk of print, unsure of what to do next. Without an illustration, chart, or embedded YouTube video to ease them in, millions were frozen in place, terrified by the sight of one long, unbroken string of English words.

"Why won't it just tell me what it's about?" said Boston resident Charlyne Thomson, who was bombarded with the overwhelming mass of black text late Monday afternoon. "There are no bullet points, no highlighted parts. I've looked everywhere—there's nothing here but words."

It ain't satire when it hurts that much.

[thrustbucket]

Thought about creating a new thread for this, but whatever....

46.3% of primary care physicians (family medicine and internal medicine) feel that the passing of health reform will either force them out of medicine or make them want to leave medicine.

Source: New England Journal of Medicine. (http://www.nejmjobs.org/rpt/physician-survey-health-reform-impact.aspx)

[IRHari]

@thrustbucket
coolstorybro....now is it rooted in reality? that is, do they have a good reason (via specifics in the bill) that make them believe they'll be forced out or want to leave?

colbert was brilliant as usual when he explained all that matters about the polls is that people believe it, it doesnt necessarily have to be based on reality.

[The Crotch]

Um. Thrust? That's... that's kinda exactly what they said in Saskatchewan 50 years ago.

That lasted a couple weeks.

[mykevermin]

I love the folks who argue that the "vast majority" of the American public doesn't want health care reform (the same folks who flagrantly ignore the polls that show how public support for specific policies under HCRA have *huge* support, but that support declines when you change the brand name to "Obama's health care reform").

[willardhaven]

Well I think there is a lot of support for public health care, but not a lot of support for a mandatory high-deductible private plan. Not qualitative research, just my own guess.

[jputahraptor]

Ah yes, I still remember when alonzo replied to my post with that quote in your sig. To be honest, I couldn't quite believe it at the time that someone has actually written that, but then again I didn't expect to see this being said on American streets either:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1-QcAPiunk&feature=player_embedded

Want free education, sure just go and serve in the Army, maybe they can help with your undeserved sense of self worth. Now I know how Principal Vernon felt when he looked at slackers like Judd Nelson. Wah Wah, gimme gimme, I just hope there will be enough prestigious jobs when we all have our PHD's and then make no money at our jobs because we have to start paying the next generation of entitlements because life should be fair, everybody should get a gold medal at the Olympics, not just the best ones.

You get a free education up until 18, when you become a grown-up, start acting like one.