Healtch Care Bill - Up or Down Vote?

[ivanm]

Would allowing them to purchase healthcare solve the problem or not?

You are being obtuse.  The bottom line is this. Most could not afford to purchase insurance.  Many employers work them for a mere pittance and on a part time basis, so how are they going to do it?
"Allowing them" is beside the point.

Why do you take such a simplistic view of things?  To make debate points?  I don't think many people come here to "debate" things but to have a congenial conversation about issues.  So your tunnel vision just doesn't cut it around here IMO.

[johnhp]

You are being obtuse.  The bottom line is this. Most could not afford to purchase insurance.  Many employers work them for a mere pittance and on a part time basis, so how are they going to do it?
"Allowing them" is beside the point.

Why do you take such a simplistic view of things?  To make debate points?  I don't think many people come here to "debate" things but to have a congenial conversation about issues.  So your tunnel vision just doesn't cut it around here IMO.

Not a simplistic view, just a question.  i am well aware of what they are paid.  it is one of the ways they positively effect the economy.  However, i do believe that they should become documented.  Of course, were that to happen the cost of whatever jars of mashed food you eat would rise and you would bitch about that.

Full coverage, on the other hand, LOWERS, everyone's bill.

[ivanm]

Not a simplistic view, just a question.  i am well aware of what they are paid.  it is one of the ways they positively effect the economy.  However, i do believe that they should become documented.  Of course, were that to happen the cost of whatever jars of mashed food you eat would rise and you would bitch about that.

Full coverage, on the other hand, LOWERS, everyone's bill.

I wouldn't complain for this reason.  Many of those poor souls are more industrious than lazy assed Americans who qualify for various handouts. Mexican immigrants may not be well educated and may not have a good handle on the English language but they usually have mouths to feed and are willing to work at jobs the gringos won't do.

My son in law lives in Grand Prairie, Texas, which is a blue collar suburb of Dallas, and a lot of his neighbors are Mexicans.  Some of them don't speak English well but they aren't lazy people.  Many are in housing construcion and repair such as roofing, guttering, and siding and they have their own businesses.  One guy had his garage full of roof gutter on racks he had built to organize it.

How does full coverage lower every one's bill?  I think this reasoning stems from the idea that the admin. costs or overhead of a mega sized group of policy holders can be spread across more people than with a smaller group, which makes the cost per patron less. It sounds good, but how much difference in premiums will it make?
I just cannot see how enough savings can be wrung out of this idea to lower the overall costs of the system.
There is a tacit and implied assumption that the insurance carriers are ripping people off, and they may be, but is punishing them going to lower our premium costs?  The real villian, if there has to be one, in high premiums is the extraordinary costs of the services and drugs that are being provided and I have already enumerated the many life saving thins that were done to my stepdaughter.  That sort of skill and technology commands a healthy price.

Something tells me that is wishful thinking because the processing of claims is labor intensive and the effort or staff required to do so is probably proportionate to the volume of claims. I don't think we can assume that these
claims clerks are underworked and are not operating to capacity already.  Vel might have some input on this as he seems to have worked with cases involving insurance companies.

Perhaps the cost per year to any one person who is a patron of the massive system could be less than before, but there is no free lunch, not even in insurance.  When you consider the tremendous cost of subsidizing the millions who cannot even afford to pay their premiums then the possibility of lower overall costs to the system becomes even more remote.  

I think the idea is a selling point that has been fabricated by proponents of nationalized healthcare, and it assumes that the federal treasury has ample funds to pay the claims of indigents.  That is pure baloney with a shitty smell as most people know that we already are borrowing to the tune of a trillion or more each year to finance the existing programs.  Wait 'til this proposed healthcare system kicks in if you think you have seen deficits.
I try to take an objective view of the cost of the proposed system, and if we weren't running huge deficits already then I would be more receptive to the monster.  To me fiscal responsibility should not be a partisan issue because the onerous debt will in time hurt all of us regardless of our political leaning.  Sorry John but we don't have money trees in WDC that we can simply shake and harvest a few billion or more as needed.  Our incessant borrowing worries the Chinese, which are one of our primary creditors.  And I am betting that the Arabic oil rich natons also have a wad loaned to us.

What we aren't seeing and probably won't see is the deal cutting our government is making with those creditors to keep them pacified and on board. I am betting we spend mega bucks in foreign aid and in military aid to countries that are our big creditors and oil suppliers, and Saudi Arabia comes to mind. It comes down to this, and the predicament we are in as a country isn't all that different from that of an individual who owes a huge gambling debt to the "organization".  The creditors will do what they can to extort and strong arm the debtor because he is in no position to say "no" to their demands.  And we have no one to blame but ourselves.

It bugs me to see people with the attitude that a government system will force healthcare prices down, and I have yet to see a government project that is cost competitive with an equivalent private sector activity.  Food and utilities are also very expensive, so do we nationalize these industries and force the prices down? I cannot think of a quicker way to force the providers out of the market, and I think it is disingenuous to think that we can use heavy handed socialistic measures to introduce competition in the private sector.  The two practices are simply not compatible. It may seem to work in the short run but once the low cost providers gain control of the market they are operating in they will be apt to raise prices.  Why not, no competition as the other players were forced out in the first place by the wrong headedintrusive government policy. And in the case of healthcare the patron suffers from lesser quality service.  I have already pointed out how this works with the VA system.

[nraforlife]

Let's get this thing passed or not but lets have an vote for crying out loud in my opinion.

Nah, lets just talk it to death. That way the will of the American People will be upheld.

[johnhp]

How does full coverage lower every one's bill?  I think this reasoning stems from the idea that the admin. costs or overhead of a mega sized group of policy holders can be spread across more people than with a smaller group, which makes the cost per patron less. It sounds good, but how much difference in premiums will it make?
I just cannot see how enough savings can be wrung out of this idea to lower the overall costs of the system.

The larger the buying pool the more power you have to negotiate costs.  in addition greater coverage lowers cost of healthcare for those previously uncovered.

 In a report for the National Small Business Association, risk management consulting firm Mercer Oliver Wyman projected that S.1955 would reduce health insurance plan costs for small businesses by a whopping 12 percent, and could reduce the ranks of uninsured workers by one million people.


http://smallbusinessreview.com/regulations/Everyone_into_The_Health_Insurance_Pool/

[lucy]

Well, what is thisl?

hmmmmm/

Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes?
Obama names brother of undecided House Dem to Appeals Court.
BY John McCormack
March 3, 2010 6:15 PM
ShareThis
Printer-friendly version

Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he's obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson's brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

    “Scott Matheson is a distinguished candidate for the Tenth Circuit court,” President Obama said.  “Both his legal and academic credentials are impressive and his commitment to judicial integrity is unwavering.  I am honored to nominate this lifelong Utahn to the federal bench.”

    Scott M. Matheson, Jr.: Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

    Scott M. Matheson currently holds the Hugh B. Brown Presidential Endowed Chair at the S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, where he has been a member of the faculty since 1985.  He served as Dean of the Law School from 1998 to 2006.  He also taught First Amendment Law at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government from 1989 to 1990.

    While on public service leave from the University of Utah from 1993 to 1997, Matheson served as United States Attorney for the District of Utah.  In 2007, he was appointed by Governor Jon Huntsman to chair the Utah Mine Safety Commission.  He also worked as a Deputy County Attorney for Salt Lake County from 1988 to 1989.  Prior to joining the University faculty, Matheson was an associate attorney from 1981 to 1985 at Williams & Connolly LLP in Washington, D.C.

    Matheson was born and raised in Utah and is a sixth generation Utahn.  He received an A.B. from Stanford University in 1975, an M.A. from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1980.

So, Scott Matheson appears to have the credentials to be a judge, but was his nomination used to buy off his brother's vote?

Consider Congressman Matheson's record on the health care bill. He voted against the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee back in July and again when it passed the House in November. But now he's "undecided" on ramming the bill through Congress. "The Congressman is looking for development of bipartisan consensus," Matheson's press secretary Alyson Heyrend wrote to THE WEEKLY STANDARD on February 22. "It’s too early to know if that will occur." Asked if one could infer that if no Republican votes in favor of the bill (i.e. if a bipartisan consensus is not reached) then Rep. Matheson would vote no, Heyrend replied: "I would not infer anything.  I’d wait to see what develops, starting with the health care summit on Thursday."

The timing of this nomination looks suspicious, especially in light Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak's claim that he was offered a federal job not to run against Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania primary. Many speculated that Sestak, a former admiral, was offered the Secretary of the Navy job.


link  http://weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-now-selling-appeals-court-judgeships-health-care-votes

[lucy]

"A closer look showed a DECREASING amount of pension funding over the prior ten year period even though money was available for 100% funding of one of the nation’s largest pension systems.

Why would Andy Stern make a conscious decision to underfund the central plan benefit of his financial union empire?

Now in a recent interview after being appointed to President Obama’s cost cutting deficit watchdog committee, Stern discusses the impending difficulties of meeting the SEC demands to stabilize his failing pension system, which has fallen below the critical 65% funding level, during a recession.

The money that could have been used over the last ten years to avoid the problem was spent on such budgetary notations as advertising, recreation, new cars, travel and – oh yes – political contributions (85 million dollars to Barack Obama alone).

In a far reaching statement Stern said “The administration has an obligation to the workers of the world to provide health care.” A close examination of SEIU’s financial commitments, performed by Relnon, LLC independent auditors, shows that removing the union’s medical plan payments would provide the available capital to fund all current and past pension obligations in a 36 month window.

Be it coincidence or design, the SEIU has had a ten year long party that is about to be paid for by tax payer dollars directed to centralized, socialized health care.

The entire health care program (designed by Stern) has always been about one thing – UNIONS. Lifting the responsibility of medical payments by union funds will cover the loss of diminishing membership, failing revenues and over-expenditure. It will permanently transfer the burden of responsibility from union officials to the American taxpayers. It will free up union dollars to exponentially expand their power base throughout the world.

Quoting Stern’s recent comments: “Workers of the world unite; it’s not just a slogan anymore.” No, apparently it’s administration policy.

Greyson Deitrich III, Independence News, LLC

Sources: Wall Street Journal, Relnon Independent Auditors (Phone Interview), SEC Quarterly Report

link http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/seiu-stern-explains-plan-to-loot-country_03032010

[makesenseplease]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1220

[ivanm]

Not a simplistic view, just a question.  i am well aware of what they are paid.  it is one of the ways they positively effect the economy.  However, i do believe that they should become documented.  Of course, were that to happen the cost of whatever jars of mashed food you eat would rise and you would bitch about that.

Full coverage, on the other hand, LOWERS, everyone's bill.

As usual you evade my question. That means that you are out of answers and your questions help to further you idiocy.  Being documented and being able to pay the premiums are two different things donkey.

[ivanm]

It's the most ridiculous situation imaginable.   Single payer, everyone covered, the largest risk pool imaginable, one bureaucracy, the same standards for all, infinitely more efficient than what we have now, freeing up business to get out of the health care business for the workforce.    Argh

Sounds nice, until the bill comes in. The larger risk pool argument is stale as a jillion patrons will have the same claims rate, relatively speaking, as a smaller pool of patrons.  Have you ever seen a bureaucracy that is efficient?
Where is the incentive for a feather merchant to be cost effective? There is none unless he gets a bonus for doing so, and those bonuses don't grow on trees.

The so-called same standards may be substandard, and I have pointed out that situation in the VA more than once.  It all relates to freedom of choice, which drives competition.

[johnhp]

As usual you evade my question. That means that you are out of answers and your questions help to further you idiocy.  Being documented and being able to pay the premiums are two different things donkey.

ivan, i already stated i believe most would be able to pay.  This healthcare bill, because it does not have a public option, will not cover everyone.  None one is avoiding your questions that have been answered time and again in the news.

[johnhp]

Sounds nice, until the bill comes in. The larger risk pool argument is stale as a jillion patrons will have the same claims rate, relatively speaking, as a smaller pool of patrons.  Have you ever seen a bureaucracy that is efficient?
Where is the incentive for a feather merchant to be cost effective? There is none unless he gets a bonus for doing so, and those bonuses don't grow on trees.

The so-called same standards may be substandard, and I have pointed out that situation in the VA more than once.  It all relates to freedom of choice, which drives competition.

Until the bill comes in.  The bill in which healthcare for all is lowered; look at the countries that have universal coverage: EVERY ONE OF THEM has lower per capita costs.  Does it hurt, ivan, to be so wrong all of the time?