America Died!

Okay. Got that out of my system.

Jerk Repub that gave the dems a rallying cry, as reported in the newsmedia.

Fine. He was right about the lie, but there is a time and palce for everything, and the prime-time speech wasn’t the right time.

I see commentary above, and I can’t believe my eyes.

How many private insurance providers are there for basic medical coverage for persons old enough for MEDICARE?

Zero, right?

Because the private sector can not compete with a subsidized monopoly.

You BO supporters are thick.

Any time the private sector competes with the federal gov’t, it is not a level playing field.

Miltary/industrial complex work (private sector vs say, Navy repair facilities), environmental/industrial complex work, etc…it’s never a level playing field because gov’t accounting never includes all of it’s own costs.

I can’t wait to join this thread when I get home from work.

A thousand page boondoggle bill – anyone in support of such a bill is clearly not looking for anything other than gov’t control of 1/6 of the economy, and we’ll get the diminished health care service (on average) that we ask for if we go that route.

I’m no fan of insurance companies, but “the public option” is the greater evil.

Okay, I can’t stop.

I listened to one part of BOs speech, talking about the failures to control costs, then talking how we’ll make things more cost efficient at the same time as expanding coverage.

Why not SHOW us by controlling costs first within Medicare, for once, and then expanding the system.

Err, because maybe it’s impossible to control medicare costs? If not, why hasn’t the gov’t done it?

Because gov’t can’t.

On September 10th, 2009 at 12:07 pm, purealchemy said:
But I’m wondering, has a president ever, giving such a speech so repeatedly accused voters, members of the opposing party and segments of the media of lying, misrepresenting and attempting to undermine reform (of any kind?) at any cost?

And saying he will call them out but demanding apologies when someone calls him out for telling lies.

The fabulous fibber strikes again.

On September 10th, 2009 at 8:50 am, scituate_tgr said:
purealchemy said: I’m glad Joe Wilson yelled.

Funny, that’s the same terminology I used as I was yelling at the TV.

Someone said that was the first time someone in Congress yelled at a president during a speech. Probably true.
But I’m wondering, has a president ever, giving such a speech so repeatedly accused voters, members of the opposing party and segments of the media of lying, misrepresenting and attempting to undermine reform (of any kind?) at any cost?

The point is that the options will be more limited to the middle class. I’ll pay $1.39 at Publix for potatoes that I feel are as good as the ones at Whole Foods. The problem is the $1.39 option will be forced out of business because of cost constraints.

People are always constrained by cost, whether it is with a “mandatory” purchase or a non-mandatory one. Having shelter is essentially mandatory, if not in the strictest legal sense. This fact does not mean there is not a wide range of housing options available at all different costs. But, unlike health care now, I can choose between literally thousands of housing providers in the DC area alone rather than 2 or 3. And I have some assurances that there will be minimum mandatory standards, like hot water and a functioning lock on the door.

A new government agency deciding whether a plan is “qualified” doesn’t sound like a simple clearinghouse of choices, does it?

I never said it was. There are new requirements about coverage, to be sure. Whether or not these would run a private insurance company out of business I think is highly speculative, at best. I am sure they have every interest in the world in saying it would.

Not sure, but didn’t Medicare-/aid “misplace” some discs with client data and SS numbers on them?

How many dozens and dozens of times have we heard of a the same thing happening with a private entity? Why would you think a government entity is any more vulnerable?

Have there been a rash of Medicare, Medicaid or TriCare recipients having their medical information used improperly?

Not sure, but didn’t Medicare-/aid “misplace” some discs with client data and SS numbers on them?

On September 10th, 2009 at 11:00 am, chapoutier said:

When something is not mandatory, people often choose the cheapest option. But often they don’t. Hence private colleges and people who buy potatoes for $1.69/lb at Whole Foods as opposed to %.99/lb at Giant in order to avoid potatoes with brown spots.

The point is that the options will be more limited to the middle class. I’ll pay $1.39 at Publix for potatoes that I feel are as good as the ones at Whole Foods. The problem is the $1.39 option will be forced out of business because of cost constraints.

That would depend entirely on how the exchange is structured, now wouldn’t it?

It is in the bill, along with the minimum requirements.

A new government agency deciding whether a plan is “qualified” doesn’t sound like a simple clearinghouse of choices, does it?

Where are you getting the idea that your health information will be exposed any more or less than it would be with a private insurer? Seriously. If you have a private insurer, the government would not have access to it, at least not on a personal level (I can see requirements for insurers to provide statistics about their coverage, but nothing that could be identified on a personal level).

It’s summed up in this article.

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446).

Oh and by the way, the only reason you have ANY privacy over your medical records is because Congress imposed minimum requirements on health care providers and insurers in the form of HIPAA.

HIPAA definitely quantified privacy, particularly with regards to identity theft. Most insurers and providers took reasonable precautions before, but HIPAA established standards and penalties for violations.

The point is that if it is mandatory, many people will choose the cheapest option,

When something is not mandatory, people often choose the cheapest option. But often they don’t. Hence private colleges and people who buy potatoes for $1.69/lb at Whole Foods as opposed to %.99/lb at Giant in order to avoid potatoes with brown spots.

That would depend entirely on how the exchange is structured, now wouldn’t it?

It is in the bill, along with the minimum requirements.

Right now, I can go to a doctor with the reasonable expectation that the details of my illness will remain between the two of us with the insurance company seeing nothing more than a procedure code.

Where are you getting the idea that your health information will be exposed any more or less than it would be with a private insurer? Seriously. If you have a private insurer, the government would not have access to it, at least not on a personal level (I can see requirements for insurers to provide statistics about their coverage, but nothing that could be identified on a personal level). And if you have public insurance, what makes the apparent thousands of people that would presumably administer the plan any different from the 75,000 employees of United HealthCare? And its not like we don’t have some models to go by. Have there been a rash of Medicare, Medicaid or TriCare recipients having their medical information used improperly?

Oh and by the way, the only reason you have ANY privacy over your medical records is because Congress imposed minimum requirements on health care providers and insurers in the form of HIPAA.

On September 10th, 2009 at 10:22 am, chapoutier said:

How does whether or not something is mandatory to purchase affect whether or not private can successfully compete with a public option?

The point is that if it is mandatory, many people will choose the cheapest option, which will be the public option because it is subsidized by the taxpayers. This will effectively drive the private insurers out of business. I’m sure more than a few will stick around offering policies that the majority of people can’t afford. After all, you can’t alienate the wealthy. Who will donate to the campaigns?

Wherein many, in fact every, private plans will be available for you to choose from. The exchange is nothing more than a way to be able to comparison shop and to impose some minimum requirements on the providers.

That would depend entirely on how the exchange is structured, now wouldn’t it? What if those minimum requirements are too expensive for an insurer to meet? I work for a third party administrator and healthcare provider. I see that many don’t want to take Medicaid customers because of the low payout.

You don’t think there are privacy issues in education?

Not to the extent that an entire bureacracy has access to my tax records and my bank account. Right now, I can go to a doctor with the reasonable expectation that the details of my illness will remain between the two of us with the insurance company seeing nothing more than a procedure code. How many people will have access to my medical records under the new plan?

Doesn’t it amaze you that the concept of RealID was blasted as an unprecedented invasion of privacy when it was proposed by the Bush administration, but those same people think thousands of people having access to every American’s tax, bank, and health records is just peachy?

But regardless just because there are obvious superficial differences between the provision of health care and education, does not mean that the basic point does not hold. Or to put it another way…how does each of your differences disprove the notion that, like in education, public and private can both compete and succeed?

Public and private can compete and succeed. The only variable is the playing field and the public controls that, don’t they?

1. Insurance will be mandatory or a penalty will be assessed.

How does whether or not something is mandatory to purchase affect whether or not private can successfully compete with a public option?

2. If you change your policy, you have to switch to one that’s part of their exchange.

Wherein many, in fact every, private plans will be available for you to choose from. The exchange is nothing more than a way to be able to comparison shop and to impose some minimum requirements on the providers. Its like saying that if you leave your current college, the government will force you to choose one from an exchange that has every single college in the country and that the government is forcing that college to teach math and literature.

3. There are serious privacy issues here with regards to tax, bank, and health information.

You don’t think there are privacy issues in education?

But regardless just because there are obvious superficial differences between the provision of health care and education, does not mean that the basic point does not hold. Or to put it another way…how does each of your differences disprove the notion that, like in education, public and private can both compete and succeed?

1. Insurance will be mandatory or a penalty will be assessed.
2. If you change your policy, you have to switch to one that’s part of their exchange.
3. There are serious privacy issues here with regards to tax, bank, and health information.

None of these conditions are present with the educational system, so the analogy is not relevant.

Why not solve the problems instead of trying to invoke a whole new bureacracy on the public?

Those contrasts are silly, John Deaux. The entire point, which is entirely valid is that the university system here shows that having an affordable public option, that provides a good quality of product does not drive out private businesses that offer a different or better product to those willing to pay a premium for it. Hell, sometimes the public product (California and Virginia) are far superior to private options.