Sometimes when men like Barack Obama are in control of the conversation, with the full-throated endrsement of the old-school media in tow, simple truths get missed.
Today in my home state, the president continued his nationwide tour touting his support for the Stalinization of the health care industry. In his prepared remarks, he said:
At the same time, if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep seeing your doctor. I don’t want government bureaucrats meddling in your health care – but the point is, I don’t want insurance company bureaucrats meddling in your health care either.
So now the president is trying to save us from the “insurance company bureaucrats”? Um, Mr. President, I know you’re the savior of the world and our Nation’s salvation and all, but why don’t you just butt the hell out of the private business relationships we, as free citizens of the United States, have chosen to develop between ourselves.
And to in the same breath suggest that his plan would also keep the “government bureaucrats” out of our business is a complete fantasy. Know this: the president’s “public option” will mean a sure death to private health insurance in America. And here’s why:
Let’s start with recognizing that the president’s purpose for offering the “public option” is to bring about “competition” that he feels doesn’t sufficiently exist right now. So we can presume he’s not going to offer in this “public option” fewer services at a higher cost. Even someone as obviously unacquainted with the rules of economics as Barack Obama would realize that dynamic wouldn’t create any competition.
So the “public option” from the start would be trying to undercut existing insurance policies. How much so? Let’s try a thought exercise:
Say you work in a service industry. It could be any industry. You own a movie theater; you own an oil-change shop; you own a barbershop; you own an airline. You provide “widgeting”. Whatever. Now imagine a new entrant into your market.
– Your new competitor had zero start-up costs. No cajoling angel investors, no groveling at VC events. No presentations, no investors at all, in fact. No soft opening, no advertising because everybody already knows him. No marketing budget either.
– Your new competitor has a basically unending source of capital. He can literally print money, and also can borrow 100% of his costs and expenses if he has to.
– Your new competitor is exempt from all the regulations you and everybody else in your industry have to follow. In fact, your new competitor can write new regulations that you all are obliged to follow by law (but not him).
– Your new competitor needn’t negotiate with his (and your!) suppliers because he has the authority (by law) to dictate the prices they charge him for their goods and services. Naturally, your new competitor will force these suppliers to lower their costs for him and these suppliers will in turn raise your and everybody else’s costs to compensate. I say “naturally” because your new competitor has a history of this in other industries in which he’s involved.
– Your new competitor can force people who don’t currently avail themselves of your services to do so, ensuring that everybody in the entire Nation will be looking for SOME form of the service you (and he now) provide.
– Most importantly: Your new competitor NEEDN’T TURN A PROFIT!
The bottom line of all this is going to be that your new competitor will be able to offer the services you and your current contemporaries are offering ostensibly FOR FREE, from the perspective of your customers. Simultaneously, your new competitor’s actions will increase the cost for you to do business yourself.
How long do you suppose you (or anybody else) would be able to sustain your business in this atmosphere?
This is what the health insurance industry is facing. Without judgment or bias, this is a fair scenario. I’ll leave it to those reading to decide if it’s good or bad. But without question, this is what would happen: THE END OF PRIVATE INSURACE, for good or bad.
The punch-line here? With no more private insurance, the only mechanism for managing our health care left will be that great “public option” that he president promises us won’t lead to the “government bureaucrats” “meddling” in our affairs. All who believe that, please raise your hands.
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)
If you want to hear some of his plans for private insurance companies, take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40S3SuG80ic&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2F&feature=player_embedded#t=111
This Wednesday, I’ll be sitting for the first of the actuarial exams I have to take. Actuaries are essentially the data-crunchers and quantifiers for insurance companies. If he is able to implement all of his ‘reforms’ for insurance companies, my future job becomes near impossible. I wish he’d actually speak to an actuary about his health-care plans. They’ll create an unsustainable, tax-heavy burden through the public option, and destroy private insurance through impossible standards.
Mr. Obama, I’ve had enough.
Nick:
I’m sold. But, the Left (for want of a better term) does not care that this will gum up the free market. Indeed, many I’ve spoken with see that as a worthwhile goal in and of itself.
With insurance companies popularity hovering around swine flu levels, would it not make more sense to keep focus on the unsustainable costs of this Leviathan? Specifically, I’m hesitant to hitch my wagon to a group that has, like PhRMa, already sold out consumers for a "seat at the table."
Best wishes,
-MFS
Please explain something then…
Why did the CBO – you know, that body that y’all have been holding up as the authority on health-reform scoring – why did they predict that only about 11 million people will end up on the public option? LINK
Hey, CP — you’re cute when you’re mad.
“…why don’t you just butt the hell out of the private business relationships we, as free citizens of the United States, have chosen to develop between ourselves.”
Thank you, Nick.
I am so sick of the Left trying to save me from myself. I’m tired of being treated as if I can’t take care of me and my family without some freaking government program intruding into my life.
Nick that was an excellent summary of the likely scenario. It is called attempting to create a Monopoly.
I am reminded of a vast array of Bond villains, the way in which they want to create monopolies every time I hear Obummer come up with a new suggestion.
First it was the banks and insurance companies, then it was the car industries and now it is the health industry.
Obummer is a control freak. And you can have Krudd from Australia too.
MFS:
There are plenty of folks who are going to pound home on the costs. For me it’s always been about the liberty.
Tano:
I’ve found the actual findings from the CBO. I haven’t read the entire document yet, but one thing struck me right off the bat:
(emphasis added)
So the CBO is not really standing by the (only 10-year) projection they’re making (that Pelosi and the press acolytes jumped on), and they won’t even bother projecting further out than that.
I’ll read the whole thing when I get a chance and see what its actual caveats are (and if it even considered the items I brought up) and get back with you.
CP,
So you mean that the really smart people at CBO, while acknowledging the uncertainty involved in all this, still make a prediciton of only 11 million people on the public plan (note: that means roughly everyone who now has insurance stays on private insurance, and two out of three of the uninsured who will get insurance, will get private insurance). But YOU, infinitly smarter than those CBO numbskulls just knows that it will be the end of private insurance!
Forgive me for not finding you all that convincing.
Why did the CBO – you know, that body that y’all have been holding up as the authority on health-reform scoring – why did they predict that only about 11 million people will end up on the public option?
You do realize, silly Tano, that that means the “public option” that you are trying to ram through will still leave, according to the “50 million” figure you hyperventilate over, 39 million uninsured — and at a cost, according to the CBO, of over $1 trillion?
In short, your citing this figure demonstrates the stupidity of the Obama Party members like yourself who are pushing this bill, inasmuch by increasing costs and not providing universal coverage, it meets exactly neither of your goals?
You’re lying, shit Tano. You and your Party are trying to push single-payer through. The way to stop you is to emasculate your “public plan” by eliminating the mandate for purchasing insurance and forcing your Obama “public plan” to survive on premiums only, with no access to taxpayer dollars and the requirement to pay its own expenses.
You won’t put that in place because that was never the plan. The Obama Party plan was to put in a “public option”, then print money to allow the “public plan” to vastly undercut private insurers.
Forgive me for not finding you all that convincing.
And given your proven record of ignorance about anything having to do with Federal finances, we’re not surprised; you are incapable of understanding facts and logic, and instead only repeat Obama talking points.
Um, No, Tano.
Where on earth did you come to the conclusion that I a) felt I was smarter than the CBO folks, or that b) I didn’t believe them?
Not sure how much scientific work you do, but I’m sure the CBO people would be the first to suggest people don’t (as you, Pelosi, and the breathless media have) jump on their conclusions as 100% accurate and authoritative. In fact, that’s exactly what such caveats (as I quoted from the letter) indicate. Naturally, you breeze by them when it doesn’t suit your political purposes.
Clearly vexed, however, why you got so defensive on their behalf when I was only emphasizing a point they made themselves.
What it means is that I haven’t heard from you one word rebutting the logic I used to write my post. I never said anything matching my intelligence to that of the bean-counters at the CBO. Nor have I dismissed their findings. I (unlike you) am using their words, which, apparently are meaningless to you.
Also unlike you, I plan to actually read what they wrote and make my decision at that time. Considering that your link was not to the actual report but rather to a news piece, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess you’ve heard politicians and their media lap-dogs promote a narrative, but probably haven’t done any reading of your own.
And based on your irrational interpretation of the reply I made to your original comment, no apology needed. I don’t feel that anything I say would be convincing to you.
#5: Amen to that, jana. I think it’s time we hijacked one of the Left’s favorite, well-worn battle-cries and have t-shirts and bumper-stickers made:
KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF MY BODY!
Nancy Pelosi would probably melt into the pavement under that pointy hat of hers if hundreds of people started chanting it at her on the street.
“You do realize, silly Tano, that that means the “public option” that you are trying to ram through will still leave, according to the “50 million” figure you hyperventilate over, 39 million uninsured — and at a cost, according to the CBO, of over $1 trillion?”
Ah, that would be a big no.
11 million would take the publc option. More than twice as many as that will end up with private insurance.
There will be a few million left over.
CP,
Actually all of the work I do is in the field of science. I fully understand the caveats that CBO puts in place around their estimate.
None the less, their estimate is about as far away from the scenario being pushed around here – the destruction of the private insurance industry – as it is possible to get.
“And based on your irrational interpretation of the reply I made to your original comment, no apology needed. ”
Nonetheless, I will apologize. Re-reading your comments, I realize that I was not really responding to you, but simply assuming that you were intending to make the same point as the original poster. And you said nothing of the kind. All you did was notice their caveats, and remain skeptical. Nothing about that I can criticize.
Mark Steyn has a great column this week. With all of the manufactured, histrionic indignation from the Left about the “vile slander” of the “death panels” this week, Steyn’s headline puts the focus back on the more sobering point:
“Unplugging Grandma isn’t the problem. Obamacare means treatment rationing, so getting Grandma plugged in in the first place is the greater peril.”
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/life-expectancy-health-2529244-say-good
I wonder whether the CBO just estimates direct cost to the taxpayers? Do they consider the ripple effects (or in this case, tidal waves) about to hit our economy and way of life?
CP,
I just thought of something that I think belongs on your excellent list of reasons that a “public option” will eradicate the competition, not stimulate it: immunity from tort liability. If your doctor breaches the standard of care, you can sue for malpractice. If your private health insurer denies coverage or reimbursement for some life-saving treatment or drug that you were entitled to under your policy, you can sue the insurer for a breach of the policy and depending on the state, for bad faith and obtain punitive damages against the insurer.
In contrast, government entities NEVER provide any type of service or benefit without shielding the agency and their employees from civil liability by enacting statutory immunities. So, if one of Obama’s incompetent bureaucrats denies an individual some life-saving treatment based on a misinterpretation of a provision on page 12,443,067 of the Obamacare regulations (or purposefully interprets it to deny care to favor the government and save costs), both the bureaucrat and the agency will likely be immune from suit and the individual will have no remedy whatsoever (or, certainly not an adequate one).
I’m not aware one way or the other if the current bill addresses liabilities and immunities, but presumably general immunity statutes that have been on the books for decades would apply to shield the federal government and its employees from tort liability in a government-run healthcare system.
Wow, Tano. You really are a special case. I AM the original poster. And you still have not said word one to refute my logic. That you are in the scientific community (of which I am a member, by the way) is simultaneously a frightening concept and a condemnation of the community of scientific education in America today.
Sean: Great point re: tort liability. Hadn’t even thought of that. I’ll have to include it when I discuss in the future!
1. If health care is “free”, how will insurance companies compete?
2. If health care is “free”, why will companies provide/pay for health care plans?
Can anyone who, for some silly reason, thinks that government run health care is a good thing, care to answer these two, simple, questions? Without reading from DNC talking points.
If Obama’s fascist bill passes, it will be interesting to see how it plays out in the courts to say the least.
For 35 years we have been told by the left that the government has NO RIGHT inserting itself between a woman and her doctor. Now they claim healthcare is a God given right, and the government has an obligation to insert itself between people and their doctors.
Both cannot be true. For Obamacare to be found constitutional, then the right to privacy (and thus Roe v. Wade) must be overturned. If the right to privacy and Roe v Wade is to remain, then Obamacare must be ruled unconstitutional.
Or better yet, the courts actually read the Constitution and find the truth, that neither abortion nor health care are rights.
But any way you look at it, one of the major pillars of liberalism is going down.
“If health care is “free”,….Can anyone …answer these two, simple, questions?”
Thats too easy.
None of the bills before Congress has anything whatsoever to do with government run health care. None of them are offering “free health care”.
Where do you get this stuff?
Some of them include a voluntary option for people to buy government health insurance.
Insurance is very different from care. Insurance is money to pay for care. Care is the actual provision of services. That will remain exactly as it is today, in the private sector. And it will be paid for, by insurance. ANd you and I will still pay to buy our insurance.
Colorado student challenges Obama to a debate. Obama gives a horrible answer.
“Wow, Tano. You really are a special case. I AM the original poster. ”
Heh heh heh. Wow. yeah, now I am embarrassed.
I guess I have to take back my apology!
“And you still have not said word one to refute my logic”
Huh? OK. Lets start over.
“Where on earth did you come to the conclusion that I a) felt I was smarter than the CBO folks, or that b) I didn’t believe them?”
Because the CBO people, after analyzing the bills in detail, come to the conclusion – with appropriate caveats – that about 11 million people will end up on the public option.
You then assert, without studying the bill in anything like that level of detail (I’m guessing), that the existence of a public option will mean the death of private insurance. Oh, excuse me, thats the “sure death”.
So they appreciate the uncertainty of even their predictions, but you are sure of yours. They have a team of very sharp people poring over the bill, you have done what…?
So is it really unreasonable for me to conclude that you must think you are far smarter than them – because you see this “sure” consequence (without question!!!) staring at us, while they seem to be oblivious to it?
As to our origninal post. I dont believe that i criticized your logic. Your logic itself is fine. Its the facts that you have a problem with.
“No marketing budget”
They dont necessarily call it marketing, but government entities, like SS and Medicare spend a lot of money communicating about their services to the public. That is unavoidable.
“He can literally print money”
Thats ridiculous. You can make the case that, in theory, the government plan is part of the government that can print money, but none of the proposals I have seen allow for the gov’t plan to be subsidized in an open ended manner whenever the need arises. To the contrary, I have heard discussion of explicit bans on that.
“Your new competitor is exempt from all the regulations you and everybody else in your industry have to follow.”
Like what? Where do you get that? Which regulations will the gov’t plan be exempt from?
“Your new competitor needn’t negotiate with his (and your!) suppliers because he has the authority (by law) to dictate the prices they charge him”
Once agian, where do you get that? When has their ever been Congressional mandated price fixing in Medicare, or the VA, for instance?
“Your new competitor can force people who don’t currently avail themselves of your services to do so, ‘
Once again. WHere do this come from other than the fevered recesses of your imagination? How exactly do you imagine that the public plan will reach out and force people to drop their private plan and join the public?
“Your new competitor NEEDN’T TURN A PROFIT!”
Whoooo. What a concept! A not-for-profit entity. Must obviously lead to the death of private industry. We see that, like everywhere…
“The bottom line of all this is going to be that your new competitor will be able to offer the services you and your current contemporaries are offering ostensibly FOR FREE, from the perspective of your customers.”
Hows that? You still have to pay for the public plan, y’know.
So no CP. Your logic is fine. You start with nonsensical assumptions, and you rigorously arrive at nonsensical conclusions.
Reducing insurance costs will not reduce health care costs.
Originally Mr. Obama referred to it has health care reform, implying that health care costs were the focus. Not he refers to it has health insurance reform.
He has done this for 2 reasons :
1) It is easier to vilify the insurance company CEO and stockholders than to vilify doctors and nurses. Or GE, one of the leaders in high tech health care equipment. We wouldn’t want to vilify the owners of the NBC family of networks would we?
2) 50% of health care payments are currently made by federal, sate or local agencies. This is not enough market pressure to exert to bring about cost controls. The government will need about 70% of the market in order to exert cost controls.
Now, how do you get people to switch to government plans? More importantly, how do you get providers to accept the lower tiered payments negotiated by government agencies? The answer to questions is the same. Make the private insurance premiums expensive by comparison to the so-called “public option”.
One of the major goals of this bill is to exclude pre-existing conditions. Sounds noble. In the State of Maine, we have regulations covering that. There are certain restrictions, but for the most part you can’t be excluded for a pre-existing conditions. Noble and expensive. We have some the highest health insurance premiums and only 4 major carriers are will to underwrite health insurance in Maine.
Score 1 for the public option.
Overhead comparisons are made between the health insurance industry and the federal programs. There 2 glaring errors in these numbers.
1) Health insurance companies must bend to the will of every state in which they do business. Federal programs do not have to bend to the will of each state.
2) The overhead ratios being tossed around for Medicare do not include the overhead costs of the states that receive Medicare dollars to implement state programs. The actual Medicare overhead rates are much higher. Also, private insurance have massive amounts of reporting requirements. Insurance companies must maintain entire departments to deal with state reporting requirements. Federal programs are not required to file annual reports to the states.
Score 2 more for the public option.
The federal government has an unlimited source of capital.
Score 1 more for the public option.
Because Medicare negotiated rates are currently lower than the actual costs to provide some services, private insurance negotiated rates subsidize the current government plans driving up the cost of private health insurance.
Score 1 for the public option.
Tally : Public option, 5. Private Insurance, 0.
This is what liberals consider to be a level playing field.
The other that kills me in this public debate is the complete lack of economic understanding liberals have on the subject.
They can not distinguished between health care cost and health insurance costs.
They can’t/don’t grasp the concept that sometimes what politicians aren’t talking about is a lot more important then what politicians are talking about.
They use their life experiences to apply to the entire realm of things : “My Aunt Martha’s neighbor was denied coverage.” Therefore all insurance companies are evil.
They blame the health insurance company because their employer was lazy and bought a really bad plan.
Re: Tort liability.
Obamacare will not affect tort liability. Some probably believe that under national health care, any lawsuits would be an attempt to sue the government. Not so. The suits would be against individuals. Malpractice insurance would not go away as a medical cost of doing business.
There is no earthly way the Democrats would cross the trial lawyers. That would be the same as letting only live, registered voters vote only once.
Sean A.–I definitely agree with your premise. But every time I post the same theory on other blogs, people are always dismissing it (or not responding to it) on the grounds that the Democrats are too dependent on the trial lawyer lobby to enact any sort of tort reform–even for the so-called public option. This always puzzles me because it seems to me a necessary step that any public entity trying to control its own costs would consider.
The way I see it, the Democrats refuse to consider tort reform precisely because they want to force all healthcare providers into a public option/public system where they will be protected from the need to buy ever-more-expensive insurance to protect against mostly frivolous lawsuits brought by the John Edwardses of the world. I have even read that a lot of the tests and things for patients which many so-called experts deem unnecessary are performed to protect against potential lawsuits. So if you abolish the risk of such lawsuits, then you’d see another reduction in costs. But of course, the Democrats will only consider these options once their public system is in place.
Right after I hit send, I noticed that heliotrope was just making the argument again that the public option wouldn’t affect tort liability–and citing the exact reasons I said I’ve always seen for that argument.
I think it’s more complicated than that, though. As Mark Steyn has written numerous times, establishing a public system fundamentally changes the relationship between the citizen and the state; and I would argue that once that relationship has been altered to make the citizen dependent on the state for health care, tort reform would be more seriously considered. After all, why would the Democrats need the trial lawyers after they’ve got many more voters who are now dependent on them in a way they weren’t before?
#18: CP, I too am highly concerned about Tano being part of “the scientific community.” Of course, these days liberals count “global warming hysteric” and “atheist” as being part of “the scientific community.”
#28: As for the tort liability issue, Kurt, it’s just another one of the multitude of issues that Obama and Congress just don’t want to talk about before getting the bill passed. I agree with heliotrope’s general rationale that liberals are beholden to the plaintiffs’ lawyers lobby, but it seems to me when the person making the ultimate decision on whether treatment is provided or not is a federal bureaucrat, that decision (and whether it was a breach of the government’s duty to provide care) WILL be protected by the governmental immunities already in place (i.e. the immunities applicable to liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act). I just don’t see any way around that without an express exemption being in the bill. And God knows, the liberals aren’t going to put something in the bill that essentially says, “don’t worry, if we screw up, go right ahead and sue us, no problem.” If the government were that cavalier about allowing itself to be sued for screw ups, the flood of lawsuits would grind the entire federal government to a screeching halt.
the profits attained by private insurers is BLOOD money. it is immoral, irresponsible and completely unamerican for any private insurer to reap profits on the blood of consumers.
hopefully the public option will come to fruition. the insurance companies are filthy and immoral and they need to get out of that business.
The tort liability issue needs to be aggressively added into the mix of this national debate. I want TOTAL CHAOS because that’s the only way to ensure that Obamacare will go down in flames. And I am NOT talking about chaos in the sense that I want town halls disrupted or shut down. I want intellectual chaos–so that at a minimum, the public knows that there are a multitude of issues that Obama simply doesn’t have adequate answers for (IF he’s addressed them at all). The more the public realizes just how many crucial issues have not been explained, the more insane Congress’s rush to enact this piece of legislative garbage will appear.
#31: Alright, who’s the wiseguy that pulled the string hanging out of buckeyenutlover’s back? Knock it off.
Good news! This just in:
White House appears ready to drop ‘public option’
“President Barack Obama’s administration signaled on Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run health insurance as part of his ambitious health care proposal. Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives. Such a concession is likely to enrage his liberal supporters but could deliver Obama a much-needed win on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090816/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_overhaul
Keep it up, Patriots!
Here’s yet another nail in the Obamacare coffin:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/13/AR2009081304158.html
It’s a column by Robin Givhan of The Washington Post in which she criticizes the FASHION of the Obamacare protesters. It’s dripping with vile condescension and it exposes the seething contempt that the Washington liberal elites have for the millions of Americans living in “fly-over country.” After reading the quote below I realized that we should be thanking Givhan for helping to derail Obama’s agenda because she’s only confirming what conservatives have been saying about the Democrats for years–that the liberal agenda is fueled by the narcissism of its leaders, NOT by an altruistic desire to “help people.”
“By and large, the shouters are dressed in a way that underscores their Average Guy — or Gal — bona fides. They are wearing T-shirts, baseball caps, promotional polo shirts and sundresses with bra straps sliding down their arm. They wear fuchsia bandannas and American-flag hankies wrapped around their skulls like sweatbands. A lot of them look as though they could be attending a sporting event and, as it turns out, the congressman is the opposing player they have decided to heckle. If not for the prohibition on signs and banners inside these meetings, one could well expect to see some of these volatile worker bees wearing face paint and foam fingers, albeit the highlighted digit would be one expressing foul displeasure rather than competitive rank or skill level.”
Tano, I’ll try to use short words to address your concerns so that you can better grasp the points. Alas, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, I can only explain it to you, I can’t understand it for you. But here goes:
The marketing budget: I will admit Social Security (and Medicare and Medicaid) has a small stipend for outreach that goes to alert those who are eligible for this FREE service that they can take advantage of it and how. I’m not completely sure what that budget is. Perhaps, Tano, since you’re rebutting, you can supply me that budget along with the marketing and advertizing budgets for a few major health insurance companies. I’m sure that’d end that debate.
Printing money: Yes, nobody’s talking about the plan being “subsidized in an open ended manner”. And then again, there once was a Social Security Trust Fund that wouldn’t be used for anything else. Tano, you may be simple and quarrelsome, but you’re not blind and naive as well, are you?
Exemptions from regulations: View the video to which I linked today. The president himself even acknowledges taxes and regulations to which the ‘public option’ would not be subject. Oh, wait, but maybe since those are his words, you’re coming around to the fact that they mean nothing. Nevertheless, it’s in the Constitution, son. The Federal government is NOT subject to the laws of the States. Not sure if in your part of the Scientific Community you have access to that document. You can Google for it, though.
Negotiating Drug Prices: Tano, I’m not even goign to begin to let you get away with that one. You’d have to be not paying attention to ANY of the debate to not know that Dems are dying for this. In fact, it’s still on the table. Please educate yourself, Tano. It makes the debate much more fun and interesting.
Forcing people to buy: Again, Tano…I know it’s two big words at once, but have you not heard of the “individual mandate”? Please read. Dang, I’m having to do all your research for you. At least there’s a possibility it’ll educate you, though.
#37: CP, as North Dallas 30 has said many times on this blog to other fools in the Tano-mold, Tano expects us to believe was he WANTS to be true, instead of what we KNOW to be true.
Nick, and: why should anybody WANT to take on such a punishing chore? Another question that lefties are always forgetting.
Been gone a couple days – putting the rest of my thoughts in your newer thread.
Except for this:
… because leftists lie. Any public so-called “option” would inevitably *have to* be subsidized in an open-ended manner. The fact that Tano’s Dear Leader chooses to lie and dissemble about it is to his shame, and the fact that Tano chooses to believe lies is to Tano’s shame.
the profits attained by private insurers is BLOOD money. it is immoral, irresponsible and completely unamerican for any private insurer to reap profits on the blood of consumers.
Considering that CAFE standards leads to thousands more deaths on American roadways, that would apply to Government Motors and the UAW, right?
I guess you could say the same for the nurses unions? How about the EMS unions? Does that include the insurance companies pushing ObamaCare or no?
Does that include hospitals and all of their staff from the doctors all the way down to the housekeepers or no? Does that include all the RNs, RNAs, CNAs, ENTs, RTs, EMTs, EMT-Is, EMT-Ps, NMTs, radiologists, PAs, sitters, transcriptionists, transporters, security, coders etc.?
Should we eliminate ALL of those positions and add millions MORE to the unemployment rolls just to make sure nobody attains “immoral BLOOD money”?
It sounds to me, that you support cutting off health care to all Americans.
CP,
As for marketing budgets. A public plan would have to do the exact same thing that a private plan would have to do. It would need to educate consumers about its existence, about what it offers, what it costs, what it doesnt cover etc. It would be an option that people could choose – and so it would have the exact same requirements in terms of providing information to the public, as any private plan.
That private plans might still go ahead and spend much more on advertisements to spread their name around, or pound home misleading selling points is their problem. Perhaps that is one of the areas they might choose to cut back on in order to compete.
“Yes, nobody’s talking about the plan being “subsidized in an open ended manner”.”
Ah yes, I see where this is going. The old default argument. If something I dream up is not specifically forbidden, it is bound to happen some day.
But we have some examples, dont we? Obama probably wasn’t all that wise to use the Post Office example, because it is so ripe for people to just go off and make snarky comments so that they dont have to deal with the issue.
But the fact is, the USPS is a government-owned corporation, and generates all of its own revenues. It does not get subsidized by the government. The fact that it is owned by the same entity that owns the printing presses does not mean that the USPS can avail itself of free money.
Exemption from regulations
I watched the video. I didnt see any real discussion of this issue at all. BTW, I thought Obama gave a fine answer. He recognized the legitimacy of the young man’s concerns, listed some additional ones that the guy hadn’t even mentioned, and committed to insuring that the final bill be crafted in a way to avoid those potential problems. I dont know what the hell you expect.
As for state regulations, maybe you have a point there. I wonder what state regulations exist that arent matched or exceeded by federal regulations that the public option would have to abide by – so I am not sure this is much of a real problem, but maybe it is. I’ll check it out.
“Negotiating Drug Prices:…Dems are dying for this.”
Of course we are. But what you said originally, and what I responded to was:
“Your new competitor needn’t negotiate with his (and your!) suppliers”
because the government would supposedly just fix the price.
We want the right to negotiate prices – we are not looking to fix them.
Please try to keep track of your own arguments.
“Forcing people to buy: Again, Tano…I know it’s two big words at once, but have you not heard of the “individual mandate”?”
Now this is a thoroughly dishonest argument. A mandate forces people to buy SOME form of insurance. It is not forcing them to buy the public plan as opposed to the private plans. Which is what you said.
“Your new competitor can force people who don’t currently avail themselves of your services to do so, ”
Once again, you seem to have trouble tracking your own arguments. Whats up with that?
#42: “Ah yes, I see where this is going. The old default argument. If something I dream up is not specifically forbidden, it is bound to happen some day.”
Ah, yes, I see where this is going. The old default argument. Obama would never allow something like that to happen. You should trust Obama. Obama cares about the People.
Tano, Obama has lied about this plan and everything else for so long that even the most partisan right-wing blogs can’t keep up. When you’re dealing with PROVEN LIAR who holds the most powerful office on the globe, ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN.
No, it’s moral. Profit is fundamental to life, and therefore moral. What’s immoral, bnl, is your (and Obama’s) lying and dissembling. And, oh yeah – Your sick, perverted and immoral desire to sustain yourselves by LOOTING the lives and pocketbooks of other people. Your looting fascism. That’s immoral. You are immoral here, bnl. Capitalism and free enterprise are the moral way for human beings to live.
Tano, what authorizes the POTUS or Congress to participate in health care or the insurance industry?
Tano, which insurance plan will President Obama’s children be on?
If the plan he wants to force upon me and my family isn’t good enough for him and his, why is it good enough for you?
Once agian, where do you get that? When has their ever been Congressional mandated price fixing in Medicare, or the VA, for instance?
Um, the fact that the prices Medicare will pay for procedures are fixed by law?
But the fact is, the USPS is a government-owned corporation, and generates all of its own revenues. It does not get subsidized by the government.
And Barack Obama once again demonstrates how utterly ill-informed and stupid he is.
There is established, as an independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States, the United States Postal Service.
Or if that isn’t enough, ask the Supreme Court:
Held: The Postal Service is not subject to antitrust liability. In both form and function, it is not a separate antitrust person from the United States but is part of the Government, and so is not controlled by the antitrust laws.
In short, when it runs a deficit, taxpayers have to make up the difference, because it is a government establishment. Furthermore, it is allowed to “borrow” directly from the Treasury Department at well below market rates, versus its private competitors who cannot. That is a subsidy.
Does anyone have a theory as to why Barack Obama is so ignorant about his own executive branch that he would make these sort of statements?
DaveP
I imagine that Mr. Obama, at least once he is no longer president, will be in the exact same position that you and I are in. He will be able to choose a health plan from those offered by private insurance companies, or perhaps a public option or a co-op.
I think that we have long ago made special provision for the health of our presidents and their immediate family.
You are not being forced into anything. Ya know, you really should be just a bit more skeptical about some of the things you hear from spittle-flecked propagandists.
“You are not being forced into anything. Ya know, you really should be just a bit more skeptical about some of the things you hear from spittle-flecked propagandists.”
We are Tano, part of the reason we work so hard to debunk you.
I was going to say “Make you look stupid.” But you do that just fine w.o help.
‘Tano, what authorizes the POTUS or Congress to participate in health care or the insurance industry?”
Health CARE?
Aside from the VA and the military, the federal government is not in the business of providing health care. The issue here is health INSURANCE.
The constitutionality of these bills is grounded in the general welfare clause of Article 1, as I mentioned earlier. The applicability of this clause to social insurance programs was established by the Supreme Court in the thirties, when your intellectual forebears – the anti-newdealers – sued and lost their fight to have Social Security ruled unconstitutional.
THe case was Helvering v Davis. A snippet;
“The scheme of benefits created by the provisions of Title II is not in contravention of the limitations of the Tenth Amendment.
Congress may spend money in aid of the “general welfare.” Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 297 U. S. 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. Yet difficulties are left when the power is conceded. The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event. There is a middle ground, or certainly a penumbra, in which discretion is at large. The discretion, however, is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment. This is now familiar law. “
I love how Barack Obama now tries to use a court case to prove that because one type of welfare was deemed legal, another type is automatically so.
Especially when the case itself says this:
The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general.
In short, the Supreme Court is saying that this is a one-shot deal and applies only to this specific situation.
Funny that a lawyer like Barack Obama wouldn’t know that. But then again, that assumes Barack Obama had to meet the same educational standards as a white lawyer would, and we know that isn’t the case.
The constitutionality of these bills is grounded in the general welfare clause of Article 1, as I mentioned earlier.
So the framers wanted the American people to be kept on welfare for all eternity? That’s f*cking absurd and you know it.
Also, they continue to obfuscate the general welfare clause. Who’s general welfare? There are 3 bodies politic described in the constitution. 1) The People, 2) The States and Finally, 3) the entity called the United States. Does the clause say, The General Welfare of the People? No, so I guess it wasn’t that body politic. How about the States? No, so I guess it wasn’t that body politic. The clause states, “To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States” No where does it say FOR THE PEOPLE.
And could you please quote and link to the “welfare clause of Article 1”?
Emphasis mine.
http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE
Now Tano, let us see how well you know history. How many of FDRs programs were found unconsitutional? When did the court start finding them constitutional? And Why? I’ll give you a hint, it was called the Court Packing fiasco.
“I love how Barack Obama now tries to use a court case to prove that because one type of welfare was deemed legal, another type is automatically so.”
ND30,
My name is Tano, not Barack Obama. And if you disagree, you are free to adjudicate your case in court. Maybe you can get the SC to agree with you – it is a conservative court.
“In short, the Supreme Court is saying that this is a one-shot deal and applies only to this specific situation.”
No, it says what it says. That each instance has to be determined on its own merits, under the well-established rule that the Congress CAN spend money in pursuit of the general welfare. And that the power to make such determinations (whether the spending is justified) rests with Congress primarily, to be struck down by the courts only in egregious cases.
If you think this one, then file a lawsuit. Thats standard operating procedure for the right, isn’t it? Trying to win in court what you cant win through the legislative process? 🙂
“And could you please quote and link to the “welfare clause of Article 1″?”
“Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ”
LINK (scroll down Article 1 to section 8.
As for your second comment – what exactly is your point?
That we interpret “welfare” as “happiness”? That the government is authorized to secure our happiness? Coool….
Bottom line here is that the Court ruled that Social Security, which is a rather organized effort, qualified as legitimate activity in pursuit of general welfare. I dont know the case law about Medicare, but I suspect that one of you conservatives have probably tried to mount a case against it, and if so, it surely hasnt succeeded.
#55, TGC – I agree, and the general welfare was an enabling clause that gave The United States a means of collecting funds to operate.
Steve,
Is this a great country or what? You get to hold and disseminate your own opinions about what the Constitution means.
Unfortunatly, your opinions do not have the force of law. The opinons of the Supreme Court do. So, sorry….
“How many of FDRs programs were found unconsitutional?”
Lots
“When did the court start finding them constitutional? And Why? I’ll give you a hint, it was called the Court Packing fiasco.”
Right after the failure of that fiasco.
Except for one inconvenient fact. If you read the passage I quoted from the SS decision, you will see that the Court did not claim to be settling the larger issue with this case – rather they assert that it was settled in United States v Butler. THat is a case where the Supreme Court STRUCK DOWN a new deal program, the AAA, but in the course of doing so, established the policy on the general welfare clause. This was before the court-packing, and obviously was the fruit of a court in full opposition to the new deal. A snippet:
“The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States. … It results that the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.”
In other words Tano, they used the prudence method of reading the constitution; I’d better start finding this stuff constitutional if I want to keep my power. Court packing would have reduced their power.
You can find many clauses in the constitution when taken alone can mean something different or more. However, when you take them together, an entirely different picture appears. One part of the document is not more important than the other. Simply stated, an unconstitutional act does not become constitutional by fiat just because it has been passed over and over again.
“I’d better start finding this stuff constitutional if I want to keep my power. Court packing would have reduced their power. ”
Maybe you missed the part where I said that the Butler decision was BEFORE FDR dreamed up his court-packing scheme – a year before…
“Simply stated, an unconstitutional act does not become constitutional by fiat just because it has been passed over and over again.”
No, I think you really have to come to grips with the force of my first comment to you. Whether something is constitutional or not is decided, in our nation, by rulings of the Court – with the highest authority being the Supreme Court. If the SC says its constiutional, then it IS constitutional.
They ruled that the general welfare clause gave power to the Congress to spend for the general welfare. Thus it is constitutional, irresepective of what you think. They further applied this to the Social Security Law – finding it Constitutional under that provision.
As I said I dont know about Medicare, other than the fact that it hasnt been struck down in 40 years. If you want to have a shot at striking down Obamacare, go for it – the Court’s doors are open.
So that really is the whole story….
Maybe you missed the part where I said that the Butler decision was BEFORE FDR dreamed up his court-packing scheme – a year before…
Maybe you missed the part where the decision you actually quoted, instead of the one that you’re desperately trying to flail about, was AFTER the court-packing scheme.
You were caught lying again, Barack Obama, and instead of admitting you lied, you spun. What a surprise.
My name is Tano, not Barack Obama.
You haven’t said a single thing that isn’t a talking point directly out of Barack Obama’s mouth, and you’re incapable of admitting any facts that run contrary to what Barack Obama’s talking points are. Your name is Barack Obama.
The fact that Barack Obama is so stupid and ignorant that he doesn’t know the Postal Service is a part of the executive branch that he supposedly runs is just another example of how making hiring decisions based solely on race and skin color is a bad idea.
As far as Tano is concerned, the founders of this country left their countries where the government controlled their lives and started their own.
“Maybe you missed the part where the decision you actually quoted, instead of the one that you’re desperately trying to flail about, was AFTER the court-packing scheme.”
Groan. Is English not your first language or something?
The first case that I quoted, which was decided after the court-packing fiasco, was a case in which SS was upheld as constitutional, because, as it clearly states in the passage I quoted, the Court held that the underlying question about the meaning of “general welfare” HAD ALREADY BEEN DECIDED. Thus, in this case, the SS case, the Court was not breaking any new ground – merely applying a precedent arrived at earlier.
And they point us to the very case- USvButler – decided BEFORE the court-packing fiasco.
That is the relevance of the issue here. The claim is made that because of the threat of the courtpacking, the court was somehow bullied into going along with FDR, and that is why the expansive reading of the “general welfare” clause was adopted. This is clearly false, since the expansive interpretation of the “general welfare’ clause was estabished BEFORE the courtpacking, and in a case where the Court was actually striking DOWN a major pillar of the New Deal.
Groan. Is English not your first language or something?
What a surprise; Barack Obama resorts to insults after having been caught in a lie with his claim that the constitutionality of Social Security was decided before the court-packing fiasco.
It seems the problem is Barack Obama’s ignorance of history and lack of comprehension of English, not mine. Why does Barack Obama insult peoples’ intelligence and language skills rather than admit his errors? For a white person, that would be inappropriate and unprofessional behavior, yet for a black person, it seems completely normal.
ND30
“after having been caught in a lie with his claim that the constitutionality of Social Security was decided before the court-packing fiasco”
Actually, I said the opposite. The very first time I addressed the issue, after Steve had raised it with me, I wrote:
Steve:“When did the court start finding them constitutional? And Why? I’ll give you a hint, it was called the Court Packing fiasco.”
Tano:”Right after the failure of that fiasco.”
Bold added just now given your apparant problems with reading.
And then I went on in that comment to explain how the court, by so ruling on SS, was merely extending the precedent they established earlier, before the court-packing, in US v Butler. As they say in the quoted passage.
Why is this so complicated for you?
Tano,
“The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated [,] is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States”
The court only affirmed what I said in my first post, that they Congress could tax for the general welfare of the entity United States. Again, there are three bodies politic in the Constitution, The People, The States and The Entity called the United States. The people are not the subject of that clause; the United States is the subject of that clause. This has been held since Justice Story.
Now lets suppose, they had the power to tax for the general welfare of the PEOPLE. Why then did it take the federal government 150 years to figure out it had that power? Why didn’t they use it at the end of the 1700s and all through the 1800s?
Finally, no sir, the people are the final say on what is and isn’t constitutional. Hence why you see a majority of people against Obamacare.
PS: McCulloch Vs Maryland is the basis for “The clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated”
Correction, it has been held since Justice Story, that there are three bodies politic in the constitution.
Steve,
I think you are missing a rather large and obvious point. The passage from Butler that I quoted, and you also quoted here, was used by the Court as a justification for a finding that the Social Security Law as constitutional.
Its pretty obvious that this established the meaning of “general welfare of the United States” in such a manner as to include the actual people. SS is a program for people, after all.
“This has been held since Justice Story. ”
I think that is obviously wrong, for reasons stated above.
In fact even in the Butler decision itself, we see the principle established.
THe Butler decision was one in which there was a tax mandated on food processors, with the money going to farmers to reduce crops, thus raising crop prices. The Court found that the taxation scheme was Constitutional – i.e. that the goal of helping farmers by raising prices for some, while paying others not to plant – i.e. helping the welfare of PEOPLE, was constitutional. The passage about ‘general welfare” comes from that finding. The court went on in that decision to strike down the law because they found that the federal government did not have the power to so closely manage agricultural production – a right of the states. Thus the taxation was a constitutional means to an unconstitutional end.
“Finally, no sir, the people are the final say on what is and isn’t constitutional.”
The final say – sure, in the sense that we elect the representatives at the federal and local level who have the power to vote for constitutional amendments. But thats all. Thats like saying that you get to decide what is legal or not. Technically I suppose, since you have the power to vote for legislators who write laws, you are the ultimate source of the legitimacy of the law. But dont try that argument next time you get stopped going 70 in a 55 zone.
Again, if they had this power to tax for the General Welfare of THE PEOPLE? Then why did it take 150 years to find that power? Why didn’t they use it at the end of the 1700s and all through the 1800s? That is a very powerful power. I’m not missing any points. The court, through prudence, made it so. That’s the point. Had they not been under duress, the outcome would have been totally different.
From the Majority of Butler:
As Story says: ‘The Constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be the frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not of general and unlimited powers.’ 13 <– That government was the entity UNITED STATES, 1 of the bodies politic in the constitution.
Again he says: ‘A power to lay taxes for the common defence and general welfare of the United States is not in common sense a general power. It is limited to those objects. It cannot constitutionally transcend them.’ 14
That the qualifying phrase must be given effect all advocates of broad construction admit. Hamilton, in his [297 U.S. 1, 67] well known Report on Manufactures, states that the purpose must be ‘general, and not local.’ 15 Monroe, an advocate of Hamilton’s doctrine, wrote: ‘Have Congress a right to raise and appropriate the money to any and to every purpose according to their will and pleasure? They certainly have not.’ 16 Story says that if the tax be not proposed for the common defense or general welfare, but for other objects wholly extraneous, it would be wholly indefensible upon constitutional principles. 17 And he makes it clear that the powers of taxation and appropriation extend only to matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare.
‘There are, indeed, certain virtual limitations, arising from the principles of the Constitution itself. It would undoubtedly be an abuse of the (taxing) power if so exercised as to impair the separate existence and independent self-government of the States, or if exercised for ends [297 U.S. 1, 70] inconsistent with the limited grants of power in the Constitution.’ Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, 541. <- another body politic, the states.
But if the plan were one for purely voluntary co-operation it would stand no better so far as federal power is concerned. At best, it is a scheme for purchasing with federal funds submission to federal regulation of a subject reserved to the states. “And/Or the people to complete the phrase.” There is a reference to this in Butler. Which is the Third Body Politic.
There’s a whole lot more. You can read it here, http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Butler/ if you wish