American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Jackson]Stan,

The Dems are not going to let their boy go down in flames, and thus I can state with great certainty that Congress will pass [u]a[/u] [u]bill[/u] of some type that they will trumpet as "Health Reform", including a wildly promoted "Presidential Signing Ceremony" and endless claims of Democratic victory.

The only issue is whether or not they pass a bill that [u]ACTUALLY[/u] reforms the health insurance business, including the health justice business, which the country has needed for many years.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Don't be so sure. Remember what happened last time sweeping health care was proposed? It was called HillaryCare. It was [I][b]the[/b][/i] big item for the new President Clinton. It was essential. We had to have it to maintain prosperity.

It was defeated and we went on to a decade or so of great prosperity, albeit with a few blips in between.

And, do you recall what came after it was defeated? Remember? It wasn't that long ago. Democrats tried to craft a number of plans and counter-plans, all with compromises designed to mollify this or that constituency -- exactly what is starting to happen now with the current plan. HillaryCare was finally declared DOA in September of 2004, just two months before mid-term elections, but the damage already had been done. Democrats were swept from office by an electorate that was angry about efforts to federalize everything.

Then, it was called the "Republican Revolution." It resulted in a net gain of 54 seats in the House of Representatives, and a pickup of eight seats in the Senate. Plus, the day after the election, Democratic Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama changed parties, and became a Republican. The gains in seats in the mid-term election resulted in the Republicans gaining control of both the House and the Senate in January 1995.

Now, I'm not predicting that will again occur. But, we've already seen the start of some serious discontent over this. It does not matter what the "majority" wants. It matters what the majority of voters want. You piss off a large chunk of the population and they [b]will[/b] show up at the polls.

Democrats definitely remember this. There has been just one intervening administration since this took place, and they only recently took back control of both houses. We can say what we want here about either party, but at the end of the day, every one of these guys and gals is most interested in one thing: How do I get re-elected?

Democrats tenuously picked off a number of Republican seats this last go-round. Those representatives are going to be mighty nervous next election, but they don't matter much because they are mostly in the House. The House has little bearing on health care. Democrats could lose a bunch of seats there and they still would have sufficient votes to pass ObamaCare. It's the Senate that's really the issue.

There are at least 36 Senate seats that will be up for grabs on or before November 2, 2010 (34 regular seats and two special elections) That's why my prediction is that this thing will not pass if it is not passed before Thanksgiving. After Thanksgiving, the campaigning for these 36 seats will begin in earnest. Those who vote for this things will have to defend themselves. They remembered what happened last time they decided to kick a hornet's nest. They will not let this thing fester. The longer they do, the more they are tempting fate.

Also, failure to pass this thing will not be "letting Obama go down in flames," just as it wasn't "letting Clinton go down in flames" last time around. He served 7 more years after HillaryCare was defeated and, arguably, got stronger every year until his last year in office, when he went on a pardon-binge for all the Friends of Bill and his popularity dimmed. From my perspective, he learned his lesson: Once HillaryCare was defeated, he never again tried to do too much, and he turned into a stellar executive.

Finally, one stray comment: Auto insurance is the same as health insurance. It's regulated by each of the 50 states. As a practical matter, it's not that difficult to get around state insurance regulation. It's called "surplus lines" in most states. Generally, you just need to establish that a certain type of coverage is not offered in a state. You do so by having an independent entity (usually a surplus lines broker) call up three carriers to see if they offer a particular type of coverage. For example, say you want to offer property insurance. You put a clause in your policy that says you cover a particular type of boiler against loss. Then, your surplus lines broker calls around and asks whether three random admitted carriers in a particular state offer this type of boiler coverage in their policies. They document that they don't and, voila! You can offer coverage from out of state.

Usually, carriers will form a separate off-shore entity to do this in some insurance haven like the Cayman Islands or British Virgin Islands. It happens all the time. If you're a business owner, check your policy. There will always be a disclaimer there when you are buying coverage from a non-admitted carrier. Insurance companies figured a way around most state regulation long ago. And, these are not fly by night companies. My workers comp policy, for example, is offered by a Warren Buffet company. It is non-admitted and based in Bermuda, I believe. Great company. Surplus lines is not as common for health insurance, but it does exist.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]I ASSUME YOU ARE AWARE THAT THE US IS VIRTUALLY ALONE IN HAVING A HEALTH CARE SYSTEM BUILT ON A REIMBURSED FEE-FOR-SERVICE FOR-PROFIT MODEL.

Let me give you an example of healthcare:

Each year the amount insurance companies pay for specific procedures (office, hospital and out patient surgery centers) declines.



BUT INSURANCE COMPANY PROFITS DON'T!

. Insurance companies continue to "bundle" services together at a lower price and the physician has seen a steady decline in income over the last 10 years while expenses have continued to rise.

BUNDLED SERVICES PROTECT PROFIT MARGINS.

The physician has attempted to add more patients but reached a point where medical care was compromised and decided to stick with good care and continue to ride the decline in income.

YOU HAVE AN HONORABLE CLIENT.

Add to this the government required move to electronic medical records (a really good thing in the long run) but the physician had to shell out $350K for the hardware and software not to mention $28.8K in annual software and hardware support.

THE COST OF THAT EQUIPMENT SOUNDS EXCESSIVE. AS FAR AS I KNOW SUCH SYSTEMS ARE NOT MANDATORY. AND THE OBAMA STIMULUS PLAN INCLUDED SERIOUS MONEY FOR EQUIPMENT AND SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT TO MAKE FUTURE SYSTEMS AFFORDABLE.

Now if you check the polls there are many physicans in the same boat, get out and do something else.

TRADITIONALLY THE MEDICAL PROFESSION HAS HAD THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF MEMBERS HARBORING SECOND THOUGHTS ABOUT THEIR CAREER CHOICE. THE CURRENT SQUEEZE IS MAKING IT WORSE.

Fix healthcare? Get the lawyers out of it, get the government out of it, return to personal responsiblilty.

LAUDABLE SENTIMENTS - AS REALISTIC AS MY WISH FOR RACISM, POVERTY AND WAR TO DISAPPEAR - (apologies to Jackson) - BUT THE ONLY CLOCKS YOU CAN TURN BACK ARE IN THE MOVIES.

It completly divorced the cost of care from the payment of care for the patient.

MORE THAN CO-PAYS CAUSED THIS - BUT THIS IS THE HEART OF THE PROBLEM[/QUOTE]I have yet to hear the opponents to so-called Obamacare propose any fix for the broken system that is reality based. If we go back to personal responsibility based health care, the number of doctors who will head for the exits will be a stampede.

[QUOTE=Ricardo]I have yet to hear the opponents to so-called Obamacare propose any fix for the broken system that is reality based. If we go back to personal responsibility based health care, the number of doctors who will head for the exits will be a stampede.[/QUOTE]I doubt that last statement.

Also, I don't think no one has offered any alternatives. One thing that has been said again and again in these threads is insurance for the big things makes sense, for example.

The small everyday stuff should not be insured. General practitioners, the day-to-day part of their business, could run their practice as a regular business, I bet, if they weren't so worried about lawsuits if they honestly missed something (or being ruined if they made a mistake, etc) figuring out how to bill everyone's insurance and hoping that the bill gets paid in any kind of reasonable time without any kind of major headache, etc, etc.

Check out this related incident: [url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/foye7.1.1.html[/url]

I know, it's on LewRockwell. Com, haven of those crazy liberterians, but there is a lot of sense made there for people with an open mind.

Notice the part where he talks about paying cash at the doctor's office. The doc gives a 30% discount. Wow. Seems the doctor would prefer not to deal with the crap involved in filing insurance claims? Would this guy head for the exit with the proposed stampede if he didn't have to deal with health insurance?

Imagine how much this doctor could lower his rates if he didn't have to deal with all the bureaucratic crap he normally deals with? If he didn't have to pay a fortune for malpractice insurance? And everything else that is wrong with the current system.

Is it that we can't have real reform that would allow people to take care of their own day-to-day issues because "politics" won't allow it? Or is it because it doesn't make a good idea?

A policy that limits people to, say, $5K to $10K in out of pocket expenses for big things wouldn't be all that bad. It wouldn't be the end of their financial future paying off something like that and the big ticket items would be covered.

But in order to get things to the point where people would feel comfortable doing this, as stated previously, we would have to get rid of all the overhead crap, large settlements and cost of malpractice insurance, make sure that pre-existing conditions are not excepted, insurance can't be dropped, so and and so forth.

I guess the reality is that the American people have been hoodwinked by the AMA and the insurance and lawyers' lobbies into believing that insurance for every little thing is necessary and the politicians, some of whom at least know better, are turning a blind eye for one reason or another.

Everyone knows the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." While that does not apply in Obama's case (something does need to be fixed) I think the proper corrollary to that would be "if you can't fix it, don't try because you'll only make it worse."

You know, thinking about car insurance vs health insurance - imagine how expensive car insurance would be if it covered oil changes, wiper changes, general checkups, balancing of tires, cleaning and waxing and all the things required to maintain a car in good working order.

Honestly - if a policy covered all that and you had to have an insurance policy for your car anyway, wouldn't you use the coverage to do all the maintenance items? Whenever you felt the slightest shimmy in the left front tire (even though you just took it in a week ago and they couldn't find anything) Whenever the wipers left a little streak on the windshield?

Man, I bet mechanics would love that.

I know it's not a perfect analogy. Right off the bat, one can say "don't buy a car if you can't afford to maintain it," for example. But seriously, think about it.

[QUOTE=El Queso]I doubt that last statement.

Also, I don't think no one has offered any alternatives. One thing that has been said again and again in these threads is insurance for the big things makes sense, for example.

IF THERE WAS A WAY TO MAKE SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZE THINGS NOT COST AN ARM, LEG AND HALF A TESTICLE WHAT YOU SUGGEST MIGHT WORK, BUT THERE AIN'T. HIGH COST PERMEATES HEALTH CARE.

Imagine how much this doctor could lower his rates if he didn't have to deal with all the bureaucratic crap he normally deals with? If he didn't have to pay a fortune for malpractice insurance? And everything else that is wrong with the current system.

THE MALPRACTICE PROBLEM IS REAL BUT OVERSTATED. WHAT IS MORE REAL AND UNDERSTATED IS THE GROWTH OF SPECIALIZATION. THE DOCTORS YOU AND OTHERS TALK ABOUT - GENERAL PRACTITIONERS ARE A DYING BREED. NO ONE SPEND YEARS IN MEDICAL SCHOOL ANYMORE TO STUDY TO BECOME AN INTERNIST AND MAKE HALF WHAT A SPECIALIST MAKES.

Is it that we can't have real reform that would allow people to take care of their own day-to-day issues because "politics" won't allow it? Or is it because it doesn't make a good idea?

IT'S NOT POLITICS AND YOU GUYS SHOULD GET THE IDEA IT IS OUT OF YOUR HEADS. POLITICIANS HAVE DUCKED THIS ISSUE FOR 80 YEARS. THE ONES WHO TOUCHED IT GOT BURNED. OBAMA IS DUMB IN MANY WAYS TO TAKE IT ON. BUT HE HAS BECOME CONVINCED, AS HAS THE MAJOR NON-MEDICAL BUSINESS INTERESTS THAT NO CHANGE IN HEALTH CARE MEANS THE US CONTINUES TO SLIDE BACK ECONOMICALLY.

Everyone knows the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." While that does not apply in Obama's case (something does need to be fixed) I think the proper corrollary to that would be "if you can't fix it, don't try because you'll only make it worse."[/QUOTE]BUT WHAT IF THE REALITY IS IF WE DON'T FIX IT WE'RE FUCKED?

Sorry man, and you're right we're beating a dead horse. Too many people think that nothing can be done other than what is being done, if only because anything else is impossible, for whatever reason. It's a difference between ways of thinking, each incomprehensible to the other.

We've reviewed many of the same facts and continue to each come to the same conclusion, each with the one that we started with. Which, of course, describes why we need politics.

Those of us on the opposite side of those in power tremble and hope to hell that you guys are right, but we can't help but doubt it.

[QUOTE=El Queso]Those of us on the opposite side of those in power tremble and hope to hell that you guys are right.[/QUOTE]I ain't in power, I'm just cheering from the sidelines and hoping along with you something that helps is the end result.

Who's Plan do you say is the best?

I know it is a tough thing to answer, but as a working man, the Union saved my ass.
You have read my Lists, am I a non productive person?

What is yours?

Have you Helped Anyone?

Where do you Stand for the Rights of your Fellow Country man?

Sorry it took me so long to watch the movie "Sicko".
Until you watch Sicko, you can not answer truthfully.

He asks questions and has no opinions of his own.

My brother does not like him for some right wing reason.

My brother watches O'Reilly, he might as well be a Moonie.

Maybe some of you have the same problem with a man of color, or woman?

They tried to discredit the Canadian, British, French systems of medical care and also the Argentina's.
In Argentina, I waited no more than anyone else as a patient. I was not treated as a special person, being an American. I had tooooo Wait the same time as everyone else did.

More to the Point is that I watched "The Life of Tommy Douglas" , on Argentine TV . "Tommy Douglas" will never be shown in the U.S. He was voted the Greatest Canadian.
.

[QUOTE=Jackson]Okay, is there anyone on this forum that actually believe this, or am I the only one who is ROTFLMAO?

No, seriously. I'd like to hear the supporting arguments from anyone who can make a case that [u]any[/u] of the Dems proposed health care bills "[I]won't add a dime to deficit and paid for upfront[/i]".

Alternatively, is there anyone that would like to make a bet on this?

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]I'm still trying to find ANYONE who will state publicly that they believe this.

Anyone?

Bueller? Bueller?

Or perhaps it's an inconvenient truth that the Messiah is telling a bald face lie to the American people?

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson]I'm still trying to find ANYONE who will state publicly that they believe this. Bueller? Bueller? Jackson[/QUOTE] I challenge Jackson once he makes fun what follows to sketch out how the Cowpie plan he endorsed is consistent with his add-on requirements and how that gerry-rigged construct would work.

Let's be clear, there is no Obama bill at this time. However, he has set out a clear set of objectives for a reform program that must be turned into legislation by Congress. That's how the process works.

His objectives include a reform program that "will not add one dime to the deficit" and "be paid for upfront."

One needs to amplify thse simple phrases - not as a dodge, but as a way to flesh out the bumper sticker statements required by the media who have predetermined the public is too stupid or lazy to understand more complex and complete phrasing of economic statements.

The phrase "will not add one dime to the deficit" translates in economic terms into a plan that will be deficit neutral. That translates in practical terms to a bill that will include provisions for increases in revenues and decreases in costs to offset one another.

The end result is a plan that "will not add one dime to the deficit." The devil will be in the details of the final bill that emerges from the several that are under consideration and will be cut and pasted together into a final one.

Obama's "will not add one dime to the deficit." goal is not impossible, nor is it difficult - except for who ever has their ox gored. The corrupting influence of private sector insurance and pharma companies may prove Jackson right, but we ain't there yet. And Obama will fight to offset that influence until the final bill is about to be sent to the printer.

Face it we have been taking it in the shorts from these companies for decades.



The US is the ONLY industrialized nation with a fee-for-service, for-profit, non-universal coverage health care system. Not coincidentally, the US pays twice as much for worse care than any other industrial democracy. Common sense tells us if we pay double and get less, the money is there to get a new and better system that "will not add one dime to the deficit."

Waste, fraud, abuse, inefficiencies and excess profits worth hundreds of billions can be tapped to create a system to meet the deficit neutral goal.

Two points of proof related to fraud!

1. A few months ago the pharma companies offered to contribute $84 billion over ten years in future savings as part of the effort to get reform. I GUESS THAT MEANS THEY HAVE BEEN OVER-BILLING CUSTOMERS $8.4 BILLION A YEAR! Why didn't they give that back to their customers earlier? Is $84 billion a stretch or pocket change? If the pharmas can throw in $84 billion voluntarily, why can't and don't other sectors in the health business do the same?

2. A few weeks ago a major pharma company settled a fraud case against them agreeing to pay $2.4 billion to using bribery of doctors and hospitals to get them to prescribe their more expensive drugs rathe than cheaper, as effective alternatives. The actual defrauding was worth $11 billion, which is the cost to the customers of the criminal behavior of just this one company. The behavior they admitted to is SOP in the pharma industry.

Looking beyond fraud, examples would include limiting insurance firms ability to spend 25% more on administrative costs - including executive compensation - than Medicare spends and / or limit advertising budgets to 5% of annual incomes if they sell their drugs or treatments to federal health care agencies.

"Be paid for upfront" means that the savings and increased revenues be pre-identified. The savings from the billions of non-care related expenditures are certainly targetable and will be identified in the new plan. A myriad of revenue options exist.

They include:

- taxing Jackson, Sidney and any mongers making over $250k a year (and if that doesn't raise the needed funds add other Americans in the same bracket)

- tax insurance and pharma company profits whenever they exceed average profits of major publically traded manufacturing firms profits by 10% two years in a row.

- divert spending from the $54 billion spent each year on nuclear arms development.

- get out of Iraq sooner and save $10 billion a month.

- completely scrap the 'Star Wars' anti missile defense program which has already cost $110 billion in direct costs and still doesn't work.

- And so on.

It will be a few months before we see a final bill. Then we can debate whether the twin objectives of "will not add one dime to the deficit" and "be paid for upfront" have been met.

One thing we know is the Republicans will offer nothing realistic and if they succeed in blocking reform, people with insurance today will see their premium, deductible and co-pay costs rise far faster than their ability to pay, they will have coverage cancelled at a higher rate, they will lose coverage as they lose their jobs or transfer to new jobs, health related bankruptcies will skyrocket, the number of uninsured will rise faster, higher emergency room use costs will be passed on to the general public, more people will be sicker and more will die.

But if killing Obamacare keeps the health insurers profitable, its a small price and worth paying! We need to keep government out of our lives and leave it to private companies to create bubbles and busts, to destroy people's investments and savings, and to make us stupider and sicker.

The freedom of a few companies to gouge and for the super rich to get super richer is far more important for society than a wealthier and healthier general population!

Beuller signing out!

Dr. Roberts. You're on!

Last weekend, Michael Schwartz, long time conservative activist turned Chief of Staff to conservative Republican US Senator Tom Coburn spoke about pre-adolescent boys to a gathering of religious conservatives.

Schwartz said: "It is my observation that boys at that age have less tolerance for homosexuality than just about any other class of people. They speak badly about homosexuals. And that's because they don't want to be that way. They don't want to fall into it, and that's a good instinct"

Schwartz continued with what he called an "astonishingly insightful comment" of a formerly homosexual friend, that "all pornography is homosexual."

Holy fuck I'm gay and I didn't fucking know it. At least 99% of mongers are probably gay too. Porno is quite popular in this subset of the population.

Thankfully, Jon Stewart reminds us that Schwartz may be a bit off base when he points out - "there's one thing eleven year old boys like even less than homos ---- girls?"

U. S. Issues $7 trillion debt, supply to stabilize.

[url]http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-issues-7-trillion-debt-rb-118622363.html?x=0&.v=4[/url]

I guess whether you believe Obama or not, regarding his "defict neutral" plans, depends on whether you trust government to do what they say.

Of course, the reason "universal health care" was not enacted before now in the "real world" is because a lot (a LOT) of people, with good reason, don't trust the government even when it has good intentions. Now that the balance of power is a bit out of whack, it becomes easier to implement something that a very large portion of the country does not want. We have an effective tyranny of the majority.

Of course, the populace has a very good reason not to trust government. To begin with, at one time, it was instilled in us by Good Ol' King George and the way he treated our ancestors. Since then, government has managed to make promise after promise and break a damned good many of them.

It's a waste of time to talk about this any more because one side thinks it's ok for the government to redistribute wealth at gun point (the government has the guns and you will be locked away forcefully if you don't comply) and the other side is convinced that allowing people to be responsible for their own actions and allowing free markets, properly managed (which they have NEVER been - they need to be fixed) will allow many more people to be better off and even healthy than a big-brother-style government.

One side will never convince the other side and after seeing the conversations in here, I am more convinced than ever that it is so and that a two-party system is probably one of the worst ways in which to represent the people as far as choosing representatives to the government for the people.

[QUOTE=Sidney]Sept. 24, 2009, 11:38 a. M. EDT · Recommend · Post:

Mass. Gov. Patrick names Paul Kirk interim senator.

Maybe next time. Keep your dick locked down![/QUOTE]I've known him since I met him in 1973 and I was working in the US Senate and he was Teddy's top staff guy.

He is a great guy, very smart, down to earth, hard working, great sense of humor, dedicated to doing good, a straight shooter, doesn't suffer fools well, no ego.

You might actually like him if you ever met him and at the time your head wasn't up your ass!