As Dems press forward with Obamacare, they strengthen resolve of conservative to reduce size and scope of government
Of all the analysis and criticism conservative pundits and bloggers have made about the president’s decision to press ahead with his statist healthcare overhaul, perhaps the most instructive exchange has been between Andrew McCarthy and Ed Morrissey.
McCarthy believes the Democrats will press forward at all costs, including the loss of Congress, in order to fulfill their their age-hold dream of government health care, increasing federal control over one-sixth of our economy. He thinks Republicans lack the will to repeal the monstrosity should Democrats pass it. Morrissey, by contrast, doesn’t think Democrats will get away with it because not all their fellow partisans share the vision of their far-left leaders from deep “blue” enclaves of our richly diverse country.
Being an optimist, I side with Morrissey, but aware of the liberal impulse for control, I get where McCarthy’s coming from and understand why the Democrats press on even as opposition has solidified against the overhaul, with strong opposition increasing and intensifying as the president’s poll numbers take a tumble every time health care tops the news.
First, given that right now, “there is no health care bill currently under consideration“, it’s not certain Democrats can come up with something which can pass both congressional chambers and pass muster under the Senate rules of reconciliation. Second, even if Democrats do find a way to pass it, Republicans might finally find the stomach to repeal it, given that they’ll owe their majorities to popular opposition to the legislation and outrage at the way it has been (and likely will be) rammed through Congress.
In making a point similar to my second point (and so helping me frame my argument), Moe Lane offers this telling observation:
People like to talk about how government programs and agencies never die, once instituted, with the Great Society and the New Deal being the most used examples. What’s not mentioned is that both of those programs were popular. People wanted a Social Security program. They wantedMedicare. They do not notably want this monstrosity of a health care bill*.
And that’s why it may not only be the straw which breaks the statist camel’s back, but which finally turns the tides on big government, giving small government conservatives the will not just to repeal this boondoggle, but to start taking a crack at other outdated pieces of the federal leviathan.
42 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I’m glad you posted McCarthy’s sobering piece. Before the “summit,” everyone was speculating about how the Kabuki extravaganza would play out, and since then, everyone has been speculating about whether the Democrats will or won’t “go nuclear” and pass Obamacare even if it will inevitably lead to political suicide. But I don’t share your optimism–I think McCarthy is right:
“I hear Republicans getting giddy over the fact that “reconciliation,” if it comes to that, is a huge political loser. That’s the wrong way to look at it. The Democratic leadership has already internalized the inevitablility of taking its political lumps. That makes reconciliation truly scary. Since the Dems know they will have to ram this monstrosity through, they figure it might as well be as monstrous as they can get wavering Democrats to go along with.”
Government-controlled healthcare just might be the holy grail that the Democrats covet even more than reelection. Rush has said (accurately, I think) that Obama is on a crusade to “build a monument to himself.” This has NEVER been about the American people.
Comment by Sean A — February 28, 2010 @ 3:19 am - February 28, 2010
This is pretty much right. The Republicans are heroes if they block healthcare reform, but villains if they repeal it. They want to be heroes rather than villains, so they’ll leave whatever you get in place.
Dreaming about a world in which strong Republican talk is backed up by equally strong action is fruitless, and you should stop doing it. I’d give suggestions on what other routes there are to kill this bill if/when it passes, but (rather uncharacteristically) I can’t think of any. I think that’s mostly because I don’t want to think of any, because I actually support the current reform proposals.
Really. Single-payer is dead. The strong public option is dead. The weak public option is dead. The Medicare buy-in is dead. What’s left is an insurance mandate and a load of subsidies. You’re having trouble killing that because your opponents now have their back to the wall, there’s nowhere else to go and still have a bill they can call ‘reform’.
They’ve been trying to get some sort of meaningful reform for decades, they tried back in the 90s and failed. This time the Democrats promised this was it. Solid majority in the House, 60 seats in the Senate, a Democrat in the White House. This is now it, no stopping for anything. They hyped it up to the point where their credibility, maybe even their long-term survival as a party is at stake.
But more than that, they really believe this is the right thing to do. Government control isn’t all bad, Reagan was wrong, sometimes government is the answer, and healthcare is one of those times. The United States has the lowest involvement of government in healthcare in the western world, and also the highest healthcare costs!
They put this down to two things. Unusually high administrative costs (health insurers trying to find ways to disqualify people for healthcare rather than just paying out) and unusually high drug costs (due to a market fragmented between numerous insurers unable to negotiate as a single block). Single-payer or a public option is generally seen as the solution to these, since it would result in a large, publically-held insurer working to provide healthcare rather than make profit and able to negotiate as a single bloc. But you killed that, so whatever.
The mandate is what’s left. Compared to the above, it’s weak sauce. The only opportunity to lower costs is now is through getting more people insured, which I do believe will lower costs, but not by nearly as much as the above. Still, it’s something.
It’s also the final compromise. Anything further, and the Democrats bet everything, and lost. That would be a true disaster for them, and you can bet they’re fully aware of that as they consider their options.
Personally, I think they’re going to get what they want this time. Almost certainly through reconciliation. The Republicans will criticize, Fox News will explode, and you’ll go apeshit. None of that will change the outcome though, which is something you’ll probably have to live with.
So you now have how your opponents think, and my prediction. Now I shall sit back and watch the fireworks.
Comment by Serenity — February 28, 2010 @ 4:51 am - February 28, 2010
That’s the entire problem! We have an entire party of people like Serenity who dont know the first thing about how markets work thinking they can simply step in and order it to work the way they want it to. Doctors and nurses will flee, pharmaceutical companies will go out of business, innovation will cease … as happened when Democrats told the vaccine industry how it had to operate. We went from dozens of vaccine manufacturers down to three. And now we get flu vaccine shortages.
Fortunately, even if Democrats manage to get enough of their members to vote for the bill (one that will only drive costs UP, not down, by the way), it will be ruled unconstitutional on several grounds, states are already passing laws saying they will not comply with it…
it really is a disaster for Democrats all around! The economy is getting worse, not better, economists are now talking about unemployment remaining at these levels for years, and the American people can see that all Democrats care about is seizing power for themselves. 75% of the American people want congress to either drop health care altogether or start from scratch, and Democrats are utterly defying them, thinking the people are too stupid to know whats good for them.
Americans don’t much appreciate being treated like serfs.
Democrats will be lucky if they dont lose power for a generation or more! And all for a power grab they most likely wont be able to pass, and will be ruled unconstitutional even if they do!
Comment by American Elephant — February 28, 2010 @ 6:20 am - February 28, 2010
Not a backhanded insult at all!
I’d like a citation here, the medical industries in other countries don’t seem to have collapsed. I’ve no trouble finding a doctor here in Britain for instance.
Again, a citation would be nice. I’m not sure where I’d start searching for the whole story on this.
Dream on. If Social Security and Medicare haven’t been ruled unconstitutional, what makes you think it’ll happen this time around? The Supreme Court’s broad interpretation of the commerce clause doesn’t seem to be going away, so I wouldn’t rely on them to do your work for you.
You’re still dreaming, wake up please.
By what measure? Who says it’s getting worse? By how much?
Who? Who is saying these things? At the moment, all I’m seeing is “because I say so”.
Not all people care about politics as strongly as we do. A full majority of the population was convinced to get behind Barack Obama in 2008, and he was being called a socialist even back then. You may be falling victim to the echo chamber effect here.
You know, I could also interpret that figure to mean what the public really wants is for congress to drop this weak-sauce insurance mandate and go back to the public option that 72% of the public was behind before it was dropped in an effort to get bi-partisan support for the bill.
I particularly love the quote “Most also think the government would do a better job than private industry at keeping down costs and believe that the government should guarantee health care for all Americans”. I think that speaks for itself.
The Democrats tried healthcare reform in 1993. That was 15 years ago. Stop exaggerating. Politically, the Democrats will definitely be in a better position if they can pass healthcare reform. Being the party of ‘getting things done’ is an image they want, and will most likely more than offset any backlash.
Comment by Serenity — February 28, 2010 @ 7:09 am - February 28, 2010
Serenity is speaking from Britain? From the perspective of the NHS? Really? Are you not taking the papers over there? Americans will not stand for the debasement of their relatives or themselves, the way the Brits have laid down for this disaster for fity years. Not for fifty weeks. Passage, should it come, will bring only disaster and immediately. You see no negative impact relatively from the US system to, let us say, the world system? You are ignoring the filth, the backwardness, the deathpaneling, the deprivations that are the norm in the NHS, the Canadian system and anyplace else with socialized medicine or socialized anything else. It is for this reason that for partisan considerations I support Obamacare. Citizens are too easily bamboozled by the promises made by the socializers because they never address the costs. Yes, caviar and mink toilet seats are quite popular when someone else is paying. There is no “someone else” in this instance since the cost inflation that is the bugbear is total market cost which is only going up with care quality plummetting. Americans will not quietly remove maggots from their loved ones wounds in hospital and think they are lucky for the opportunity. THAT is the promise of socialized medicine. That is the promise of Obamacare. Disputation? Okay, that is why, though it is bitter, bitter medicine, I look forward, though not happily, to the actual demonstration of this monstrosity.
Comment by megapotamus — February 28, 2010 @ 7:57 am - February 28, 2010
#2: “They’ve been trying to get some sort of meaningful reform for decades, they tried back in the 90s and failed. This time the Democrats promised this was it. Solid majority in the House, 60 seats in the Senate, a Democrat in the White House. This is now it, no stopping for anything. They hyped it up to the point where their credibility, maybe even their long-term survival as a party is at stake.”
Serenity, their credibility evaporated a long time ago, even with their supporters. Like you said, they’ve been trying to get this done for decades, had Hillarycare on deck in the 90s which failed, and now, after a year of total control of both the legislative and executive branches of government, they STILL haven’t managed to deliver to the American people a state-controlled healthcare system. In the real world, this is called scorching, unmitigated incompetence.
“But more than that, they really believe this is the right thing to do.”
Yes, if by “right” you mean doing what will best feed the insatiable narcissism that fuels their misguided belief that they know what’s best for all of us. If they believe this is the “right” thing to do for the American people then why isn’t Obamacare good enough for them and their own families?
And if YOU think this is the right thing to do, you’re grossly misinformed. Your support of elitist politicians and their policies that steal from the productive through force and distribute the spoils to favored groups, unions, and cronys does not make you compassionate or caring. It makes you an immoral tool of the left and an embittered failure out to punish those who are smarter and more successful than you are.
“Government control isn’t all bad, Reagan was wrong, sometimes government is the answer, and healthcare is one of those times.”
The fu*k it isn’t, you imbecile. Government is the “answer” when you need a daisy-cutter dropped on an Islamic savage, a bullet in the noggin of some fool climbing in your bedroom window, some water thrown on your burning house, or a pothole filled badly. Beyond that, government can’t be trusted to set the clock on your Tivo.
“The United States has the lowest involvement of government in healthcare in the western world, and also the highest healthcare costs!”
Which is why the US has the best healthcare system on the globe. “Lowest involvement of government in healthcare.” Best healthcare system on the globe. See the connection?
“They put this down to two things.”
They? Who’s “they,” Serenity? The voices in your head? Your “friends” at QVC and the Franklin Mint? Your cats?
“Unusually high administrative costs (health insurers trying to find ways to disqualify people for healthcare rather than just paying out)…”
Serenity, if you’re going to be one of Obama’s faithful spammers, can you at least try not to mix the talking points you’ve been programmed with? If healthcare administrative costs are high, it’s because government regulations are responsible for healthcare PROVIDERS spending thousands of man-hours trying to get ever-shrinking reimbursements from the public healthcare programs that the government has already f-ed up beyond repair (i.e. Medicare).
The administrative costs of healthcare INSURERS is not high because their employees are busy “trying to find ways to disqualify people for healthcare rather than just paying out.” If an insurer denies a claim, the total administrative effort amounts to a form letter stating essentially, “denied.” The talking point that appears to be eluding you is the oft-recited leftist mantra that health insurers are enterprises dedicated to reaping “obscene profits” by selling policies and then later systematically denying any claims that are submitted by the policyholders. In short, you don’t have a clue of what you’re talking about. About two-thirds of the states have some form of a bad faith law that allows policyholders to sue insurers for breach of contract and fraud for engaging in such practices. In California, a bad faith judgment entitles the policyholder to PUNITIVE DAMAGES which could actually bankrupt even a mammoth insurer. Thus, IT IS NOT PROFITABLE to sell policies and then deny claims that are legitimately covered by those policies. The entire company could be riding on the denial of only one claim. It is far more profitable to err on the side of coverage than to deny a claim and end up owing a nine-figure judgment to the policyholder down the road.
And one more thing. Medicare—that shining example trotted out by statists as evidence that government can run healthcare more efficiently than the private sector? It turns out that Medicare DENIES MORE CLAIMS THAN PRIVATE INSURERS. (Shhhhhhhh! Now, don’t go rockin’ the leftist boat with the facts or anything!)
http://www.examiner.com/x-17336-Midland-County-Public-Policy-Examiner~y2009m10d8-Medicare-denies-more-claims-than-private-insurance
“…and unusually high drug costs (due to a market fragmented between numerous insurers unable to negotiate as a single block).”
Obama could have reduced drug costs by fulfilling his campaign promise to permit Americans to buy prescription drugs imported from Canada, but like all of his promises, it had an expiration date.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/14/AR2009121401409.html
“So you now have how your opponents think, and my prediction. Now I shall sit back and watch the fireworks.”
Instead of sitting back and watching the fireworks, why don’t you try something different like getting up off your fat ass and finding some way to pay for your own healthcare insurance premiums? By the way, is that why you chose the screen name “Serenity”? Because you found a way to make the rest of us pay your fu*king bills? Well done, good-for-nothing.
Comment by Sean A — February 28, 2010 @ 8:11 am - February 28, 2010
http://content.nejm.org.ezproxye.bham.ac.uk/cgi/content/full/351/23/2443
New England Journal of Medicine article on american vacine industry. Very interesting. The reforms it outlines include increased government spending on subsidization and universal coverage in insurance plans for subsidized vaccines.
Comment by orangewalker — February 28, 2010 @ 8:13 am - February 28, 2010
ahh, i’m getting this through a university website, might not be available to everyone, sorry.
Comment by orangewalker — February 28, 2010 @ 8:16 am - February 28, 2010
Serenity presents a “compelling” argument if you view your health care needs as a right without regard to the cost.
We all need food, clothing and shelter. Now we are going to add health care to the list. Well, not exactly. “Not exactly,” because we already have that through emergency room medicine and public health clinics. Health care as Serenity means it is free, on-going, high quality health care.
But wait! Do we provide free, on-going, high quality food? Do we provide free, on-going, high quality housing? Do we provide free, on-going, high quality clothing? Of course not.
Who would ever try to push the concept that someone on the public dole should live in a gated community with lawn care and a maintenance for the swimming pool? Meanwhile, the groceries are picked at the store of choice and there are no restrictions. Clothing is shopped for with a government credit card.
Oh, I hear Serenity cry, you are being the fool. Really? Then why do you insist that we have the right to mega-million free health care if a person needs a heart transplant that is complicated by diabetes and obesity and a history of STDs?
The truth is, health care is not free and simply spreading the cost over a larger group will only bring the cost “down” for a short period before it climbs.
We have ads on TV for the Scooter Store. If you think you need a little electric cart to truck your body around, the Scooter Store will show you how to worm one out of the government.
Suppose you live on the second floor and there is no elevator. I guess the government is going to move you to the first floor so you can ride your scooter down the government sidewalk to get your government food.
How about another solution, Serenity. Why not build government old age homes and do Mussolini type assembly line medicine on the inmates?
Five percent of the population (the chronically ill) account for 50% of health care costs. Why not round these people up and put them in a government compound and slather them with efficient heath care? Why not treat artificial hips as a loan, to be reclaimed and recycled when the user goes toes up? Why not force the drug companies to donate the pills to the compound?
Here is another thought. Drug addicts are a huge burden on society in many ways. Why not have government compounds were the addicts get clean needles, free drugs of choice, immediate medical attention when they OD, housing, food, clothing, recreation and their children raised for them by loving, professional government social workers? Of course, the children are free to roam off the compound, but the addicts must get clean to leave.
Hitler and Mussolini had marvelous government solutions and efficiency. I would rather have them plan out who gets what on the government dime than to have the Obama crowd spreading endless BS about no-cost, unlimited healthcare nirvana.
Serenity! Come back, Serenity and tell us what the “practical” limits are that the government will place on free, on-going, high quality health care. Somehow, I do not think you have the courage.
Comment by heliotrope — February 28, 2010 @ 9:11 am - February 28, 2010
“they strengthen resolve of conservative to reduce size and scope of government”
Nice mythology you are trying to build.
However, like every myth, it doesn’t hold up – When asked on specifics, the American conservative doesn’t want to cut spending
http://www.salon.com/news/the_numerologist/2010/02/24/conflicted_conservatives/index.html
“the respondents who identified themselves as “conservative” or “extremely conservative” had little appetite for specific spending cuts.
Very few conservatives said they favored reducing (or cutting out altogether) spending on any program. The least popular program proved to be childcare — with a grand total of 20 percent of conservatives saying they’d slash it. The most popular is highways; only 6 percent want to cut spending there….Amazingly, the survey found that, on average, 54 percent of them actually wanted to increase spending.”
So no. When presented with specifics, conservatives said no.
Comment by gillie — February 28, 2010 @ 9:14 am - February 28, 2010
Serenity, of all the things you said with which I profoundly disagree, the most ridiculous may well be:
“The Republicans are heroes if they block healthcare reform, but villains if they repeal it. ”
That’s nothing more than the worst sort of wishful liberal thinking. Scott Brown just won, in (one of) the bluest of blue states by running on, really, two issues, one despised by “Uncle Ted”, the other his dying wish:
1. Enhanced interrogations.
2. Killing Obamacare.
Villains if they repeal it my not-inconsiderable arse. Running on repealling/de-funding Obamacare will be, imo, THE winning issue of 2010 should this obamanation (sic) pass. There will literally be people in the streets with pitchforks if it does; which, thank God and Tea Party protests, seems increasingly remote.
Comment by RandyG45 — February 28, 2010 @ 9:24 am - February 28, 2010
And you need a 2/3 majority to override the veto of the repeal . . .
Comment by Banzel — February 28, 2010 @ 9:42 am - February 28, 2010
minor point: i think one of the reasons our dialogue often breaks down on this and other issues is the language we use. surely both sides are guilty of this, but the right seems to have a special affection for using focus-group tested words and phrases that are shown to scare people. fred luntz to the rescue. to describe either the house or senate bill (or any of the alternations obama has suggested) as a “government takeover” of health care is absurd. will the doctors be federal employees? no. will the nurses? the hospitals? no. will even the insurance companies? nope. is there even a small public option to compete with the private insurers? nope. apparently requiring some minimum federal standards and getting a big pool such as the federal government enjoys to bring down costs is a “government takeover.”
Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 28, 2010 @ 10:04 am - February 28, 2010
*alterations
Comment by bob (aka boob) — February 28, 2010 @ 10:05 am - February 28, 2010
#12: “…but the right seems to have a special affection for using focus-group tested words and phrases that are shown to scare people.”
They should be scared. They are being preyed upon by career bureaucrats and their slimeball, freeloading minions like you who use Orwellian expressions like:
“a small public option to compete with the private insurers”
“some minimum federal standards”
“getting a big pool”
“bring down costs”
bob, I may have brought this up already, but seriously, go fu*k yourself.
Comment by Sean A — February 28, 2010 @ 10:26 am - February 28, 2010
The Dems should ram it through, and live to fight another day. There is no upside in wimping out and folding their cards. What happens, happens…I do not believe they can preemptively alter the electoral outcomes in November. If they act now, they stand a chance of surviving…especially if the legislation fails to end the world, as Repubs have been predicting.
I think Obama missed a golden opportunity by not going after the low hanging fruit of the insurance companies and big Pharma…but as long as he overreached, might as well go all in! DEE
Comment by DEE — February 28, 2010 @ 10:41 am - February 28, 2010
Bob, its about regulation of the healthcare industry. Look (and please actually RESEARCH this instead of aping liberal talking points) at how many general internists and specialized medicall professionals exist in countries where gov’t regulation of healthcare is the norm. Get back to us when the folly of Obamacare finally dawns on you.
Comment by Philip — February 28, 2010 @ 11:14 am - February 28, 2010
Funny how bob argues they won’t be under the direct ownership of the government. isn’t that the arguement that the socialists make to try to distance themselves from the fascists?
What good would nationalized healthvare be if no one takes the insurance? Doctors are dropping Medicare more and more every day. What’s next, requiring doctors to take Medicare? Maybe tying it into student loans, since the government recently consolidated those?
And what if Doctor Hu decides to bypass the payment entirely? I know of doctors and dentists who do side work in exchange for barter. Hells I know one who had a new pond dug in exchange for about 5k of dental work. Will the government not allow me to spend my captial on services I want/need? Hells, bob already said that the Government can make me buy a product I may not want, so why not?
In the real world, Doctors and private insurers negotiate and agree on contracts. The system of Medicare Private Fee For Serivce is this taken to a chaotic nightmare because there are no contracts. Doctor Hu may see Alice but not James, and may decide to not see Alice next week. Medicare Advantage PPOs and HMOs are a step back, the government is paying the insurance companies to manage their claims, but the member is agreeing to their networks and the provider is agreeing to their par rates. Both PFFS and MAPPO/HMO are voluntary options for the retiree, nothing forces them into either plan. Perhaps that’s why bob doesn’t like them, there’s no coersion?
Also, lets look at the claim rejection rate of insurance companies for 2007-2008 (and I know the private industry numbers have dropped, due to auto-adjudication since then). Gee, who has the worst? Hint, it’s not the private companies.
And DEE, insurance companies are ‘low hanging fruit’ only for frakking morons like yourself who don’t understand profit margins. Hells, insurance companies are affected by healthcare costs as much as anyone. That’s why they’re laying off, to be ‘leaner and meaner’ (and their employees work more).
Standard disclaimer: I work for an insurance company, I don’t speak for them. And they sure as hell don’t want me to.
Comment by The_Livewire — February 28, 2010 @ 11:16 am - February 28, 2010
I made these comment several threads below this on and some of it is in my comment (#9) above, but these libs just don’t know the facts or are willingly playing coy. So, I am also adding the comments to this thread:
Let’s get some facts on the table.
1) You can not have the greatest health care for everyone with no limits whatsoever.
2) Insurance is strictly setting odds. Insurance companies are major investors in the market. They pay dividends, salaries and bonuses.
2a) When you take health insurance company “profits” and apply them to health care market costs, they would pay for less than a week of “free” national health care. Being generous, that is less than a .019% effect on health care costs. But, they still make good whipping posts.
3) Hospitals take cash patients, insurance patients, Medicare and Medicaid patients and non-paying patients. They take non-paying patients because it is required by law.
4) Costs for the hospital are spread across the bills of those who pay through cash, insurance or Medicare and Medicaid. A major cost in medical care is malpractice insurance. (See #2 above.)
5) Medicare and Medicaid pay a set price and only a fraction of the hospital cost. (Think 60% of the bill.) Therefore, the hospital has to get the Medicare and Medicaid short payment from insurance and people who (See: 6a) pay cash. The hospital also has to cover the costs of non-payers from the same sources. (Medicare and Medicaid are notoriously slow in paying and for not paying at all due so some regulatory catch-22. They are every bit as hard to deal with as any health insurance company when it comes to denying claims.)
6) The health insurance industry must have functioning hospitals in order to cover the health care of their policy holders. Therefore, the health insurance companies actually build the Medicare and Medicaid shortfalls to the hospitals and non-payer costs to the hospital into their premiums.
To be clear, the insured carry the costs of the non-payers and the short payments from Medicare and Medicaid. (The grocery store also charges the customer for shop lifting, spoilage, etc.)
6a) Believe it or not, but cash payments to hospitals will carry up to a 40% discount, since cash payers are billed at levels of Medicare and Medicaid payments. Therefore, the insured also pay premiums that cover a portion of the bills cash payers actually do not pay.
7) A true “single-payer” plan is pure medical welfare. You show up for treatment, you get treated, you pay nothing. The “government” pays the bill. Of course, the government gets the money through taxation which might fall equally on everyone, but likely falls heavier on the rich and lightly or not at all on the poor.
8a) If you had a medical savings account, you would ration your own medical care.
8b) When you buy health insurance, the policy spells out the coverage and the limitations. Cheap, low quality insurance provides cheap, low quality coverage.
8c) If you turn medical care over to the government, a panel decides who gets what.
9) “Insurance reform” is a BS term. AIG failed because it could not cover the risks it assumed. It was “bailed out” because it was “too big to fail.” Blue Cross/Anthem can be regulated to fail, because it will be forced to assume risk it is not allowed to finance.
10) “Mandated” insurance will have a short term influx of cash, but it will shortly disappear as the system absorbs the cash.
11) Ultimately, all of Obamacare is aimed at #7.
12) 5% of the population (the chronically ill) spend 50% of the money spent in the health care portion of the economy.
13) Efficiency can always lower some costs, but the free market does a good job of weeding out inefficiency in the process of building productivity and lowering costs.
14) The primary cap on health care costs is coercion. Somehow, some way decisions are made about who gets what and how much.
15) No matter what, coercion is a bureaucratic process whether insurance companies do it by actuarial tables or faceless government panels write rules.
16) These are the economic rules. To pretend otherwise is to change the realities of mathematics. There are no “free” lunches.
17) Under national health care, the rich will get their treatment in another country and the rest of us will troop through highly regulated clinics.
Comment by heliotrope — February 28, 2010 @ 11:56 am - February 28, 2010
“Republicans might finally find the stomach to repeal it, ”
How would that happen. So long as there is a Dem president, a repeal would be vetoed. Even with a GOP president, you would need at least 60 Senators (probably a few more) to overcome a filibuster.
what is the earliest y’all imagine the GOP having the WH, the House and 62-3 Senators?
Comment by Tano — February 28, 2010 @ 2:52 pm - February 28, 2010
Why Tano,
Surely you’d agree that to have the health care debacle repealed, it’s time to revisit the filibuster?
After all, ” It was never seen as a way to permanently thwart the majority, or to somehow institute a supermajority rule to get anything done.”
Comment by The_Livewire — February 28, 2010 @ 3:02 pm - February 28, 2010
THanks Livewire
I was just wondering if y’all had some other plan. So let me see – you will need to win the House, and the Senate, and the WH. So we are talking early 2013 at the earliest possible – right? Then y’all must get on board with eliminating the filibuster. Is that what y’all mean by finding the stomach to repeal it?
Comment by Tano — February 28, 2010 @ 3:59 pm - February 28, 2010
Oh, and just to clarify – I have no hypocrisy problem here – if ‘yall win the Congress and the WH, then repeal away. I will remain opposed to the filibuster.
THe question is whether y’all have a hypocrisy problem. Will you actually switch positions on the filibuster? Or will you accept all the arguments you have been making these days, and thus also, be forced to accept that you will not be able to repeal Obamacare?
Comment by Tano — February 28, 2010 @ 4:04 pm - February 28, 2010
Let’s see, why isn’t Obamacare passing?
– It doesn’t have any Republican votes
– It doesn’t have every Obama Party vote
The last is crucial. Faced with the prospect of repealing an incredibly-unpopular bill that is linked to economic collapse, or upholding the veto of a desperate minority token whose incompetence, arrogance, and outright stupidity has wiped their entire party out of the majority and out of power, what do you think your Obama Party members will do, Tano?
That’s right. Token’s veto is overruled by the combined opposition of Republicans AND Obama Party members who have realized that there is no reason for them to destroy themselves to uphold the legacy of the racist incompetent Barack Obama.
Your racist fool of a token is losing his grip on power, Tano. That’s why you are here bawling and squawling, knowing that you’re very soon going to be part of the unemployed. How long do you think Barack Obama will keep providing “government contracts” to propaganda artists like yourself, especially after a Republican majority starts investigating? Do you know what the penalties are for government contractors who illegally use Federal funds, Tano?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 28, 2010 @ 6:30 pm - February 28, 2010
I will remain opposed to the filibuster.
Then state that Obama Party members like Barack Obama who filibustered Bush’s appointments were wrong for doing so, Tano.
After all, you claim you are “opposed to it” and that using it is wrong and undemocratic. Why don’t you then blast your Obama Party members for doing it?
That’s right, because you’re a hypocrite. That has been repeatedly proven and demonstrated. It is only because of your own ignorance and delusions that you think otherwise.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 28, 2010 @ 6:33 pm - February 28, 2010
To The_Livewire
” insurance companies are ‘low hanging fruit’ only for frakking morons like yourself who don’t understand profit margins. …I work for an insurance company…”
Thanks for making my point for me, and illustrating why they are low hanging fruit. Keep up the good work!
DEE
Comment by DEE — February 28, 2010 @ 7:05 pm - February 28, 2010
Ok, so I make my point by saying that DEE’s a moron, and he agrees with me.
Glad Dee and I can agree he’s a frakking moron.
Comment by The_Livewire — February 28, 2010 @ 7:08 pm - February 28, 2010
Thanks for making my point for me, and illustrating why they are low hanging fruit.
Only to Obama Party members.
Quick quiz: What do these enterprises have in common? Farm and construction machinery, Tupperware, the railroads, Hershey sweets, Yum food brands and Yahoo? Answer: They’re all more profitable than the health insurance industry. In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making “immoral” and “obscene” returns while “the bodies pile up.”
Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That’s anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.
Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.
Now go ahead, DEE, and state that any company or person, regardless of what they do, who makes a profit margin of more than 6% should be slapped with massive windfall taxes by the government and forced to accept price controls.
Then go after your Obama Party’s trial lawyer base, who averages 14%.
You won’t do it. Furthermore, these facts are out there and obvious, which is why your token Barack Obama and his Barack Obama Party are losing credibility by the second as their lies become more and more obvious.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 28, 2010 @ 7:26 pm - February 28, 2010
The cliched expression that goes along with the current health care debate is: “The US is the richest country in the world, but is the only industrialized nation without a government-run health system.”
It’s a bit like the oft-ridiculed NYT headline: “Prison population soars even as crime rate drops.”
Could it be that the US is the richest country in the world for the precise reason that it has thus far avoided such socialist wealth killers as a government run health system?
Comment by Matteo — February 28, 2010 @ 7:34 pm - February 28, 2010
Thank you for pointing out Tano’s hypocracy. Note how he wasn’t cheering the ‘nuclear option’ when it was his people using it.
It’s like signing statements. Bad when Bush did it, good when Obama does.
Comment by The_Livewire — February 28, 2010 @ 7:45 pm - February 28, 2010
“Could it be that the US is the richest country in the world for the precise reason that it has thus far avoided such socialist wealth killers as a government run health system?”
That could be exactly the reason. As a matter of fact, it almost certainly is.
Comment by Lori Heine — February 28, 2010 @ 9:58 pm - February 28, 2010
The liberals did and look where the economy is.
So the feds taking control of insurance regulations from the states isn’t a government takeover? How in Christ’s name does that work? Seems to me like we fought a war over just such a thing once.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 1, 2010 @ 12:51 am - March 1, 2010
Tano, it’s clearly not needed that we have veto-proof majorities if we have the White House (duh); The WH and majorities in both House and Senate are clearly within reach in 2012.
But we do not even need that. We need 218 Representatives who refuse to fund any jot or tittle of Obamacare; or if necessary to “shut down” the government until Obama signs repeal.
The House controls the purse; 218 COMMITTED members kill the bill.
Comment by RandyG45 — March 1, 2010 @ 12:52 am - March 1, 2010
Not at all! It was a very straight-forward insult.
Gladly. 45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul .
But you have enormous problems getting in to SEE your doctor. Wait times at British Emergency Rooms were so bad, for example, that your government passed a law requiring that patients must be seen within a certain amount time from the moment they entered the ER — so UK hospitals had patients waiting in the AMBULANCES for hours at a time. Wait times in the UK, Canada and other countries with socialist systems are MONTHS and sometimes years longer than in America….one of the many reasons those who can come HERE to get treated, including members of the Canadian parliament!
Wait times are so long in socialist countries because there aren’t enough doctors and other providers. There arent enough providers because government regulation drove them out of the industry.
Gladly:
Simple, Social Security and Medicare are government social programs paid for with taxation, there is no constitutional authority or precedent for government to force Americans to buy private market products against their will. Nor is the current court likely to find one. Not to mention, the very same Democrats trying to claim that the interstate commerce clause gives them the authority for health care mandates are the same Democrats who are PREVENTING interstate commerce in the health insurance market. No one is ALLOWED to buy health insurance in another state, and as such there is NO interstate commerce.
Indeed, with the massive opposition to the bill, the courts will be under enormous pressure to strike Obamacare down. Indeed, if congress were to pass Obamacare, the lawsuits would be filed against it before Obama’s signature even dries!
Yes, Republicans winning the blue states of New Jersey and Massachusetts is not a disaster for Democrats, it’s really all part of their super secret master plan! You are not dreaming, just daft!
By increased unemployment, decreased housing sales, decreased manufacturing, decreased consumer confidence, skyrocketing deficits, plummeting stock market, entire countries failing…basically by any rational standard. You really should poke your head out of the echo chamber more often and take a look at reality!
I’m sorry you dont pay attention to the news. But dont blame me. The right-wingers at MSNBC and the Associated Press are among those reporting that A decade of high unemployment is looming”
Sure, because he lied his way into office and the media ran interference for him. NOW that Americans see the truth about Obama, on the other hand, polls show that only 44% would re-elect him, and a majority of 52% have already decided Obama does not deserve to be re-elected.
Yes, you could believe that Democrats cannot pass a provision that 72% of the public supports…if you were delusional. Rational people, on the other hand, know that Democrats cant pass a public option because even their own members wont support it because the only polls that claim it is popular are MISLEADING polls with misleading questions and deeply flawed numbers.
Like your six month old, deeply dishonest poll where a whopping 78% of respondents admit they know little to nothing about the proposals and where the random sample was drastically weighted towards Democrats to get the results they wanted.
The random sample included 32% Republicans and 33% Democrats but those numbers didnt give the proven liars at CBS the results they wanted so they tampered with the results, slashing the percent of Republicans to 24% and raising the percent of Democrats to 38%. They also got too many people saying they had insurance, so they cooked the books there too, slashing the percent of respondents who had insurance by 10 percentage points.
In other words, they blatantly lied.
No exaggeration. They werent able to pass that bill and they STILL lost power for over a decade. If they had tried to force that unpopular bill on Americans even though Americans opposed it they would STILL be out of power. As it stands, Americans are going to kick them out of power only 2 years after they got it — exactly what Americans did LAST time Democrats controlled everything.
You see, what it all boils down to is that Americans REJECT the fascist “progressive” agenda. Obama keeps talking about how Democrats have been trying to “reform” health care for a century. Its true. And Americans have rejected them every time they try!
Comment by American Elephant — March 1, 2010 @ 2:58 am - March 1, 2010
Speaking of vaccines, it was the left who made up the scary myth that getting your children vaccinated would result in Autism.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 1, 2010 @ 4:38 am - March 1, 2010
(RE: North Dallas Thirty):Within the context of companies’ revenues, insurers skim off 15-20% of premium dollars for administrative costs and profits. In fact, an examination of insurers’ medical loss ratio — the fraction of revenue from a plan’s premiums that goes to pay for medical services– suggests that within the last 10 years, insurers have been spending less on medical care and more on administrative costs or profits. The report by Families USA found that “insurers in the individual market sometimes maintain medical loss ratios of only 60%, retaining 40% of premium dollars for administration, marketing and profit.” The top five earning insurance companies averaged profits of $1.56 billion in 2008 and reported spending an average of “more than 18 percent of their revenues on marketing, administration, and profits.” CEO compensation for these companies ranged from $3 million to $24 million.” Last year, from January to March, “healthcare firms and their lobbyists spent money at the rate of $1.4 million a day” on campaigns designed to influence the health care reform legislation now moving through Congress. That money comes off the top of the premiums. So much for the telethon to help these poor people make ends meet. Your “facts” are indeed “out there”!
(RE:The Live Wire) and his 2 “frakking moron” comments…WOW!
DEE
Comment by DEE — March 1, 2010 @ 8:25 am - March 1, 2010
somehow, I find Dee’s citing of a report from Families USA, brought to you by GLAAD, SEIU, and the National Immigration Forum lacking credibility.
Lets look at those ‘profits’
“HARTFORD, Conn., February 05, 2010 — Aetna (NYSE: AET) today announced fourth-quarter 2009 operating earnings of $178.6 million, or $.40 per share compared to $.96 per share in the fourth quarter of 2008.”
Also lets note how Dee won’t take NDT’s offer to condemn anyone who makes more than a 6% profit.
That’s just one company in a 30 second news search.
And Dee, I have the guts and ethics to admit where I work, to let anyone take what biases there might be.
Again, what a frakking moron.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 1, 2010 @ 9:41 am - March 1, 2010
Livewire:
I’m SHOCKED to learn that insurance companies have administrative costs and profits. I thought their red tape intertwined with government red tape mixed up with dealing with millions of individuals, doctors, agents, accountants, regulators, insurance commissions, attorney’s general, and casual inquiries was all provided gratis by people donating their skills and time. As for profit, what kind of whacky business model is based on profits?
Do YOU PEOPLE realize that health insurance is aimed at sickness and misery? How can you DEAL with people who are only interested in your misery?????? Huh?????
There should be no health insurance. Everyone should get everything they need for free. FREE, I tell you. FREE!!!! Like the rest of the civilized world where there are no colds, no arthritis, no broken bones and all lemonade is freshly made and the government loves all the people and takes care of them and nary is heard a discouraging word and the skies are not cloudy all day.
Think about it, you merchant of misery.
Comment by heliotrope — March 1, 2010 @ 10:53 am - March 1, 2010
LOL. thank you Heliotrope.
Personally I liked how Dee claimed ‘skimming’ Wonder how much he skimms from my taxes?
Comment by The_Livewire — March 1, 2010 @ 11:46 am - March 1, 2010
MEdicare administration vs Private insurance here.
Comment by The_Livewire — March 1, 2010 @ 12:10 pm - March 1, 2010
CEO compensation for these companies ranged from $3 million to $24 million.”
Oh, so I see the game has now switched to “people make too much money”.
Fine, then. Since DEE isn’t willing to state that any company that makes a 6% profit or more should have that taken away from them, certainly he should be willing to state that anyone who makes more than $250k per year should have all that money confiscated from them by the Federal government, right?
Then attack Michelle Obama, whose salary as Vice President of Blame Whitey at the University of Chicago Medical Center was $317k per year.
And what else did you try? How much was spent on lobbying?
Choke on this:
Through Stern’s leadership, the SEIU has funneled vast amounts of financing to the Democratic Party and its candidates, far outnumbering the contributions of other unions during the last two election cycles. SEIU contributed $65 million to the 2004 campaign by Sen.John Kerry to oust former President George W. Bush. The union spent another $85 million on Democratic candidates in 2008; $60 million going toward the election of President Barack Obama, with a significant chunk of that money funding door-to-door canvassing and other GOTV efforts,as well as voter registration.
And that is money taken right out of peoples’ paychecks.
So what we have here is typical. DEE screams and whines about profits, peoples’ salaries, and campaign contributions, but adamantly refuses to condemn the behavior of his own Obama Party members who violate every single one of the thresholds it’s set.
Fake, liar, and hypocrite. Do you Obama Party brats really think people don’t notice this? Go ahead, silly DEE; tell us that you don’t care what Obama Party members do. Ever. You’ve already made it patently obvious; go ahead and admit that Obama Party members do not under any circumstances ever have to abide by the same “standards” they demand of others.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 1, 2010 @ 4:45 pm - March 1, 2010
That would include Solmonese (sp?) unless he’s taken the Soros correspondence course on How to Hide Your Cash.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 1, 2010 @ 6:32 pm - March 1, 2010