The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

The Wall Street Journal has a great article on steps you can take now to protect prepare yourself.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704454004575135942557501242.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_PoliticsNCampaign_5

Fixed it.

Protect yourself?

Nowhere does that term appear in the story.

When did you become a fear mongering partisan?

It's the end of the world as we know it.......and I feel fine.

That is a headline like they would write over at Fox Nation. 

Capping FSA's at $2400 seems like a pretty dumbs41t move.

Quick, let's hurry and make paying for your own healthcare more expensive.

Look on the bright side ... he's more mature than guido and more sane than FOTD.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20100323/ts_dailybeast/7269_scarynewgoppoll

Scary New GOP Poll

          NEW YORK – On the heels of health care, a new Harris poll reveals Republican attitudes about Obama: Two-thirds think he's a socialist, 57 percent a Muslim—and 24 percent say "he may be the Antichrist."

To anyone who thinks the end of the health-care vote means a return to civility, wake up. Obama Derangement Syndrome—pathological hatred of the president posing as patriotism—has infected the Republican Party. Here's new data to prove it:

67 percent of Republicans (and 40 percent of Americans overall) believe that Obama is a socialist.
The belief that Obama is a “domestic enemy” is widely held—a sign of trouble yet to come.

57 percent of Republicans (32 percent overall) believe that Obama is a Muslim 45 percent of Republicans (25 percent overall) agree with the Birthers in their belief that Obama was "not born in the United States and so is not eligible to be president" 38 percent of Republicans (20 percent overall) say that Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did" Scariest of all, 24 percent of Republicans (14 percent overall) say that Obama "may be the Antichrist."

The poll, which surveyed 2,230 people right at the height of the health-care reform debate, also clearly shows that education is a barrier to extremism. Respondents without a college education are vastly more likely to believe such claims, while Americans with college degrees or better are less easily duped. It's a reminder of what the 19th-century educator Horace Mann once too-loftily said: "Ignorance breeds monsters to fill up the vacancies of the soul that are unoccupied by the verities of knowledge."

The full results of the poll, which will be released in greater detail tomorrow, are even more frightening: including news that high percentages of Republicans—and Americans overall—believe that President Obama is "racist," "anti-American" "wants the terrorists to win" and "wants to turn over the sovereignty of the United States to a one-world government." The "Hatriot" belief that Obama is a "domestic enemy" as set forth in the Constitution is also widely held—a sign of trouble yet to come. It's the same claim made by Marine Lance Corporal Kody Brittingham in his letter of intent to assassinate the President Obama.

This poll is the latest and most detailed evidence of the extent to which Wingnuts are hijacking our politics. It should be a wakeup call to all Americans and a collective reminder, as we move past health-care reform, that we need to stand up to extremism.

Thanks.  Made my day.

There is some good news.  The bill that was passed creates some 16,500 to 20,000 new jobs immediately in the IRS. 

IRSH agents?  Really?
 
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2738/4456726717_bd825468bb_m.jpg)

A new analysis by the Joint Economic Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee minority staff estimates up to 16,500 new IRS personnel will be needed to collect, examine and audit new tax information mandated on families and small businesses in the ‘reconciliation’ bill.

Scores of new federal mandates and fifteen different tax increases totaling $400 billion are imposed under the Democratic House bill.  In addition to more complicated tax returns, families and small businesses will be forced to reveal further tax information to the IRS, provide proof of ‘government approved’ health care and submit detailed sales information to comply with new excise taxes.

Finally some real job creation.

He can't be the Antichrist. He doesn't have the mark of 666 on his forehead.  ::)

You never source your quotes.  Why is that?

Apparently, education is the antichrist.

Sorry. . .Washington Examiner

But it's everywhere else too.  Just google 16500 IRS jobs :0

Be interesting to see what happens when you dump 32M new customers on a market to be served by a group with near-negative unemployment.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8c/Supply-demand-equilibrium.svg/217px-Supply-demand-equilibrium.svg.png)

That's a conservative paper.

Finding an un-biased view of all this is nearly impossible.

At least you didn't use the bat-crazy Moonie Times, er, Washington Times. Them folk're crazy.

So I googled it:

washington examiner
directblue
fox business
conservative american news

are the top sites.

I'll keep looking

I haven't found a legit source, either ... doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But the sources of the story so far are suspicious. If Politico got snookered, the Examiner and bloggers could have, also.

Found the source of the story, although it is couched in a lot of assumptions and is decidedly much less declarative than Gaspar's post:

"Although it is impossible to know exactly how many new employees the IRS would have to hire to enforce the individual mandate and other provisions of the Democrats’ health care bill, the IRS’s own data, plus reasonable assumptions about costs and program responsibilities as described below, suggest that the number of additional examiners, agents, and other employees could reach 16,500."

(my italics)

The report also was written by the minority members of the House Ways and Means Committee, aka Republicans, so a ton of bias is contained there ... much more than a CBO report, for instance. So you have that working against it, too.

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx08_brady/irs_power_report.pdf

Hannity has said as much, he's not a GOP house organ or anything...  ::)

I read it was a range from 11,000 - 16,500.

Adding a new function to the IRS is like adding one extra number to powerball, the growth is exponential.

Does anyone actually doubt that $900 billion dollars in regulation, to be policed by the IRS, will create new jobs in the IRS? 

I'm willing to bet it's a lot more than 16,500 new jobs.  ;D

I thought new jobs was good news?

Are people actually angry about the creation new jobs?

" Bong and a blintz? No? Then there is no pleasing you."
(http://helldescent.com/wp-content/uploads/goldmember.jpg)

it cannot possibly have a shred of truth in it.

I might as well get in step with the wave of future politics.   :(

See my remarks about Jimmy Carter's campaign platform on new federal jobs.

Of course not.  The administration of health benefits for 300 million people and the continual audit of 788,000 physicians and 595,800 medical establishments employing millions of nurses, technologies, and staff will not require any additional staffing within the IRS.

They could probably just get by on some part time summer help.  

The truth is more like they will employ an additional 16,500 full time people but they will treat us just like they came out of the summer temp pool

Of course, you guys said nothing when President Bush created 50,000 Transportation Safety jobs at airports.

Oh, the hypocrisy!

It's different when we do it!

Hey, I say something any time anyone creates more government.  We needed a better TSA not a bigger TSA.  Another example of how we continuously fail to learn what increasing the size of government does to us.  We can now get through the airport with SOOOO much more efficiency. 

Can't wait to go to the emergency room in 2018. 

Probably have to pre-plan our car accidents, and limit our pints of blood to one.  ;D

I agree, they need an unbiased Cliff Notes version for those of us sane enough not to listen to the fear mongering far-right or drink the Kool Aid of the far-left..

Looks like the state legislature approved the Oklahoma Obamacare opt-out today.  It will go to a vote of the people in November. 

I know it may be a waste but 59% of the public (according to CNN today) and 37 State governments on the record, is a pretty strong case for repeal.

Any time 216 or so Americans make decisions like this for another 304mm Americans and massive amounts of of time and money have been spent to affect the outcome, to the seeming benefit of some corporate interests and a relative minority of the people, this is going to be the outcome.

The states have somewhat of a leg to stand on here since Medicaid is essentially administered through state-sponsored programs which, ostensibly, provide coverage currently for many of those 32 million Americans who don't have health insurance.  Yes, I understand Sooner Care is not the best thing in the world, but I honestly cannot see how these mandates are going to make things better.  Insurance companies aren't a vastly better alternative to getting lost in a government shuffle.

Tear it up....

Well, at least now that health care has passed, we can find out what's in it.  That is, unless Speaker Pellosi was telling an untruth about not knowing what's in it until it was passed.
 

A conservative paper touting an "analysis" by "minority staffers," no less.

We'll see what the climate for repeal looks like in 2011, when people can see with their own eyes what's happening rather than relying on partisan fearmongering.

And Gaspar, the TSA isn't very large when you compare it to all the private employees who were previously performing that function. The number is large because it is one organization (that I hate with all my being!) employing the entirety of the day-to-day airline security apparatus, plus a bunch of other people for other modes of transport.

As for now, I'm happy we'll finally get some cost controls on insurance company administrative overhead. They'll be forced to bargain down prices with drug makers and medical device manufacturers, as it'll be the only way to actually grow their share of the health care pie. Between that and the incentives to get more doctors into general practice, I think the bill can do a lot of good, even discounting the insurance subsidies and what have you.

I had, somewhat to my shame, bought into a lot of the less insane Republican talking points about what was missing from the bill. Turns out, they were lying once again.

Cost controls??!!  What stretch of the imagination led you to that conclusion?  I'm waiting for the excuses to start once people who bought this load of crap see it for what it really is. I'm 99% certain that any modifications brought in the Senate to placate Republicans will be blamed, not the original pile of a bill.

When you stop foaming at the mouth, please explain your question so I can understand where your objection lies.

And just for fun: Polls show that the majority of Americans either support the healthcare bill or don't support it because it's not liberal enough. Only 36% oppose it because it is too left-wing.

How to Protect Yourself From Obamacare?  I do not know about you, but I am becoming Amish so i can get an exemption.

(http://yankeeschick.mlblogs.com/yankees_fans_are_the_true/images/broken_record.jpg)

Thank you for showing your TRUE PARTISAN HACK SELF.  
Oh, yeah... you're a moderate....  ::)

Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.......

(http://jonathanturley.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/180px-amish_buggie_sign.jpg?w=180&h=270)

+10

Show me the cost controls. They don't exist from what I have managed to read of it so far.  How does forcing insurance companies to accept risks which they deemed unreasonable before siluddenly make them more cost efficient, therefore driving down drug and treatment costs?  Talk about voodoo...

59% of Americans oppose this legislation. That's the most relevant poll at the moment in taking the pulse of America.

Polish this turd all you like. It will always be a turd. FYI Caterpillar is saying this legislation will increase their payroll costs by $100mm per year. Mexico & China are going to love this bill. Almost makes me wish I had a contruction business in northern Mexico. Ooops almost forgot about even more call center jobs going to the Phillipnes and India when mandates hit. Come on Cap And Trade!  Let's see how much more business  we can send outside the US. 

Are you STILL coming in here? You really must be a glutton.

 ::)

(http://prod.bsis.bellsouth.net/coDataImages/p/Groups/13/13791/folders/43736/276943guido.gif)

OK, I'll show you cost controls (http://docs.house.gov/energycommerce/IMMEDIATE_PROVISIONS.pdf):


I take it Caterpillar chooses not to provide its employees health insurance? Or are they planning to pay the increased payroll tax on their executives out of company funds?

And regarding polls: No, including people who oppose it because it's not liberal enough is completely disingenuous. It's like saying Hitler and Stalin were buddies.

Given a better bill, I would oppose the reform as passed. There was no better bill, so I'm happy we got what we did.

If you're trying to prevent offshoring of jobs, opposing health care reform is not the way to go about it. Single payer is. As are restrictive tariffs on imports coming from countries where workers make too little money. The numbers are not in our favor on that front no matter what we do. Unskilled labor is simply not economical to do here when there are other options. I wish it weren't true, but that's the cost of free trade.

Edited to add: And if the bill is so bad for business, why is the stock market at a 17 month high?  ???

I really wish you would stop with the sugar coating and tell us what your real feelings are about this bill.

And we know you are spanking your monkey.

(http://www.impactlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Spanking-the-Monkey-746.jpg)

Nathan, I'd begun to assign way too much credit to your grasp of business. What are the two biggest reasons companies relocate operations overseas? Increased costs and regulation.

You are totally clueless about what this does to premium costs for companies.

Why accept a very flawed bill whose passage is owed entirely to corruption just for the sake of saying: "We 'reformed' healthcare". 

Racist

That was an Obama reference wasn't it?  That's not funny I used to grope him on the Ell when I lived in Chicago.

And also with you...... my pre-existing condition will, soon enough, be in the dustbin of history, where it belongs.... and I'll take the political advice of nuns over the political advice of bishops or priests, thank you very much.  8)

lol. After all, I am known for my racism, despite the numerous civil rights lawsuits I have taken and tried.

Tell me more about the groping.

I think you can reduce your question further. What is the biggest reason companies relocate operations overseas? Cost. Regulation is irrelevant, except insofar as it impacts the bottom line. I would think that you, as a self-proclaimed free marketeer would agree.

I think what you're totally clueless about is the grousing among small businesses health insurance costs have more than doubled in the last decade. Business is foobared without reform. We can argue until we are blue in the face about whether or not the bill that was passed will do anything to help curb the growth in medical spending, but surely we can agree that the status quo is not sustainable. It's already driving manufacturing overseas. At this point, most of what's left here is here because it has to be, not because it's more cost effective to have operations here.

I just don't see where this tsunami you're claiming is on the way is coming from, unless you're referring to the one that is already up to our chest and has been rising for decades.

Good grief just shut up about your "preexisting condition" already. You got your health care bill that will be paid for by people other than yourself. Just keep riding the gravy train.

Be my guest.... get cancer.... and I'll welcome you to the "gravy train."   ???

Does every thread have to degenerate into name-calling?  :'(

For you non conscious anti intellectual types: Opinions turn favorable on health care plan http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-health-poll-favorable_N.htm

You'll never get the concept of helping all Americans with their basic needs until you learn to open your hearts and give a hand up to citizens who have fallen victim to the system. Whatever American way some of you conceptualize, it's obvious the country as a more confident nation than just 18 months ago is going to move into the future without your help or ideas.

At lunch, my wonderful waitress was thrilled that she would now be able to afford insurance. We even discussed forming a co op of waiters and waitresses to form a secure group enabling lower premiums.

Er, what?  It's called representative democracy, and it's how we've done it since our country was created.  That's the second time I've seen that particular meme here and it's actually pretty disturbing.   You're saying, essentially, it's the form of government's fault this bill, which you don't like, passed.  Damn you, America!  You and your lousy rules!

It's really the corrupt nature of how the vote was arrived at and the whole legacy-making quest at all cost that pisses me off more than anything.  This is not a good bill.  There were better alternatives and it's shameful how big the bill was and how little discussion and time for review was afforded the citizens prior to the vote.  This most definitely was not what the framers of our Constitution had in mind (not health care so much, but the methodology and cloaked nature of how this was handled).

Also, understand, I have no problem with a valid attempt to cut the cost of health care and providing coverage to those who have a difficult time getting affordable coverage.  This bill does neither.

Name one. The CBO analyzed the GOP alternatives, and they were terrible.

First of all, not only is it a bad bill, but a large portion of the legislation has nothing to do with healthcare and is being washed over in the media.

The bill is actually called “Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010.”

A good portion of the bill covers the government take-over of the banking industry focused on student loans.  It gives the government the ability to regulate the amounts and payback structure for many forms of banking related to education. 

Your thoughts?

Slate's thoughts.  Again, I have no idea how slanted any article I find is but I thought it was an interesting read as long as you ignore the "Pearl Harbor" injections.

http://www.slate.com/id/2248377/ (http://www.slate.com/id/2248377/)

CBO analysis isn't the only relevant yard stick.  Get off of your CBO kick.

Then what's a relevant yardstick?  

CBO has a poor record of scoring particularly when congress and the administration share a political majority.  I would turn to independent economic research. 

2002 BUDGET DEFICIT:
ESTIMATED: $21 BILLION /// ACTUAL: $158 BILLION

JANUARY 2007 C.B.O. ECONOMIC FORCAST: GDP WILL GROW 2008 BY 3%, AND 2009 BY 2.9% BASED ON HOUSING MARKET IMPROVEMENTS AND GAS PRICES STABLE.... WE ALL KNOW HOW THAT TURNED OUT.

MEDICARE 1990
ESTIMATED: $12 BILLION /// ACTUAL: $167 BILLION

MEDICAID DSH PROGRAM 1992
ESTIMATED: $1 BILLION ACTUAL: $17 BILLION

MEDICARE HOME CARE 1993
ESTIMATED: $4 BILLION /// ACTUAL: $10 BILLION

BOSTON'S BIG DIG ROAD PROJECT
ESTIMATED: $2 BILLION ///  ACTUAL: $15 BILLION + $8 BILLION MANDATED RAIL TRANSPORTAION SPENDING & still counting.

 (Washington Post)

I read this on line this morning and I've got mixed opinions.  I've always felt government investment in higher education (vocational and collegiate) yields the highest long-term returns as far as tax revenue recieved by individual productivity vs. output.  It's one of the best investments government can make.

If this does all it claims (recalling from memory): frees up money which could be used for more Pell Grants, helps raise the limit on Pell Grants, lowers servicing fees for students, lowers the deficit- it sounds sensible.

But...

I'm not a big government person.  The major argument against this is thousands of private sector jobs lost.  I am assuming the government would need people to administer these programs and could absorb the displaced former bank employees, but then it fully assumes salary and pension benefits for those people.

I'm trying to separate the hyperbole from reality and political bias on the part of Congresspeople who are for and against.

As a benefit to people seeking higher education, I like the concept.  In terms of expanding government authority and bureaucracy, I hate it.  I've got one daughter who is a sophomore in college and another who will be a freshman in a year and a half.  I can definitely appreciate the costs associated with a college education and see the benefits of a good education.

tinyurl.com/ygrouyo (http://tinyurl.com/ygrouyo)


Awesome

If there was any doubt about the true motives of dems on healthcare, Rep. Dingell cleared it up:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK62MQ_OIEI&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Dingell looks like he's already taking the eternal dirt nap.

Interesting video of Candidate Obama vs.President Obama"

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU3s2SMhjuI[/youtube]

Sharp looking tie! 
You gotta love the contempt in Hillary's face.

OK, I'm up for suggestions ... from a nonpartisan group like the CBO, please.

Otherwise, don't whine if they come up with results you don't like.

Well, considering that CBO is nonpartisan, I would say that makes them independent.

Let's have some suggestions for such other independent research, please.

Found this at the FAQ at CBO's Web site:

How accurate are CBO's economic forecasts?

CBO regularly evaluates the accuracy of its economic forecasts and publishes the track record. Those evaluations help guide the agency's efforts to improve its forecasts and help Members of Congress and others in their use of CBO's estimates. Historically, the accuracy of CBO's two-year forecasts and five-year projections has been very similar to the accuracy of those by the Blue Chip consensus (an average of private-sector forecasters) and the Administration. For a related discussion, see What Is a Current-Law Economic Baseline and CBO's Economic Forecasting Record: 2007 Update.

How accurate are CBO's budget projections?

By statute, CBO's baseline projections must estimate the future paths of federal spending and revenues under current law and policies. The baseline is therefore not intended to be a prediction of future budgetary outcomes; instead, it is meant to serve as a neutral benchmark that lawmakers can use to measure the effects of proposed changes to spending and taxes. So for that reason and others, actual budgetary outcomes are almost certain to differ from CBO's baseline projections. For a related discussion, see Chapter 1 of CBO's Budget and Economic Outlook; see also The Uncertainty of Budget Projections: A Discussion of Data and Methods for supplemental information.

<end clip>

So the budget estimations serve as a neutral benchmark, which most reasonable people would be fine with. And the economic reports are no worse than other economists'.

The GOP put out a health-care bill during the past year. And the CBO found the Republicans' version was vastly inferior to the Democrats' bill. We're taking about the GOP version barely covering more Americans at all and making a modest reduction on the deficit. Then we had the Democrats' version, which covered 30 million more Americans than the GOP's, plus cut the deficit more over the next 10 years.

If you were an independent person who saw the reports, which would you pick? The answer is self-apparent.

I read that too.  It seems to focus more on the broad economic forecasts rather than individual legislation.  I would love to see something that rates them on their individual bill scores, because they have been way off on most examples I've seen.

Good post!

"How accurate are CBO's budget projections?

By statute, CBO's baseline projections must estimate the future paths of federal spending and revenues under current law and policies. The baseline is therefore not intended to be a prediction of future budgetary outcomes; instead, it is meant to serve as a neutral benchmark that lawmakers can use to measure the effects of proposed changes to spending and taxes. So for that reason and others, actual budgetary outcomes are almost certain to differ from CBO's baseline projections. For a related discussion, see Chapter 1 of CBO's Budget and Economic Outlook; see also The Uncertainty of Budget Projections: A Discussion of Data and Methods for supplemental information."

Basically the "garbage in, garbage out" principle. The error in relying on CBO data is making assumptions that the ultimate actions of Congress will parallel assumptions given to the CBO in the first place.

Reading articles over at Brookings, which is pretty non-partisan, they are saying this bill is not going to be sustainable without raising taxes on the middle class.  Just wait...

Here's Cato's opinion on CBO "estimates"

"Since we’re already depressed by the enactment of Obamacare, we may as well wallow in misery by looking at some long-term budget numbers. The chart below, which is based on the Congressional Budget Office’s long-run estimates, shows that federal government spending will climb to 45 percent of GDP if we believe CBO’s more optimistic “baseline” estimate. If we prefer the less optimistic “alternative” estimate, the burden of federal government spending will climb to 67 percent of economic output. These dismal numbers are driven by two factors, an aging population and entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. For all intents and purposes, America is on a path to become a European-style welfare state.

If these numbers don’t depress you enough, here are a couple of additional observations to push you over the edge. These CBO estimates were produced last year, so they don’t count the cost of Obamacare. And as Michael Cannon repeatedly has observed, Obamacare will cost much more than the official estimates concocted by CBO. And speaking of estimates, the long-run numbers in the chart are almost certainly too optimistic since CBO’s methodology naively assumes that a rising burden of government will have no negative impact on the economy’s growth rate. Last but not least, the data above only measures federal spending. State and local government budgets will consume at least another 15 percent of GDP, so even using the optimistic baseline, total government spending will be about 60 percent of GDP, higher than every European nation, including France, Greece, and Sweden. And if we add state and local spending on top of the “alternative” baseline, then we’re in uncharted territory where perhaps Cuba and North Korea would be the most appropriate analogies.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/03/24/my-big-fat-greek-budget/

The rethugs need to be put over our collective knee and spanked like the little, whiney babies they are. When they ran the sandbox, the other kids played nice with them, but now that the other kids are in control, it is one temper tantrum after another.

This AMERICAN is sick and tired of this "tactic." Other important business needs to be done. OK, you lost. Get over it and get back to work.

So where then, if not CBO?

And then there's these folks...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001091-503544.html (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001091-503544.html)

Ann Coulter's listeners?

Bullshit.

I wish that were the worst of it. Several DNC county headquarters have had bricks thrown through their windows and one Congressperson's brother had his natural gas line cut in a case of mistaken "identity."

The danger of extremist rhetoric, I suppose.

The dims went along with the GOP leadership in going to war and countless other ridiculous cooperative efforts led by the Busheviks. The dims even went along with the appointments of several far right Supreme's nominees.

Let's not go there. Your reply stinks, figuratively speaking.

Nobody knows what this will cost or exactly what it will do to the face of healthcare.  There are too many variables for even relatively unbiased assessments to give me any confidence.  Moreover, 2700 pages is longer than the bible and that has a whole religion built off it.

I worry that so many people believe that -this- congress and -this- president are smarter and/or more trustworthy than any other - and their word and intentions can be taken as true and honorable.  In general, I find the Federal government to be a bloated hog that does a few things very well and most things with terrible inefficiency and no real accountability.  I'm very reluctant to give them any more control than they already have and don't trust them to have my best interests in mind anyway.  16,000 jobs, maybe yes maybe no?  Piffle!  The notion of the IRS having any substantive involvement gives me the willies.

And there seems to be a whole religion developing based on health care reform too.  ;)

It's not just the 16,000 or so new jobs with the IRS.  Anecdotally, I've heard claims of anywhere from 100 to 500 new departments, bureaucracies, or little fiefdoms being created as a result.

Buckey,

Much of this is shear politics and gives the dims big moe headed to the November elections. When did Americans become so fearful of their own government? The most stable thing in this country nowadays is the Republicans' ability to be wrong on everything.

The best thing that will come out of this bill and the future bombshell legislation about to be dropped on Wall Street is a return to confidence and support by the majority. After 8 years of negligent power, the necessary government actions taken have actually served to restore stability with the exception of the tea partier.

War is tapering down. The Taliban leadership has been systematically droned down. With no issues, the GOP looks pathetic. They've allowed the anti intellectuals and the non conscious to rule their roost.

Scary New GOP Poll
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-22/scary-new-gop-poll'%3Ehttp://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-22/scary-new-gop-poll'%3Ehttp://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-22/scary-new-gop-poll

How come people never complain about the ever expanding waste in the military or the continuing expansion of their fiefdom?

The Bible fits a lot more words on a single page than the Federal government does. We triple space and have large margins. ;)

I can say with 100% certainty that the bill will: limit insurance company administrative overhead, end recission except in cases of knowing fraud, end exclusions for pre-existing conditions, and help millions of Americans afford insurance.

They probably remember the results of cutbacks that led to the embarrassing attempt to rescue the hostages from Iran in 1980(ish). 

We've been mistrustful, though perhaps not afraid of our government from the very beginning; it's written into the fabric of the nation.

The military is one thing the Feds are specifically charged with and one thing they do pretty well.

The Blame Bush game is getting really old, as is the juvenile and inane name-calling.  Please stop it.  Or more pointedly, shut the hell up.

Typeface point taken, Nathan.  :)  How do you know the bill will accomplish those things?  I don't necessarily doubt you, but I'd like to know.  Surely those don't take up the full volume, the other stuff worries me...

I saw the new law requires 80% and 85% of the insurance companies' expenditures to be in claim payments depending on size of the company (as I remember).  It would have been just as easy for congress to have penned in 65% or 95%.  Anyone have numbers on what is realistic on the overhead?  What happens if the company doesn't meet those numbers?  I haven't had a chance to read the 2000+ pages yet.

I like the end of exclusion for pre-existing conditions and no more dumping of customers but only time will tell if cost will come down.

Many big group plans already are in the low 90s (93% was one specific claim I saw). Many of the smaller plans are closer to 60-75%. Medicare is like 95 or 96% efficient, if I remember correctly.

The standard is slightly low, based on what has been proven possible in private insurance.

Sadly, "preexisting conditions" will continue to be an issue...

"Fact: Access to the "high risk pool" is limited and the pool is underfunded. Only those who have been uninsured for more than six months will qualify for the high-risk pool. Only 0.7% of those without insurance now will get coverage, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services report estimates it will run out of funding by 2011 or 2012."

oh yeah... and this is from huffingtonpost.com?!?! zut alors!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/fact-sheet-the-truth-abou_b_506026.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/fact-sheet-the-truth-abou_b_506026.html)

"Fact Sheet: The Truth About the Health Care Bill

Jane Hamsher


The Firedoglake health care team has been covering the debate in congress since it began last year. The health care bill will come up for a vote in the House on Sunday, and as Nancy Pelosi works to wrangle votes, we've been running a detailed whip count on where every member of Congress stands, updated throughout the day.

We've also taken a detailed look at the bill, and have come up with 18 often stated myths about this health care reform bill.

Real health care reform is the thing we've fought for from the start. It is desperately needed. But this bill falls short on many levels, and hurts many people more than it helps them.

While details are limited, there is apparently a "Plan B" alternative that the White House was considering as recently as two weeks ago, which would evidently expand existing programs -- Medicaid and SCHIP. It would cover half the people at a quarter of the price, but it would not force an unbearable financial burden to those who are already struggling to get by.

Congress may be too far down the road with this bill to change course. But before Democrats cast this vote which could turn "ban the mandate" into "gay marriage" for the GOP in 2010, they should consider the first rule of patient safety: first, do no harm.

Myth 1: This is a universal health care bill.

Fact: The bill is neither universal health care nor universal health insurance. According to the Congressional Budget Office:


    * Total uninsured in 2019 with no bill: 54 million

    * Total uninsured in 2019 with Senate bill: 24 million


Myth 2: Insurance companies hate this bill.

Fact: This bill is almost identical to the plan written by AHIP, the insurance company trade association, in 2009.
The original Senate Finance Committee bill was authored by a former Wellpoint vice president. Since Congress released the first of its health care bills on October 30, 2009, health care stocks have risen 28.35%.

Myth 3: The bill will significantly bring down insurance premiums for most Americans.

Fact: The bill will not bring down premiums significantly, and certainly not the $2,500/year that President Obama promised during his campaign.

Annual premiums in 2016: status quo / with bill:
Small group market, single: $7,800 / $7,800
Small group market, family: $19,3oo / $19,200
Large Group market, single: $7,400 / $7,300
Large group market, family: $21,100 / $21,300
Individual market, single: $5,500 / $5,800
Individual market, family: $13,100 / $15,200

(The cost of premiums in the individual market goes up somewhat due to subsidies and mandates of better coverage. The CBO assumes that cost of individual policies goes down 7-10%, and that people will buy more generous policies.)

Myth 4: The bill will make health care affordable for middle class Americans.

Fact: The bill will impose a financial hardship on middle class Americans who will be forced to buy a product that they can't afford to use.

A family of four making $66,370 will be forced to pay $5,243 per year for insurance. After basic necessities, this leaves them with $8,307 in discretionary income -- out of which they would have to cover clothing, credit card and other debt, child care and education costs, in addition to $5,882 in annual out-of-pocket medical expenses for which families will be responsible.

Myth 5: This plan is similar to the Massachusetts plan, which makes health care affordable.

Fact: Many Massachusetts residents forgo health care because they can't afford it. A 2009 study by the state of Massachusetts found that:


    * 21% of residents forgo medical treatment because they can't afford it, including 12% of children

    * 18% have health insurance but can't afford to use it


Myth 6: This bill provides health care to 31 million people who are currently uninsured.

Fact: This bill will mandate that millions of people who are currently uninsured purchase insurance from private companies, or the IRS will collect up to 2% of their annual income in penalties. Some will be assisted with government subsidies.

Myth 7: You can keep the insurance you have if you like it.

Fact: The excise tax will result in employers switching to plans with higher co-pays and fewer covered services.
Older, less healthy employees with employer-based health care will be forced to pay much more in out-of-pocket expenses than they do now.

Myth 8: The "excise tax" will encourage employers to reduce the scope of health care benefits, and they will pass the savings on to employees in the form of higher wages.

Fact: There is insufficient evidence that employers pass savings from reduced benefits on to employees.

Myth 9: This bill employs nearly every cost control idea available to bring down costs.

Fact: This bill does not bring down costs and leaves out nearly every key cost control measure, including:


    * Public Option ($25-$110 billion)

    * Medicare buy-in

    * Drug re-importation ($19 billion)

    * Medicare drug price negotiation ($300 billion)

    * Shorter pathway to generic biologics ($71 billion)


Myth 10: The bill will require big companies like Wal-Mart to provide insurance for their employees.

Fact: The bill was written so that most Wal-Mart employees will qualify for subsidies, and taxpayers will pick up a large portion of the cost of their coverage.

Myth 11: The bill "bends the cost curve" on health care.

Fact: "Bends the cost curve" is a misleading and trivial claim, as the U.S. would still spend far more for care than other advanced countries.


    * In 2009, health care costs were 17.3% of GDP.

    * Annual cost of health care in 2019, status quo: $4,670.6 billion (20.8% of GDP)

    * Annual cost of health care in 2019, Senate bill: $4,693.5 billion (20.9% of GDP)


Myth 12: The bill will provide immediate access to insurance for Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition.

Fact: Access to the "high risk pool" is limited and the pool is underfunded. Only those who have been uninsured for more than six months will qualify for the high-risk pool. Only 0.7% of those without insurance now will get coverage, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services report estimates it will run out of funding by 2011 or 2012.

Myth 13: The bill prohibits dropping people in individual plans from coverage when they get sick.

Fact: The bill does not empower a regulatory body to keep people from being dropped when they're sick. There are already many states that have laws on the books prohibiting people from being dropped when they're sick, but without an enforcement mechanism, there is little to hold the insurance companies in check.

Myth 14: The bill ensures consumers have access to an effective internal and external appeals process to challenge new insurance plan decisions.

Fact: The "internal appeals process" is in the hands of the insurance companies themselves, and the "external" one is up to each state.

Ensuring that consumers have access to "internal appeals" simply means the insurance companies have to review their own decisions. And it is the responsibility of each state to provide an "external appeals process," as there is neither funding nor a regulatory mechanism for enforcement at the federal level.

Myth 15: This bill will stop insurance companies from hiking rates 30%-40% per year.

Fact: This bill does not limit insurance company rate hikes. Private insurers continue to be exempt from anti-trust laws, and are free to raise rates without fear of competition in many areas of the country.

Myth 16: When the bill passes, people will begin receiving benefits under this bill immediately

Fact: Most provisions in this bill, such as an end to the ban on pre-existing conditions for adults, do not take effect until 2014.

Six months from the date of passage, children could not be excluded from coverage due to pre-existing conditions, though insurance companies could charge more to cover them. Children would also be allowed to stay on their parents' plans until age 26. There will be an elimination of lifetime coverage limits, a high risk pool for those who have been uninsured for more than 6 months, and community health centers will start receiving money.

Myth 17: The bill creates a pathway for single payer.

Fact: Bernie Sanders' provision in the Senate bill does not start until 2017, and does not cover the Department of Labor, so no, it doesn't create a pathway for single payer.

Obama told Dennis Kucinich that the Ohio Representative's amendment is similar to Bernie Sanders' provision in the Senate bill, and creates a pathway to single payer. Since the waiver does not start until 2017, and does not cover the Department of Labor, it is nearly impossible to see how it gets around the ERISA laws that stand in the way of any practical state single payer system.

Myth 18: The bill will end medical bankruptcy and provide all Americans with peace of mind.

Fact: Most people with medical bankruptcies already have insurance, and out-of-pocket expenses will continue to be a burden on the middle class.


    * In 2009, 1.5 million Americans declared bankruptcy

    * Of those, 62% were medically related

    * Three-quarters of those had health insurance

    * The Obama bill leaves 24 million without insurance

    * The maximum yearly out-of-pocket limit for a family will be $11,900 (PDF) on top of premiums

    * A family with serious medical problems that last for a few years could easily be financially crushed by medical costs


Real health care reform is needed. But this bill falls short of that on many levels.

Documentation:


   1. March 11, Letter from Doug Elmendorf to Harry Reid (PDF)

   2. The AHIP Plan in Context, Igor Volsky; The Max Baucus WellPoint/Liz Fowler Plan, Marcy Wheeler

   3. CBO Score, 11-30-2009

   4. "Affordable" Health Care, Marcy Wheeler

   5. Gruber Doesn't Reveal That 21% of Massachusetts Residents Can't Afford Health Care, Marcy Wheeler; Massachusetts Survey (PDF)

   6. Health Care on the Road to Neo-Feudalism, Marcy Wheeler

   7. CMS: Excise Tax on Insurance Will Make Your Insurane Coverage Worse and Cause Almost No Reduction in NHE, Jon Walker

   8. Employer Health Costs Do Not Drive Wage Trends, Lawrence Mishel

   9. CBO Estimates Show Public Plan With Higher Savings Rate, Congress Daily; Drug Importation Amendment Likely This Week, Politico; Medicare Part D IAF; A Monopoloy on Biologics Will Drain Health Care Resources, Lancet Student

  10. MaxTax Is a Plan to Use Our Taxes to Reward Wal-Mart for Keeping Its Workers in Poverty, Marcy Wheeler

  11. Estimated Financial Effects of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009," as Proposed by the Senate Majority Leader on November 18, 2009, CMS (PDF)

  12. ibid

  13. ibid

  14. ibid

  15. Health insurance companies hang onto their antitrust exemption, Protect Consumer Justice.org

  16. What passage of health care reform would mean for the average American, DC Examiner

  17. How to get a State Single Payer Opt-Out as Part of Reconciliation, Jon Walker

  18. Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies, CNN.com; The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Section-by-Section Analysis (PDF)"

What happens if they miss that target?  Bonuses for everyone!

Silly me.  Why didn't I think of that?

What? Not afraid just fear? Written into the fabric?

They do pretty well so keep feeding the MIC?

It's not a blame Bush (Shrub, Dumbya, Cheney Puppet etc.) game. It's history. Unless, you're anti intellectual and anti economics.

Yeah, cuz after Reagan got elected.... nobody was playing the "Blame Carter game."  ::)

...just...wow...

I don't much approve of blaming one's predecessors period.  Time to take responsibility for the problems at hand.

I think our own ramblings on this site prove how blame is everything in politics. Forward looking solutions are ignored, as typically are the people who push them.

Although sometimes there are people that truly believe the "forward looking solutions" are not the correct forward looking solutions.  It's politics.  Sometimes an honest disagreement gets buried in the partisan chatter.

Yes, but some of the time even a flawed solution is better than doing the absolutely nothing the naysayers desire, which seems to be what politics has devolved to now.

This he-said-she-said TV news format promotes the insane notion that all ideas are equally good and all opinions are equally valid, no matter what level of factual support there is for a given idea or opinion. It leaves us with a bewildered electorate that can't make informed decisions because it's nearly impossible to get any facts on which to base a reasonable opinion.

Since my job mostly consists of a cycle of clicking and typing furiously for anywhere from 5 seconds to 5 minutes, followed by waiting for the computer to finish doing something for somewhere between 5 minutes and 5 hours, I have the luxury of time to do a lot of research on a lot of different topics. This allows me to have opinions grounded in reality on many different subjects. People may not agree with them, but they are considered, and even subject to change with new information. If I were basing my opinions solely what one can find in/on the Tulsa World, KRMG, and the CBS Evening News, I think I'd still have a lot of opinions, but I don't think I'd (usually) have a solid basis for them.

Sometimes I think people react so rabidly to opposing political ideas precisely because they don't have any real factual basis. It becomes a matter of faith. A matter of identifying as a "Glenn Beck" person or a "Keith Olbermann" person or what have you. It's more about being part of an ideology or a movement than about informing oneself and thinking for oneself.

I agree with the post above.  I will have to add, however, that sometimes doing nothing is better than doing a flawed something.  That's hard to get a handle on sometimes.   Doing something, anything.... is not always the correct solution.

I will also agree that you are frequently better informed than most.  I may still disagree though.

My reaction was similar to yours when I read that, but he did put in the caveat: "sometimes".

Doing a flawed something simply to have the pride in saying: "Look we finally got health care reform" isn't a good solution if it doesn't solve the problems it purports to in the first place or if it creates an additional problem like higher deficits (just waiting for Rwarn and the "CBO chorus"), inflationary pressures, or additional unemployment.

Tinkering for the sake of tinkering doesn't present a good solution.  We got sold out to the insurance companies on this.  Take a read on who some of the insurance execs were who helped write this pile.  I simply cannot sit back, digest this and say: "Wow, I'm glad this passed!"

At least according to what Brunoflipper posted last night, the pre-existing condition part of the bill doesn't really do a whole lot for people like JeffM who have been waiting on this bill.  I understand his optimism for what he's hoping the PEC part of the bill could do to expand his career options and ease financial burdens.  I can't fault someone for that, but a lot of people have put false hope in this bill and Congress has been the proverbial fox watching over the flock.  Even GOP solutions were loaded in favor of the insurance companies, so I don't fault this as being entirely partisan.

If even 1/2 of what the article purported that Bruno posted is correct, this was a huge, huge mistake and we've been chumped.

I saw his "sometimes" and added a "sometimes" case of my own.

Abuse of language irritates the Crap out of me.  What the heck is a "Forward Looking Solution."

A solution is only a solution if it solves the problem and doesn't create new problems.

You can't improve on the impact of your language by adding silly qualifiers.

I could sure use some "Proactive Synergy" right now. :-\

That's not going to work in my paradigm.

Energy drink?

So much more than an energy drink.  It gets idiots promoted.  ;D

(http://beeradvocate.com/im/beers/54944.jpg)

Gimme some, quick!

3 bottles at home in the frige.

One left *sniffle*

I have always been a bit leery of the legitimacy of these type of "letters", but here is one purportedly from a doctor to her patients after the passage of HCR:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjY3ZTg2ODNhYTg4ZDUyNjlmNTBmYWI0YmY2YTQ0YTI=

It's all the rave with those that have the means to pay for specialized care!

Doctors on retainers available 24/7 for those with the ability to go around the insurers....

First of all, that doctor was in family practice, hardly "specialized care." Second, so what if people with the means to have a doctor on "retainers" do so? Jealous? If a doctor wants to parlay his decision to invest 8 years of post high school education and 4 years of internship/residency to provide medical services on his/her terms, is that not their right to do so?

I like the idea of specialized care. That's the expansion of the term.

Now. Under socialism, wouldn't this be prohibited?

Specialized care is a good.  But that also helped expand the cost of health care over the last two decades with all the new specialty clinics and hospitals which sprang up. That's added a lot of overhead to the cost of health care. Look at all the specialty hospitals which cropped up in Tulsa alone the last 20 years. I'm not saying they don't add a valuable service, they do. However, medical facilities are incredibly expensive to operate.  As well, they have added some confusion when it comes to insurance benefits and I know of people who have been hosed by "steering" to facilities by doctors who are part owners.

Yes, good capitalists. Bad, putting their oath in back of their pocket book.

Now, this all came about because of Nixon....he allowed the docs to incorporate and Big Pharma to advertise.

What oath are you referring to?   

It goes to show that it's possible for even a doctor with their own practice to know absolutely nothing about health care administration. Perhaps she hadn't noticed (I forgive her, the bill is long and there are but a few summaries available), but insurance companies will be no less capable of selling any health plan they desire, even after 2014. They just don't get to sell it on the exchange if it doesn't meet the minimum standards.

Now that I know what you're talking about:

Yes, the government is in fact no longer going to both subsidize retiree prescription drug benefits and let companies take a tax deduction for the part of the expense the government paid for.

Whilst in the dentist's office today, I got a chance to read the whole article in the WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094104575143723100528284.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection) and it turns out that 1) the tax liability is a one-time fee; 2) the tax credit has been on the books only since 2006, when Bush II passed his --unfunded! -- Medicare Part B legislation 3) none of the companies in question would verify the accounting and outside numbers suggest the liability is much lower. 

So in other words, good news!  An unfunded corporate tax loophole has been closed!  Yay for government budget-balancing! 

Right, deficit hawks?

It will take 5 years before the impact and cost/benefit can be defined.

So, take a break....

Given that the banks weren't loaning their own money in the first place, I don't think it's really a government takeover. It's not as if banks can't continue to provide private student loans as they have been. (Well, I had read they'd pretty much stopped after the meltdown, but presumably they started doing it again at some point)

I love how removing a government subsidy is now called a "government takeover." We live in interesting times.

So are we for or against handouts to big business now? I thought we had decided we were against that sort of thing.

You will have fled the country by then. No wonder you could care less

Not fleeing this great country, just these backwooded non progressive bigoted parts.

Why are you so impatient as to not wait and see? 5 years out, if your liver holds up, we will see.

Yowza. If this holds, Republicans are in for a big surprise in November:

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/S6uszZFDznI/AAAAAAAABlM/iwHvwToJPeg/s400/appdem.png)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_5ieXw28ZUpg/S6utPzOCZMI/AAAAAAAABlU/cTFNH8l40aQ/s1600/appg.png)

Independents seem to be much happier with the Democrats now that they got the health care bill passed.

Worse for those against HCR in the first place, 48% polled in the Gallup poll released Tuesday stated that the HCR that was passed is a "good first step," and expect to see more action on health care in the future.

Now, one should never put too much faith in polls, but they do give a good idea of general trends in thinking among the electorate.

For every "good" poll there is a counter.

This March 24 CBS poll says, by 62%, that the repubs should continue fighting HCR

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001117-503544.html

Obama's "bounce" is gone as well (WARNING:  Conservative website):

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/27/polls-obama-bounce-from-o-cares-passage-already-starting-to-fade/

Even Gallup, which is the source of your poll, has Obama's bounce fading.  Could be a trend, who knows. Polls suck.

It's a long way to November.

Yet, actually relevant to my previous post, it also says this, which reinforces my point:

That's actually more than the Gallup poll.

Now Gallup has Obama at an all time low. More poll bs.
http://centristnetblog.com/daily-news/post-obamacare-collapse-obama-approval-matches-all-time-low-in-gallup/

I suppose it will hit Tulsa sooner than we expected.  I guess we'll find out about layoffs after the first quarter earnings reports. ???

The Boeing Co. expects to take a $150 million charge in the first quarter as a result of the recently enacted federal health care plan.

Boeing said today that the expense will hurt its first quarter earnings by about 20 cents per share.

The company's announcement comes shortly after the enactment of President Barack Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as modified by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act.

Several other companies have said they will take accounting charges due to the health care reform bill including AT&T, AK Steel Corp., Caterpillar Inc. and 3M Co.

Beginning in 2013, Boeing said it will no longer be able to claim an income tax deduction related to prescription drug benefits provided to retirees and reimbursed under the Medicare Part D retiree drug subsidy. Although this tax increase does not take effect until 2013, accounting standards require that a deferred income tax asset be written down in the period legislation changing the tax law is enacted.

Boeing will revise its earnings estimate and announce the change when it reports first quarter earnings next month.

From the Herald and AP.

Linkey?

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20100331/BIZ/100339977

http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20100331/NEWS/100339982

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2011485568_apusboeingoutlook.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100401/ap_on_bi_ge/us_boeing_outlook_4

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BOEING_OUTLOOK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Would that have been considered corporate welfare under the Bush administration and now taking it away is a tax increase under the Obama administration?

You're right.  Not having it in the first place would have been the best idea.  ;D

Ding

In 2008, Boeing Corp made $2.7billion in net revenue. (http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Boeing_Company_%28BA%29)  As much as I'd like to feel sorry for their one time $150mil tax hit (in the first quarter only, no less!) I'll refrain from too much self-flagellation. 

The Wal-Mart Market by my house probably brought in thousands of dollars in cash yesterday.  That's still not a good reason for me to go in there and demand a portion of it.  ;)

All part of the revenge upon success and punishment of excess platform.

Hopey Changey  :P

Gah, you just quotey palins

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/31/boeing-tax-break/ (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/03/31/boeing-tax-break/)

And what is one of the most cited benefits of corporate tax breaks on local, state, and national levels (property and income)?

Job creation and retention.  Kind of a Catch 22 if you ask me.  There's probably some who complain about corporate welfare who owe the existence of their job to it.  I'm not saying right wrong or otherwise on corp welfare, just that there are some people who complain loudly about it who might unwittingly have a job because of it.

I do disagree however, with the idea that just because someone or some entity has a pile of cash, it should be plundered simply because it exists.

The same could be said about Boeing or Wal-Mart taking government money and then deducting it from their taxes. "That we were stupid enough to give you this money is no good reason for you to demand to keep taking money from me." See, it works both ways. ;)

That's not true. 

They did receive credits, but that only dropped their effective rate to 22.9%.  They owed deferred taxes of $457 million.  Their total income tax expense was $396 million.  These shifts were artfully made by hundreds of large publicly traded companies to weather the market drop.

Don't demonize companies like Boeing because they turn a profit.  The owners of such companies are you and me.  My father owns Boeing.  The little old lady down the street is an owner. 

I own Boeing and I want them to make as much damn money as possible.  I want them to spend the most money hiring the smartest damn CEO.  I want him to buy big luxury sail-boats and smoke fancy cigars.  The moment he stops making us money, we will send him packing.
 ;D

No one's hostile to the idea of profit.  But I'm not into allowing Boeing to prosper by avoiding paying its share. 

So what percent tax on net income would you consider fair?

It's always about fairness with you libs, isn't it? ;)

Big company generates big numbers
2.7B net income / 60.9B revenue = about 4.4%

How would you feel about
Mom's Grocery Store  (fictitious)
$2,700 net income on  $60,900 revenue
?

That is one thing dims/libs never seem to get. It's got nothing to do with percentages, it's always about the stack of cash in the corner of the room. It's a large stack, so it's worth justifying going after it.  It's as if companies like Boeing don't add a value to the economy, nor create jobs (or employ 100's of 1000's), nor play a crucial role in our transportation  industry which helps other industries nor the thousands of small businesses which exist because Boeing needs suppliers, nor the businesses which exist due to Boeing employees having good income to spend with them. These are the quality jobs we all claim to want. So why the punitive attitude?   

Since when is closing tax loopholes punitive?

Here is how an alleged (can't verify) urologist is protecting himself:

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9Bx0L3n3uAo/S7Xx3phvigI/AAAAAAAAHLs/cK7XVRFVC68/s1600/obamacare2.jpg)

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2010/04/urologist-tells-obama-voters-to-piss.html

The dems are retooling their message on HCR.


http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0810/The_new_message_Improve_health_care_dont_talk_cost.html?showall

You don't think they over-promised what Obamacare would do?  Nah.

But Nancy said to trust them and support passage of the law so we could know what was in it.  Obviously since a close family member of yours is a greedy healthcare professional, you are just planting the seeds of dissention out of spite, right?  ;)

(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRwz4BwxhLPji-3CzqLYSCS5CNx_vkOYxJ4q9dL5nGU6bhcVBM&t=1&usg=__kVxH2U03_pIuIM5MdVonZ8KaMEo=)

Mwahahaha

We are still uncovering interesting requirements in Obamacare.  I guess it takes a while to read this thing?
 
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9iBW_AEjjQ0/S7OqGBQyUEI/AAAAAAAAAgQ/tNmJETVa4Z0/s1600/health_care_bill.jpg)

Section 2572
"If a vending machine operator has 20 or more locations, they must reveal the calorie content to each item inside the machine before the consumer buys it." "A vending machine operator shall provide a sign in close proximity to each article of food or the selection button"

Because of ADA requirements, this information may be required in Bralle for each item, and in some states, the information will be required in multiple languages.  Vending machine operators have until 2011 to comply. . .About 50 days.

Serious?

If that's f'real that's an excellent example of how government creates environments which stifle small business.

Not if you are a manufacturer of small bralle signs!

Sorry. . .channeling Nate.

One thing I've learned from working in industry is that when it comes to building codes and safety issues, people sit on regulatory boards who stand to gain from new regs.  Sort of like the folks at Simplex-Grinnel helping to write fire sprinkler codes.

umm... sec 2572 has nothing to do with vending machines.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:2:./temp/~c111K3OvbU:e2795215:

Ah yes.  A little fact checking goes a long way.

Pesky facts, who needs 'em? They've got a liberal bias donchaknow? ;)

But a little more digging found it buried in sec. 2562

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:2:./temp/~c111K3OvbU:e1530963:

I was beginning to wonder if all the news stories were just made up out of whole cloth or what. ;)

Seriously, what's wrong with disclosing how many calories your food has (unless you're Hardee's/Carl's Jr.)? They've (apparently) been complaining about this for 5 or 6 months now. If they'd just gotten to work on it, it would be done by now.

I sure am glad liberals never make typographical errors.  I don't know where else I could turn to for accurate information.

 :o

They don't want everyone to see the outrageous calories and fat in their products is the problem.

I can go online and find nutritional information for just about anything.  I think it's a bit ridiculous to require a complete redesign of vending machines to accomodate the additional placard space for 30 to 50 products.

I think once it gets repeated 500 times across the entire Internet and in newspapers across the country, it no longer counts as a simple typographical error.

It won't require a big redesign by the way. They're only required to list calorie content, not other nutritional information. It goes next to the price and the "B5" or whatever. The thing about braille is just fearmongering. I have yet to see a snack food machine with braille on it that wasn't in a school for the blind. Not that I would be terribly opposed to such a requirement in the future, but I don't see where it exists at present.

Sorry about the Section # mistake.  There are so many to account for.

I'm just happy that you guys have finally discovered Thomas.  ;D

Hey Nate, there's nothing wrong except now instead of stocking some extra Doritos when you run out of Funyuns, you have to change signage or reprogram.  They vending industry estimates this little requirement to cost 16 million extra labor hours.  

I have no problem with presenting nutrition information to the consumer, but not by force.  If you are monitoring your intake, every restaurant offers nutritional information on their products, however they do not shove it in your face when you walk in the door. They do not force you to be informed.  Like every other freedom, we are free to be idiots.  

How long till we eliminate Brands like Funyuns, Cheetos, and Tostedos, and replace them with 14g Onion Flavor, 16g Powderd Cheese & Corn, and 12g Oil Soaked Corn.  I don't want to live in that world.   How long until brands like Mountain Dew are outlawed because it is "misleading to the consumer"?  I like hamburgers, yet they contain no ham as the name implies. . .Outrage!

This is a pattern, an escalation.  We clearly denote content on food products, we also supply nutritional information based on a standardized diet formulated by our federal government.  Now we have to literally include these values in our advertising.  This is all in effort to change behavior.  In the past it has been proven not to change behavior at all.  I assume when it fails, yet again at the consumer's expense, it will result in all-out bans of food items that the government deems poor choices.  This is already happening in some more liberal states.

I'm curious, do you see this going any other direction?  

I understand that in Libtopia people envision these programs with different outcomes.

Either my snark-o-meter is off, or you have gone off the deep end Gaspar. There is no slippery slope here. Nutritional labeling has been required on food products for many, many years now. I'd even bet that the folks who were against it when those requirements were enacted used the exact same arguments you're using. There is nothing wrong with eliminating the loopholes that allow some people to get away without informing the consumer of calorie content prior to making their purchase.

An informed consumer is the bedrock of capitalism. As someone who purports to be in favor of both freedom and our capitalist system, I'm surprised that you have a problem with people being able to make more informed purchasing decisions.

No problem with that at all.  How big do you have to make the speed limit signs to get people to stop speeding?  Perhaps if we put the signs 3 feet apart, people would slow down?  If that doesn't work perhaps we should install governors in their cars. 

I am in favor of informing the consumer.

Is 499 still a simple typographical error but 500 becomes an intentional distortion of fact?

It appears that because of a typo, that it is instantly assumed that an entire post is intentionally distorted.  I guess what goes around comes around.  We all get nabbed for a typo sooner or later.

It's not how big but where.  Put the speed limit on a driver's phone and maybe they will see it. Phones with GPS should be capable of that.  We can require an app for that.

Looks like 111 corps, unions, schools et. al. have protected themselves from health care reform by getting waivers.

http://www.examiner.com/finance-examiner-in-national/obamacare-waivers-given-to-111-businesses-but-few-know-where-to-apply-for-it

Not bad for something that bears more resemblance to "Romneycare meets the 1993 Republican compromise" than anything Obama campaigned on......

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-comparison.aspx
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/14/mass-how-health-care-reform-helps-hospital-costs.html

http://www.moneyfunk.net/finances/health-care-reform/

Remember President Obama’s push for health care reform? I pretty much forgot about it until I received an ‘Important Special Enrollment Notice’ from my health insurance company. And now that most company’s enrollment periods are coming in November, I think its a good time to bring it up for discussion.

On March 23, 2010, President Obama signed into the law the Affordable Care Act. It’s a law that will hold insurance companies more accountable and lower health care costs, offer more health care choices and increase the quality of health care for all of us. Its explained the act will take place in portions and that some of them have already taken effect. Further changes will not be implemented until 2014 and beyond.

The most current change to take place is Extending Coverage for Young Adults . If you are renewing your health care coverage on or after September 23, 2010 this is how the law affects you and your dependents.

Children can remain on their partents’ health insurance policy until they are 26 years old and related special enrollment right

The health care reform law allows you to keep your children on your health plan until they turn 26 years old regardless of their student status, marital status, whether they live with their parents, or are claimed as a dependent on their parents’ tax return, as long as the dependent is not eligible to enroll in other employer provided coverage. “Children” includes natural childrend, legally adopted children, stepchildren, and children who are dependent on you during the waiting period before adoption. Unfortunately, grandchildren are not eligible. If the state you live in provides a higher maximum dependent age, then that requirement will continue to apply.

    * If you want to add dependents to you health plan who are younger than 26 years of age, you have a one-time special enrollment right under the law. If your adult children under 26 was previously denied in the past or lost coverage because they exceeded the maximum dependent age, then they will fall under this enrollment right. The ‘enrollment period’ takes place no later than the first 30 days of your plan year.
    * If you currently have single or employee/spouse coverage and you want to add children, you need to change your enrollment status to one that allows dependents to be added to your contract, such as family or employee/children coverage.
    * If ou are not currently enrolled, but wish to do so to take advantage of the dependent coverage right, you and your adult chilren may both enroll during the special enrollment period if you meet eligibility requirements
    * If you want your children to stay on the plan, you don’t need to do anything
    * If you don’t want to keep your children on your plan until age 26, you will need to contact your employer’s benefits administrator to remove them as dependents under your policy

No more lifetime dollar limits on benefits and related special enrollment right
The Affordable Care Act requires health insurance companies to remove lifetime dollar limits on benefits from all plans. This applies to medical and pharmacy benefits only; not dental or vision.

    * If your coverage was previously canceled because you reached the lifetime dollar limit under your plan, you have a one-time special enrollment right under the law. You can enroll again and be covered without any lifetime dollar limit on benefits. Again, the special enrollment period will take no later than the first 30 days of your plan year.
    * If you are covered by your employer’s health plan now, you do not need to do anything
    * If you are not covered by your employer’s health plan now and are not eligible to enroll during the special enrollment period, contact your employer’s benefits administrator for more information on when you can enroll

I embrace this current change because as we know, many adult children are moving back home due to the collapse in the financial world. I for one, would feel secure knowing my children are still covered if something ill was to take place; not that I embrace them moving back home. ;)

There are other changes that have taken place that I am for in this health care reform. There is Expanding Coverage for Early Retirees for Americans who retire without employer-sponsered insurance, but are not yet eligible for Medicare. Or there is relief for four million seniors hit by a gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage known as the ‘donut hole’ (each senior will receive a $250 rebate). And pretty soon you can obtain free preventive care services such as mammograms and colonoscopies with being charged. To see more of the changes, go to HealthCare.gov. It’s quite interesting.

Well there are now over 220 waivers granted. Where is my waiver?

http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2010/12/07/more-health-waivers/

Wavers seems to be the new theme of this admin.  If you are a lobbyist you cannot work within this administration unless of course you have a waver.  If you are a business you are subject to new financial regulations unless you have a waver.  If you provide healthcare for your workers you must pay more unless you have a waver.

Reminds me of selling indulgences.

We need to protect us from a bunch of obama mamas stuff. :'(

Prepare yourself for the inevitable flame from the resident poster policeman. Here is how I imagine the flaming will be delivered.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0wu-1OaFJ8[/youtube]

How I do take pride in knowing I'm Tony's Lord Voldemort.  He can't even bring himself to directly post or speak of me.

I feel like I'm in 3rd grade.  Consider the source I guess...

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pPKrRQqOCyU/S_RWiqJA5cI/AAAAAAAAA5w/7NEZw72sKVA/s320/IMG_0498.JPG)

Waver fail.

Well there's no way to protect yourself from this consequence of Obamacare:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/556398/201012091905/New-Poll-Confirms-IBDs-09-Finding-Of-Doctor-Exodus-Under-ObamaCare.htm

Just read that a district judge in Va. has ruled the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

It's going to the Supreme Court now.

Republican judge placed by W.  The administration was expecting it.

Then why didn't this judge strike the entire statute down? Is it because he is just a little biased and not a full on right winger?

Oh, and I guess I should have expected that Prop 8 would be overturned because the judge hearing the case was G.H.W. Bush appointee.

Edited:  Is this where you got your talking point?

http://www.dailykos.com/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/12/13/132027025/federal-judge-in-virginia-rules-health-care-law-unconstitutional?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/12/13/132027025/federal-judge-in-virginia-rules-health-care-law-unconstitutional?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

Perhaps you're right that he's not full on.  I don't know.

It's just a trigger. 

The idea was to force the Supreme Court to rule on the isolated question of whether or not it is constitutional under the commerce clause for the federal government to force an individual to purchase a product or be subject to fine.

 

That's what you would refer to as a full out crisis if true.  That would make rationed care a reality even if it wasn't the original intention simply because there would be a drastic shortage of health providers.  I suppose we could always start training LPN's and PA's to do surgeries, it's not like it takes any special skill or anything.  Just pop in a "how-to" DVD on a monitor in the surgical suite.  Besides those cardio and neuro surgeons are way, way over-paid.  ::)

There really is only a few physician specialties that will not be too terribly affected by Obamacare. Family practice and internal medicine is really going to get hit.

Either way (Obamacare or continued insurance company control) the new focus among physicians is the "Boutique Clinic."  Cash only care. Many of the Minor Clinics are transitioning to this. 

My understanding from the chatter about this is that two judges in other states ruled the other way. So Gaspar is correct, this will have to be decided by the SC.

I didn't realize any other challenges had been ruled on yet.  I know that Oklahoma's hasn't.

I've only seen claims that a couple of others have been. I haven't seen anything for myself yet.

I cannot find any reported.  The media would have been slobbering if there had. 

Keith Olbermann would have been humping the judges leg, and twisting his nipples.  Katie Couric would report on it every night for a week.  People and US magazine would name the judge as one of the sexiest men/women in America, and he/she would become a new personality on The View.

I have not seen any of this yet. 

Classic! Thanks Gasper for the great laugh this morning.

Another in Virginia and one in Michigan.

For what it's worth, some think the judge's decision made at least one grave legal error: http://volokh.com/2010/12/13/the-significant-error-in-judge-hudsons-opinion/

The simplicity of the question is hard to overcome.

Does the federal government have the power to force citizens to purchase a product or a service?

Good post Nate!  I appreciate any Volokh reference.

The assumption in the post is that Judge Harrison's ruling addressed the "Means" portion of the Commerce Clause.  It does not.  It addresses the "Ends."  Otherwise, the Commerce Clause would grant the federal government the power to do just about anything it wants, as long as it was established as a "Means" to . . .insert goal.  

This part of the Commerce Clause has been challenged before, and frequently, as legislators have attempted to expand their powers and the government's ability to grow.

Just a note:
I reed Volokh Con, it's one of my bookmarks. Orin Kerr, a Washington criminal defense lawyer, is way out of his league.  He frequently has his head handed to him on Volokh except where it involved criminal law.  As you can see from the blog, he will be ripped for the next couple of weeks.

Keep reading Volokh though, it's kinda like TNF for lawyers.

House schedules vote to repeal Obamacare for Jan. 12

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/its-vote-repeal-obamacare-scheduled-january-12_525962.html

If I suspected that the repeal of Obamacare was more than a symbolic "Weeee're baaaaack!" I'd be more excited about it.

I read the summary of the new rules and on the surface, it makes me optimistic.  The issue of transparency is only relevant if people get in touch with their representatives with an objection to a bill or parts of a bill and if the representatives do anything about the objections.

Repeal ain't gonna happen, at least not with Congress's current composition.  There's just not a strong enough constituency for repeal.  Not to mention the guy with the veto pen in the White House. 

IMO, this is a sop to the incoming Tea Partiers, to help make them look like they're pushing part of their anti-Obama agenda and to give their supporters a little red meat, despite the fact that it was doomed to failure as soon as they scheduled the vote. 

And then they'll talk about how big a deal it is to garner support for other time wasters.

Good for them for placating the uneducated masses.

"OK, hold the shiny object in your hand and show it to them.  Now take the other hand and place the lobbyist's money in your pocket.  THAT'S IT!!!  Welcome to congress."

Here's one guy's way of dealing with Obamacare:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewvBUzOkLPE&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

^^^^^^^

Inevitable, the secret service contacts Volkmann.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mma/news;_ylt=AkPS94eW5I.6m1uc2HBwXPFzfNdF?slug=mmaweekly-b0eb628c4e352ae5a67151dca2a17281

Volkmann, a chiropractor, says that he was trying to make a point about the health-care law, with which he disagrees. “People were misunderstanding the point of view I was going for with the health care plan. That’s why they were getting so upset. I’m thinking about the provider, I’m a chiropractor, so I’m thinking about my point of view, not everyone getting insurance. They don’t have to worry about getting denied, which is good I guess, just not good for health care providers,” said Volkmann.

Here is Rep Ryan putting to rest (IMO) misrepresentations about HCR.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp8gF7inYaM&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Edited:  The House voted to repeal Obamacare. Passes comfortably.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/19/house-poised-vote-health-law-repeal/

(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/01/19/110109beelertoon_c_custom.jpg?t=1295462169&s=4)

Two more things. Dan Boren voted for the repeal and I am reading that despite Reid's insistence that it will never get to the Senate floor, McConnell claims he will force a vote on the repeal.

And then there are the 27 states suing or preparing to sue. Oklahoma is on the list.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/17/list-of-states-suing-over-obamacare/

Yep, even if it passes on the Senate floor...

Good luck with that veto-needing-two-thirds-majority-for-override-thingy...

Here is another "civil" discussion from the left over the repeal vote (language warning of course):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4702884

Checked in on RedState lately?  Eerily similar amount of civility. 

Link please. Also, I do not recall the right going bonkers over "civility" in the past two weeks. Drawing a false equivalence is very unbecoming.

I'll just leave this here. Guido, you shouldn't read it, as it will make your head explode. You might even decide to move to another country:

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/

Yeah well disabled seaman cannot procreate so I think enough time has passed that we should be ok with this one...

Here is a very interesting exchange regarding the repeal of Obamacare and the House GOP reviving of the Stupak Amendment that would prohibit federal dollars for abortion.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4503624/gop-introducing-bill-to-prohibit-fed-funded-abortions/

Okay. it's not that interesting. It's that Rep. Noem is easy on the eyes. (edited)

House GOP investigating the issuance of more than 200 waivers to Obamacare.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/20/rep-upton-begins-investigation-of-health-care-bureaucracy/

*checks watch*

*TAP* *TAP* *TAP*

Is this thing working? It says 2011, but I'm suddenly overwhelmed with a sense of deja vu. Why are the news wires spitting out 16 year old stories?

Back to the Future, Part IV

I didn't realize they could make a sequel more depressing than alternate 1985.

This is not perfectly on point, but it does address some of the "job killer" arguments and is equally as pancakes? as the last link. The business rags have apparently gone nuts recently..

http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in-norway-start-ups-say-ja-to-socialism_pagen_2.html

No problem for Hollywood.

Glad you posted this.  I came across it yesterday and was glad/relieved to finally see that the nordic model was getting some coverage.  

Aside from liking the idea of social democracy from a "provide for the common good" standpoint, I also think it points out that entrepreneurial success can thrive in all kinds of environments (also cf. "Communist" China); that it isn't in fact Capitalism but Capitalisms. Gassy's insistence on the One True Path of Market Fundamentalism notwithstanding, it also proves that taxes alone -- even much higher taxes -- do not alone scotch economic development.  Especially when those taxes are deployed to relieve businesses of certain costs that they otherwise, as lone actors, would have to pay much more for in time, money, and opportunity costs (infrastucture, healthcare and retirement services, education, etc).  

People think of taxes as only a drag on business, but if businesses are actually getting tangible benefits out of their investment in the state (a healthier, happier, better educated workforce; better infrastructure to get goods to market; investment in R&D; etc.) you'd assume that businesses might be a little more enthused in investing in such a system.  

I'm still waiting for the "Death Panels".  This could be a reality TV show OR a made-for-TV movie series...
 

I am now accepting donations to upgrade the avionic in my plane.  It would make me happy and qualify for the "common good" as I would be less likely to post negative responses to your posts.

 :)

How about having the federal government pay for your health care so your company doesn't have to? Then they can pay you more and you can afford the avionics? ;)

Nah.  I want everyone to chip in for the project.  With better avionics I am less likely to crash into your house so it would be good for you to send $ now.  PM me for address etc.  I don't want to spend my money on it.  As Wevsus said, common good.

Eventually the feds will tax my employer to pay for health care and due to the "middle man government" costs, the taxes will be higher than what it costs my employer now.  I will probably get a pay cut to get government funded health care.

 :)

Social Security covers an older demographic and still manages to be less expensive than equivalent private insurance paid for by your employer. Sounds crazy, I know, but true.

Some doctors are reluctant to take new Medicare patients. 

I am paying into Medicare now but not receiving benefits.  I consider it to be prepaying some of the premiums.  Figure the time value of that over a career and let me know if it's still less expensive.

I'm not sure what Medicare alone covers but there sure are a lot of TV ads for supplemental insurance.  Fortunately my mom has both but even then it was not easy when the retirement plan changed the private insurance company to find a new doctor. 

The interesting part is that, in country after country, middleman government costs are far lower than the middleman private insurance costs we pay in our country.  Wish I could understand why.

When we moved my grandmother to Tulsa 10+ years ago we had trouble finding her an internist and cardiologist who would take it.  We finally had to call in a favor from an old family friend to get her into a heart doc.  I can understand the dilema.  If you can make more off patients who can pay their own way instead of doing break-even work for government reimbursement, I know what I'd take. 

I may be going way O/T here, but I saw something incredibly interesting the other day which contrasts with what doctors consider a losing proposition in dealing with the government.  I dropped in on a friend of mine who is leasing space in a large warehouse builiding from a company who paints gensets for the military.  Basically, the gensets come in and get painted milspec OD green then ship out.  Apparently that's a pretty good gig as I observed at a minimum of $300,000 to $500,000 worth of race cars and assorted engines, equipment, etc. in a part of the building set aside as a race shop.  Maybe the owner of the building is simply that wealthy already, though it seems pandemic that people who contract with the government via consulting, manufacturing, or construction are doing very, very well.

I wish I could believe it.  The concept would be that the government isn't trying to make a profit.  The other side is that private industry has to be more efficient to be competitive.  I don't have any actual comparison numbers.  Do you?

It's pretty easy to pull numbers to show that the American system -- and very specifically the private-sector American system -- is far more inefficient than any of the other first world countries you could choose to compare it to.  The Wikipedia page on healthcare in the US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States) has a surprisingly good summary page, and very well cited. In many straightforward metrics -- infant mortality, life expectancy, adult obesity, number of adults insured -- we're lagging far behind other first world countries . . . and when taken in concert with the fact that we pay up to twice as much as other countries for those outcomes, it's pretty obvious how broken our private-sector system is. 


(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/80/Total_health_expenditure_per_capita%2C_US_Dollars_PPP.png)

Competition is absolutely laudable, and if deployed well can get you some good outcomes . . . but the numbers show that the way we've constructed the system to compete is an absolute systemic failure at harnessing the benefits of that competition. At the same time, our competitors around the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care) have just done away with that inefficiency altogether and are paying for it through some form of government insurance.

Sorry it's all wikipedia, but there are some nicely sourced articles and tables in there.

  Heard someone from Europe the other day commenting on the US's penchant for health insurance say...

"How is, health insurance, health care?".   

I'm sure you would like to think the difference is because their plans are run by the government.  I cannot deny the price difference but I think there is more to the difference than the fact that their plans are government run.  We all know the talking points. Take away the exaggerations and there will be some truth.  As (I believe) Tip O'Neill said, a million here, a million there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. (Or something close to that.)

I do not want price controls.  I remember waiting in line for a half tank of price controlled gas in the 70s.  Turns out there was plenty of gasoline at a higher price.  I would like to know if the insurance companies prohibit sale of medicine at insurance prices to individuals as part of some package.  I use a prescription for dry skin which cause cracks around my finger tips.  I can't find the paperwork at the moment. The retail price was about $10.  WalMart sold it to me for $4.  My insurance statement indicated WalMart was NOT reimbursed for the difference. Long story made short, WalMart would not sell it to me for $4 without going through my insurance.  My insurance required that future purchases go through their mail order pharmacy which at that time charged $5. 

Conspiracy theories are always a fun way to stir things up.  I smell something fishy.  What else goes on that is jacking our prices up?

Before you say we wouldn't have that problem with a government run system, I have to ask do you deal with government contracts?  Preferred vendors, must buy from minority owned firms at a higher price than the competition?  I will not evaluate buying from a minority owned business for this thread except to say it raises prices.  It may be a price society is willing to pay but we should be aware it is costing us cash.

If there was a free market alternative that could guarantee outcomes that would put us on top again while doing it for cheaper I'd be all for it.  There's just simply no evidence that our system as it exists provides us with those benefits. To the contrary, costs keep growing and growing.  At the same time, there are numerous examples around the world of competitive entrepreneurial systems doing it better for cheap.  The common thread is that it's run in some form or fashion through the government.  The paths aren't always the same but government involving itself heavily on behalf of its citizens is.

It's a pretty easy conclusion if your ideology doesn't disqualify it out of hand.  The government can do some things better than private enterprise.   Turns out healthcare is one of them. 

I hate to spin this back on you but I will. It's also a pretty easy conclusion that government run healthcare is the way to go if your ideology supports the idea that government run programs are better than private ones.

I don't believe that the healthcare industry should be completely without government interference regulation.  I just prefer that a government run program be the last choice.  It may ultimately be the final choice but let's explore other options first.  I agree that our current system is not working as is.

I do agree that the only way to reduce the cost of healthcare to the individual is to get healthy people to pay into the system.  Can you imagine the cost of car insurance if the only drivers they insured always had wrecks?  How about if you wrecked your car and then tried to buy insurance to fix it (pre-existing condition)?  Forcing  healthy people into the system obviously has some issues.  I do not pretend to have an easy solution.

Just for the record I don't think that government is the best solution in every case for every problem.  I think there are plenty of places that market competition will generate the best results, and I'm willing at least to talk over the implications of privatizing/marketizing any given problem.  But in places where the evidence points strongly in the direction of a government solution I'm more than happy to bring its specific powers to bear.  The point isn't HOW we solve a problem, it's that we solve it best.  If government can do that, so be it.  For healthcare, IMO, most every sign points in that direction.

But I think we agree on a lot of things -- first of which is the lack of easy solution. 

If you remember price controls, Red, then you must also remember that was another Republican cluster.  (Can you spell Tricky Dick...)

And he left Jerald Ford and Jimmy Carter the mess to try to clean up.  Yeah,...that was easy!  

One of the more recent Republican innovations was the $550 billion Medicare part D giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry.

As far as the rest of our medical;  wouldn't it be nice if everyone got the same treatment as Mrs. Giffords.  It is not at all that I begrudge her the treatment she is receiving.  It IS that I begrudge the fact that every citizen in this country doesn't receive the same preferential treatment.

Corollary question;  does anyone believe that any citizen in this country does NOT deserve the same treatment as Mrs. Giffords?  (Does anyone have the nerve to say so?)

And if so, exactly why would that be??

And if everyone believes all citizens should be treated equally, then how could they possibly argue against efforts to fix the obviously broken system?  And no, saying THIS health bill is the wrong bill is just pure crap.  There have been decades of opportunities to work on fixing this broken mess with NO finger lifted.  I submit we do something (like we just did) and then if it doesn't work, modify and re-engage.  Repeal is the "no answer" answer.  The John Boner generation listened to way too much "just say no" during the formative years (George Bush's nickname for the Republican leader - not mine.)

I remember that Nixon brought us the 55 MPH speed limit.  My highway gas mileage went down compared to 65 MPH.  He also kept me from going to Viet Nam.  As bad as Nixon was, I would still vote for him over Humphry or McGovern.

Gerald Ford had a mess to clean up. I think he got the healing process started.  The country was fed up with Republicans and decided anyone would be better than a Republican.  We got Jimmy Carter. 

I don't remember anyone saying the existing system is fine the way it is.  It's a matter of opinion whether or not the existing bill is "the answer".  It has some good provisions (that will cost a ton of $) but sometimes you rebuild, sometimes you replace.  Put some slime in a leaky tire or get a new tire.  Nancy Pelosi said we had to pass the bill to find out what's in it.  My guess is that no one still knows all the crap that's in the existing bill.  I also believe there is no chance the repeal will get past the Senate.

If you would vote for Nixon over Humphrey, then you 1) didn't know anything about Humphrey and 2) spent the decades of the 60's and 70's stoned.


Much as this last Pres election gave us Obama over John McCain.  Ford was a Great President, perhaps with all caps in great...  (He vetoed more spending bills than any other in the history of the world.)  But the country just couldn't get past the bad taste in their collective mouth from Tricky.

Your mileage would not have gone down because of the speed limit, it would have been due to the internal construction (gearing) of the car.  And there was no GM, Ford, or Chrysler vehicle that had that happen given the THD350 and the Ford C4 and C6 tranny and the crappy old Chrysler of the time....There were no readily available passenger car overdrives available at that time that may have been inflicted.  Urban myth coupled with "rose colored glasses" memories.

Plus no one drove 55 anyway.  (DOT found 85 to 90% NON compliance with the law in the 80's)

Speed doesn't kill.  Suddenly becoming stationary kills.

Heir.
I didn't spend the 60s and 70s stoned or maybe I would have voted for Humphrey.  You and I will just have to disagree on this.

I did actually drive between 55 and 60 during the era of the 55 mph speed limit.   The gearing etc of the cars I had allowed for the best gas mileage, about 17 mpg at 65 mph on the Interstate type highways.  The same trips from Norfolk VA to Philadelphia PA wound up giving about 15 mpg at 55 mph speed limits.  Another family car from "back east" almost never got more than 12 mph, including 120 mile trips of predominately 55 and 60 mph speed limits.  When the family moved to OK in 1971, the car started getting 15 to 17 mpg on the 70 mph Interstates.  Call it what you want, when the speed limit got lowered, I drove slower, and burned more gasoline. 

I would love to know what kind of cars they were!  If you share that, I am going to go find one to buy and drive.  Given my generally anarchistic nature, I love the possibility of breaking the laws of physics!  Perpetual motion is another one of my favorites.

1966 Buick Skylark GS with 401 nailhead engine, 4bbl Carter AFB, Superturbine 300 tranny, 2.93:1 differential.

Family car was 1963 Buick LeSabre w/401, 4bbl, Dynaflow tranny, I think the differential was 3.23:1

Be sure to average your trips over thousands of miles.  I got the '63 down to 6 mpg around town occasionally.  Mostly around town the GS got 11 on DX gas and 13 on Texaco.  DX gas gummed up the carb too.

Edit:  Both cars started to get lower gas mileage over 70 mph.  65 mph was the sweet spot for the GS, 65 to 70 for the LeSabre

The 66 would get about 13 or 14 max.  That tranny was a kind-of 'Powerglide' with variable stators, so it got slightly better mileage than Powerglide (which got 10).  The big engine - no way it ever got 17 at 65 or 55.  Even the 340 wouldn't do quite that.  Yeah, the 4 barrel gets slightly better than two barrel would if you keep your foot out of it, but not that much.

63 LeSabre - we had a 64 just like that.  Then I had a 65 Wildcat.  All very cool cars.  Lots of room and smooth to drive.  Plus I could always get at least 5 in the trunk to get into the Admiral Twin.  Sometimes 6.  Dynaflow was another sort of two speed that was kind of sort of similar to Turboglide/Powerglide (Chevy) - in that they kind of had two speeds.  I can remember riding in a friends - I think it was 61 or 62 - where you would really get the engine wound up before shifting to second.  On the Buicks it was pretty quiet, but still wound up.  Kind of a quiet-noisy.  Pontiacs had something similar that had the nickname "Slim Jim".  Never knew why.

Dynaflow was very similar to the Turboglide used in 1961 Chevy (with 283 V8).  Got 7 to 8 mpg in town and MAX of 12 on highway.  I put over 40,000 miles on the 61 Chevy version of that as a kid.  Good thing gas was about .26 per gallon!  But as far as "hot rodding" - forget it.  The 283 would not go there.

Well, I guess I won't look for one of those - been there, done that.  I think I will start looking for another 65 Buick Wildcat.  Or maybe a Riv.

I put over 120,000 miles on that 66 GS and calculated the gas mileage at each fill up.  I wrote it on the credit card receipts, now long gone. I carried a circular slide rule in the car. I really don't care if you believe it or not.  Maybe the Wildcat or Riveria GS wouldn't have topped 14 mpg but the Skylark was a bit smaller and lighter, same size as a GTO, 442, or Chevelle 396.

I also had a 1969 GS 350 (350 cid engine, TH350 trans).  It got about the same gas mileage as the '66 with a bit less performance.

The Dynaflow (Actually called a Twin Turbine by 1963) was a manually selectable 2 speed behind a fancy torque converter.  At least in the Buick version, if you selected D, it started from a stop with no planetary gear reduction (Edit: Except in the torque converter between the turbines.) and used only the torque multiplication from the torque converter.  If you manually selected L, it had 1.82 planetary gear reduction behind the torque multiplication from the torque converter. "The transition through the various ratios of torque multiplication is smooth and devoid of steps or changes since it is accomplished without the use of selective gears."  (From the 1963 Buick Chassis Service Manual, page 5-7.  Not Chiltons etc.).  The switch the pitch action of the stator confused some drivers into thinking it was shifting gears.  The family car before the '63 was a 1954 Buick Special.  That Dynaflow didn't have switch the pitch and was a real dog off the line with only 264 cid and under 200 HP. It was, however, happy to sit all day long at 60 mph and about 12 mpg.  I thought the Chevy version was around 1957 or so and called Powerflo but I'm not certain about that.

Gas mileage on the '63, surprised me too since it never got more than 12 back east.  I guess the gearing and specific fuel consumption of the 401 were just loaded best at speeds around 65 to 70.  It repeated itself on trips to OKC, back to Philly and others.  Again, I don't care if you don't believe me.

For all the cars mentioned, "around town" was not stop and creep.  It was SE Tulsa, trips to TU etc.  Highway mileage was get on the interstate and keep going.

Edit: Looks like the Chevy was Turboglide.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynaflow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turboglide

So apparently if you smear yourself with dynaflow and turboglide you will protect yourself from Obamacare?  Smear liberally or conservatively?

If you use AstroGlide, Obamacare will slide right by!

I'm conservative and have always been a Buick person so I would say Dynaflow Conservatively.

Chevy was the Turboglide.  Crappy transmission.  Powerglide was the Chevy "two speed" that was a great little transmission, just no mileage due to the gearing.  Lots of racers used them in 60's, built up.

Well, apparently there are now well over 700 waivers given from Obamacare involving nearly 2.2 million workers. Lots of unions in this list. just sayin...

http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

A Federal Judge just ruled the entire Obamacare program UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

More to come. . .

Moments ago a Federal Judge in Florida ruled the entire program (not parts) unconstitutional.

His ruling:
 ". . .Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void."

Huzzah!!! They'll stop charging my tanning place extra tax and I won't have to pay extra!!!

oh, and all those kids under 26 that could finally be insured under their parents for the last few weeks?  F' 'em.

The full text of the decision from Federal Judge Roger Vinson is not available yet, but according to reporters who've seen the decision, he's ruled the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unconstitutional. The ruling favors of the 26 state attorney generals challenging the law. The judge ruled the individual mandate that requires all Americans to purchase health insurance invalid and, according to the decision, "because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void."

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/breaking-federal-judge-rules-obamacare-unconstitutional#ixzz1Ce7ptenW

From The Examiner

You cannot force someone to purchase something as a condition of being a US Citizen.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola, Florida, declared the law unconstitutional today in a 78-page opinion. He said the law’s provision requiring Americans over 18 to obtain insurance coverage exceeded Congress’ powers under the commerce clause of the U.S Constitution.

“Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution,” the judge wrote. “This case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the Constitutional role of the federal government.”

Off to the Supreme Court. . .

Judicial activism.















BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

In most settings I am required to have a government issued ID on my person if I leave my house. The gubmints charge me for them...

As an employer, I am required to pay for Workmen's Compensation Insurance no matter what I hire workers to do.

Those seem to be government mandated expenses to me.

Why the outrage about medical insurance?

Because our current President is blamed for it (with the idiotic moniker ObamaCare..might as well be called RomneyCare or DoleCare).

You may use your birth certificate for ID.  The cost for other identification is nominal.
You only pay workman's comp if you choose to employ.  
You only pay for driver's license if you choose to drive.
You only pay for car insurance if you choose to drive.

You cannot force a person to pay tens of thousands of dollars over a lifetime just to be alive.

Main difference between the government mandating worker's comp and auto liability and mandatory health insurance is worker's comp and auto liability ensure others are protected from your negligence.  Health insurance is a coverage on yourself.  As well, worker's comp (far as I know) and auto liability are mandated by state law not federal law.  Your driver's license is also mandated as a state, not federal law.

Not quite sure how to spin the whole thing about a passport other than it's entirely optional and only necessary if you wish to travel abroad.

The ruling:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/47905280/vinsonruling1-31-11

This is going to the Supremes, as it always has been, ever since the final vote was tallied.  Significantly, the judge in FLA didn't stop the implementation of the bill, so it will continue until the high court finally gets it and makes a decision.

Twitter is aflutter with moon-bats trying to find a foothold on defending Obamacare as somehow above the constitution.  Can't wait until all of the ideas congeal. 




 

This passing reference in the Court's Order to what led to the Boston Tea Party will make the left's heads collectively explode. Those damned original teabaggers!  ;D


http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/31/florida-district-court-rules-against-health-care-reform.aspx

There's a little nugget on page 62 that I love:

teabaggers? I thought that term was disrespectful.

It is. I was being sarcastic. I guess I failed.  ;)

Here is another passage from the opinion I found on Drudge.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/judge-uses-obamas-words-against-him/

Sucks to be caught.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the colonists weren't objecting to taxation in principle, they were objecting to taxation without representation.  They didn't have any say in the taxes levied by the Crown.  Our entire form of government was created to ensure that we all have an adequate voice in our taxation.  In this case -- especially considering the torturous town halls, and all the minute wrangling that lasted for so many months -- I'd say there was a goodly amount of representation exercised in this decision. 

The more I look at the judge's decision, the more it comes off as, well, deeply ideological.

I'd say this:  if the government had had the cojones to divorce the idea of health care from health insurance, this would be a moot argument.  The funding could've been done through good old fashioned taxation, and while I know the very word makes select posters' heads spin, the upshot in general would've almost definitely been cheaper and better outcomes -- as is the rule in virtually every other first world nation with single payer healthcare. 

But instead Obama and the Democrats turned themselves inside out trying to guarantee bipartisanship and in the process gutting both the most direct and the most effective solution out there. 

/classic liberal rant off. 

I don't know about cheaper and better (at this time that is still ideological) but financing it through taxation certainly would have taken away the argument about the commerce clause.

It's getting picky about words but I agree we need to differentiate between health care and health insurance. 

You know, I don't pretend to believe that using a tax to build the healthcare infrastructure would be any less controversial or that certain folks would hate it any less; I do think that it would foster understanding, however. Paying a tax and receiving a service in exchange is a simple transaction.  Forcing people to buy a private product of widely varying efficacy in order to mysteriously exert downward pressure on an already complicated (and price-pressure resistant!) market just makes it needlessly complex. 

I know that you know.  I am making the observation that it may still be despised in some quarters and loved in others but the legal question would at least be different and seemingly more difficult to repeal the law.

How cool is that!  Gaspar and Conan both get it wrong one right after the other .

So we must add a couple points;

Health insurance should only be required if you avail yourself of the health care system of this country.

and

Health insurance is not JUST coverage on yourself - it IS ALSO coverage to protect the rest of us from having to pay for that huge part of your bill due to not having insurance.  Now is around 335 to 40% of average health care bill in this country.  Has been that for decades.

Birth certificate costs money too.

Plus, it is not adequate to determine identity AND employment eligibility.  (I-9 requirements)

South Dakota gets it.

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20110131/UPDATES/110131031/Bill-would-require-all-S-D-citizens-buy-gun

Not all bad as an idea.  Provide for the common defense and all that jazz.  In olden days in this country, people just naturally took that path anyway - making what the anti-gunners claim to be the militia of the Second Amendment.

I would say to take it a step further.  Require practice (so many rounds per year) to qualify to some minimum level of handling skill.  Kind of like concealed carry requirements.


No, he really didn't get it.  But makes for a cute sound bite story!

Here is some analysis of the Florida ruling with a link to the decision.

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/01/florida-judge-rules-against-obamacare.html

Wow - big surprise there.  Republican appointed judge.  Florida.  Nods to the Tea Party.  Should be interesting.  This Judge even quotes Child Labor laws!  Do you suppose that if a child labor case were brought before him, he would set it aside, too?

Mary Brown says the individual mandate will require her to divert resources from her business and reorder her economic resources.  Much like I currently DO have to divert resources from my business and reorder my economic resources to pay the 30% or so of every medical event the occurs now to make up the difference for her.  (Sound familiar - the way WalMart does things??)

She devotes her available resources to maintaining her business and paying her employees.  Much as I do.  And I don't enjoy the extra benefit of that 30% "bonus" for my medical costs.  And believe me, I wish her very well - and the neither her nor any of her employees EVER have a sick day the rest of their lives!!
That way it won't cost me, or most of the rest of us, so much.

It IS a shame that I currently DO have to pay those costs while she gets to skate.  Well, that's what the Tea Party is all about, isn't it?  Getting their tax relief at the expense of others!

One thing that IS kind of strange is how all the RWRE talk revolves so much around personal responsibility - like taking responsibility for your own health care expenses, both insured and uninsured.  But when the practice actually becomes law, it changes so dramatically.  It becomes an unwarranted government intrusion.  Rather than stepping up to the plate BEFORE a law is needed!!

Nether a birth certificate or photo ID cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

While you were stuck in the snow.

Quietly. . .Quietly. . .

The Senate repealed part of Obamacare yesterday.  The 1099 requirement is gone.

Good news for the American People, bad news for an administration that legislates against them.

I'd be interested to see what the vote looked like. Anti-deficit Republicans are utter hypocrites if they voted to repeal the requirement. Sure, it's asinine, but it would have helped enforce the tax laws and therefore raise more revenue.

Obama himself has said that he's open to change on that provision.  Not exactly the dire hit against the administration that you'd like it to be.   

As a matter of fact, Obama's said he's willing to continue to tweak the legislation, so it's not as if the entire thing has to stand as is, monolithic and unchanged. 

I am all for Hope and Change!  ;)

All we need to do now is get rid of that individual mandate, menu labeling provision, Swag disclosure provision, postpartum depression disability provision, tanning tax, abstinence-only education provision, "Health Choices Commissioner" establishment, the added 3.8% real-estate sales tax for high earners, real-time access to participant financial data provision,  along with 897 pages of garbage, and we've got something to work with.

It's like taking a giant rotten tree and whittling it down to a nice sharp tooth-pick.

Whiff and a miss.

If you bring all the uninsured under the same insurance plan as everyone else, the rest of us still wind up subsidizing the cost.  It's simply shifting cost centers.  Instead of paying higher rates for the treatment due to the charge off costs which are factored in for non-payers, now you wind up picking it up on the front end with higher premiums.

But Conan, I thought the government was going to pay for it?

Need to accelerate menu labeling.  Make it actually happen and mean something.  (IHOP has calorie info on their menus now, so I am very much more likely to eat there from time to time.)

Locally would like to see law changed so insurance companies would cover autism.  But that would probably mean they would have to eliminate the requirement to cover viagra for old fat farts to be able to relive their virile youth!

Yeah, that's what Oklahoma legislative priorities are all about.  (Look how many of those old fat farts are lawyers AND legislators!)

But you reduce that cost by removing the collections aspect, thus reducing overhead. Of course, you might put some debt collectors out of business. Theoretically, it ought to also reduce the number of people the insurance companies and hospitals/doctors need to negotiate prices, since the base rate will be more reasonably aligned with cost to provide the service to begin with.

That's actually the point.  We know that, in one form or another we will always be subsidizing the cost of folks with few or no resources.  That will happen either outside the insurance system or within the insurance system.  By shifting their cost center into the insurance system, at least there's an opportunity for them to contribute something of their resources to their care.  They might also avail themselves of more preventative care; of more personalized care (a long term provider, rather than just an ER doc), and better education through insurance plans (don't laugh; insurance folks are CONSTANTLY trying to educate people to be healthier). 

The outcome then might theoretically cost less and ensure better results from our system.  It's not just that they're expensive and will stay expensive. Moving them under insurance umbrellas will hopefully make folks cheaper to treat.

To that point, I used to know a couple of folks who were essentially destitute (working minimum wage jobs 30 hours a week..food stamp qualified, actually) who ended up having what would have been relatively routine things end up requiring an ambulance, an ER visit, and major surgery because of a lack of treatment. In one case, a simple round of antibiotics would have cleared up the ulcer before it perforated.

Lots of people feel like they can't afford a doctor, whether they really can or not. Maybe the answer isn't requiring health insurance, maybe it's expansion of free/dirt cheap health clinics and subsidization of whatever medicine is prescribed by those clinics. Who knows, but Northwest Medical Center wouldn't have had to eat a hundred thousand in charges (not to mention the charges for the surgeon, the anaesthesiologist, and so on) had that woman had access to a free health clinic where she could have gotten antibiotics.

Boggles the mind.  Shifting cost centers.  Ok, let's go with that.  If we shift 30% of the medical bill (hospital, doctor, medicine, etc) to even 30% of the insurance bill (which won't happen), then the cost shifting has ended up saving a TON of money to me personally.  And $250 billion to the American taxpayer.  But that wouldn't go into the pocket of big insurance or big medicine, so we can't have that, can we.

Stop complaining about "judicial activism" in the Florida decision Obama White House says, you guessed it: Jonathan Turley???



http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-02-03-turley03_ST_N.htm

When you lose this guy, who is next?

I don't think they've "lost" anybody.  The criticism is fair, but it doesn't mean Turley's advocating throwing out the law.  He even mentions that he supports national healthcare. 

And as for judicial activism:  what's good for the goose . . . .

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/08/133503755/alternatives-to-mandating-insurance-maybe (http://www.npr.org/2011/02/08/133503755/alternatives-to-mandating-insurance-maybe)

Oh look, a job saver...


http://tinyurl.com/4ev8aar
 (http://tinyurl.com/4ev8aar)

Madcow was on a tear last night about the GOP bringing out more anti-abortion bills and very little job growth bills. 
 
Might be because government generally tends to inhibit commerce with legislation, not promote it.  ;)

I have to admit, on the surface I see the Republicans doing exactly what they accused the Dims of doing: ignoring the real issues while they work on passing a slate of legislation which does nothing to confront the real problems most people are concerned about.

And you're surprised about that....why?

 ;D

Politicians are still politicians, no matter what letter is appended or prepended to their name on the newscast.  Big lobbies, unfortunately, still own them.

I am not sure that's totally accurate. The repub house voted to real Obamacare, which is what those that elected them wanted. Next week they will vote to defund it.  Rand Paul has put forth an effort to cut the deficit by 500B, the House at a much smaller 32B, which is what the people that elected them wanted. Today certain provisions of the Patriot Act were allowed to expire in the House. I just read that the Repub House will be looking to defund the stimulus bill.

Yeah, but Democrats are in denial that Obamacare was going to kill job creation, so basically repealing Obamacare does nothing for job creation.  Capiche?

Got it. Thanks for straightening me out.

That still doesn't correct the gross decentralization of health care into all these specialty hospitals and take into account the cost of paying for utilizing all this new diagnostic and surgical equipment which has helped make medical costs so staggering in addition to people who can't afford or won't pay for the care they received. 

In other words, the providers will never drop their prices.  With more people being on insurance, it might help mitigate gratuitous price increases so long as doctors and entire health systems don't opt out of taking health insurance and go straight cash.  It's just not as simple as people have tried to make this on the surface.  They passed the bill and we still don't know what all was in it.  ;)

I tend to agree but I do know of one exception.  A friend retired a few years ago and told his dentist he was losing dental coverage.  My friend offered to pay in cash what the agreed upon insurance company rates were and the dentist agreed.

If you were told you would only be compensated at 50% of your ordinary and customary rates, wouldn't you immediately double your rates? 

Yup. 

Well, here is a little glimmer of hope amongst all the other stuff.  And this probably won't last.  Seems like at least 26 Republicans have some sanity going on - at least until the next vote on this topic.  Unwarranted Government Intrusion is at least getting a little tap of a slap on the face.  (And no, I don't expect it to stick.  This will be reinstated.)

UGI - hey!  A new TLA!  (Three Letter Acronym).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110209/ap_on_re_us/us_patriot_act

Don't sugar coat it Hatch, tell us what you really think:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sen-orrin-hatch-obamacare-is-a-stupid-dumbass-program/

I saw this video today. Can someone help fill in the blanks for me. Namely, exactly what "double counting" is taking place as alleged by Shimkus and what it means from a fiscal point of view.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukaIZ7pmabo&feature=relmfu[/youtube]

Dems To GOP: Show Us Your Health Insurance

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/03/15/134569782/dems-to-gop-show-us-your-health-insurance?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/03/15/134569782/dems-to-gop-show-us-your-health-insurance?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)


This is probably another reason the Republicans want NPR to go away.

Well isn't this just fantastic news.


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/doc_holiday_Nyb5JCHkWyejLq7dTjTs2J

The physicians the plan drives out of practice probably deserve to be pruned from the system. They got away with God like income for too long. Ever since Docs got added to the yellow pages and big pharma got an annoyance license to advertise the system has gone unchecked allowing for capitalizing the system. Hoodwinked victims of the new healthcare provisions. And then there's the insurance industry...

Seems to be a big demand for those that are unhealthy to find care.

Quoting the Post? :D....way to know your resources. ::)

Oh that's right. Doctors only care about making money and all that nonsense about saving lives, relieving pain, and curing illness is just that. Nonsense. Tell you what, if you hold doctors in such contempt--don't use them. Problem solved.

And for my source, you care to contradict the author's position if you don't like it? And YOU incidentally are the last person popping off on source selection. After all, you posted that drivel about taxing mega-churches today.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/you-come-for-our-unions-we-come-for-your-corporate-mega-churches

"Politicususa--Real Liberal Politics ~~ No Corporate Money, No Masters"

That's a real objective source. You make it too easy sometimes aox.

NO! Those docs that prioritize money over their oath are the one's needing to be pruned out. Restrictions need to be reinstated. Single payer will remain the only solution in the long term. The insurance industry (death panels) needs to be for property, casualty, life, but not health.

Who are these docs you are referring to? Because the doctors I know don't behave that way. As for single payer, not going to happen but by all means keep wasting your breath on it.

Yes it will....in Vermont and many other states. Not here in Kern Country.  >:(

Stay away from doctors by staying healthy. they make lots of mistakes. despite what they think of themselves, they are just humans.

If a business was told that in the future they would only be paid 50% of their customary and ordinary fees by insurance (private, medicare...), the first thing they would do is double their fees.  List price is instantly above the reach of ordinary folks.  Then the business is told they have to keep more records and file more paperwork. Another employee is now needed just to keep up with paperwork.   And so on.  I am not defending high medical costs but I understand where they come from.  We have all discussed unnecessary procedures to prevent lawsuit losses and so on.  Just having a single payer is not going to fix that.

And guess why it's like that?  Because so many insurance companies do their paperwork differently.  My sister-in-law worked coding insurance for medical for several years.  She hated it.  I don't necessarily believe that single-payer is the way to go though.  What I would be for (and I've said this since before Obama was President and there was even talk of health care reform) is that there should be a single repository for insurance paperwork that physcians have to deal with.  It's not the paperwork, it's the diversity of the paperwork that makes the extra clerical workerS...not usually just one in a medium sized practice...necessary.  Standardize the paperwork for insurance and you solve half the problem.

Are you sitting? 

I agree with the principle.  I don't know that it's half but it's certainly significant.

One would think they would have created a standard a long time ago.  Nah, makes too much sense.

AARP has now been granted a program exemption to Obamacare.

LOL!  I seem to remember them lobbying hard for it.

You do realize the waivers go away in 2014, right? The point of them is to give companies that would otherwise stop offering coverage to some of their employees altogether an out until the exchange system gets up and running.

You do realize that that's not what I am talking about, right?  AARP is also also one of the nation's largest insurance providers.  They just received an exemption to the rules governing insurance price regulation under Obamacare.  They and other GAP providers are now free to raise their prices on patients without the regulation levied on other health insurance organizations.

They did not receive a waver for coverage, they received an exemption from regulation!

It would be fantastic if I could find something specific to AARP that doesn't come from some LGF equivalent site. Maybe tomorrow the mainstream press will pick up on Rush's BS and I can actually understand what it's about.

AFAIK, AARP markets insurance plans, but does not offer them itself. Perhaps I'm mistaken. I am, after all, not eligible for any of their services. ;)

Wait a few years.

 :D

Wow Nate.  The AARP is the nation’s biggest seller of Medigap policies through United Healthcare.  Royalty revenues from these sales now comprise more than half (60.3 percent) of all AARP revenues.  In 1999, Medigap royalties comprised only 11 percent of the organization's total revenues.  So in a little over 10 years AARP went from a member supported organization to an insurance sales organization.

AARP lobbied for cutting Medicare Advantage plans by more than $150 billion, and now we understand why.  Their income from the royalties on the sales of unregulated Medigap plans is massive.  Medicare Advantage plans are required under Obamacare to pay out 85% of premium revenues as claims.  AARP lobbied to make sure that the Medigap plans were only required to pay out 65% of premium revenues as claims.  Now with this exemption, Medigap plans such as the ones AARP markets under UHC don't even have to meet that requirement.  This is sure to make AARP the most powerful insurance sales organization in the US.

You are correct.  I am fairly sure that most of the media will pay little attention to this. ;)  That we can count on.

Just because Katy, Brian, or Jon are instructed not to discuss something doesn't make it any less true.  The exemption was signed on Thursday of last week.

Marketing insurance and selling insurance is not the same thing, but you can keep beating the drum of lies if you like. If you want to rail against something, at least try the truth.

And personally? I'd like to see Medicare Advantage plans canned entirely. They cost Medicare more and give the consumer less. They're a large part of the Medicare funding problem, actually. I don't know enough about Medigap plans to comment. At first read, it looks like they work as the name implies, covering certain things that Medicare doesn't cover. Not exactly what the health care law was aimed at in the first place. Perhaps my mind will change on that with new information.

I guess you'll take any port in a storm, though.

Oh:

60.3% of AARP's total revenue comes from the sale of Medigap plans. 

Selling, marketing, modeling, representing, lobbying, snorting, vomiting, or excreting, you pick the term.  I could care less what Nate wishes to call it.  The majority of revenue AARP receives are from the SALE of Medigap plans to senior citizens who do not receive adequate coverage under Medicare.

Hey, that's kinda funny too, where'd you get that?

The reason it's funny is because states actually regulate ALL rates for supplemental insurance policies.  The Obamacare regulations are what changes that, not the other way around!  :D

Nevermind I found it.  Easier to understand in context.  It's AARP's response.

You have a very strange definition of 'adequate.' I've never known it to be a synonym for 'perfect.' Keep spinning the good spin, my man!

It's an utter lie to say that 'AARP' got an exemption from the law, just as it would be a lie to say that my mortgage broker was exempt from a law that does not apply to them, but does apply to the banks whose loans they broker. Or the same way it would be a lie to say that I'm subject to HIPAA regulations because some of my clients are.

UnitedHealth pays AARP to use their name to help sell smile to old people, just like many other companies do. The facts don't support your rant. Take your lumps and move on.

AARP receives a commission for every policy sold under the AARP name and on the AARP Insurance Sales website.
(https://www.aarphealthcare.com/aarphealth/images/logo/aarp_logo.gif)

These royalties make up 60.3% of AARP revenue.

Interpret that as you wish.  :D

You can keep repeating yourself, but you still have failed to even assert that they're an insurance company, much less that they are subject to the Affordable Care Act, except as an employer. In other words, you're still lying.

I think what he's referring to is AARP is not the "insurance provider".  AARP is effectively the sales agent, much like FMC sells or markets insurance for Hanover and a number of other companies but she is NOT the provider though. 

Pretty interesting read you provided and it certainly does seem to illustrate a good motive for the way AARP has maneuvered in lobbying for Obamacare, then wanting to be waived from it.

They can't be waived from the specific provisions the wingers (and Gaspar) are talking about unless they are in fact an insurance provider. You'd think that Gaspar could come up with some evidence that they are in fact in that business by now.

Oh, and he also fails to mention that AARP is a non-profit. The insurance broker, if you want to call it that, is a for-profit wholly owned subsidiary, but AARP still has to use that money for whatever it is their mission is.

http://www.ehow.com/video_4767498_aarp-corporate-structure.html

I hear the sound of splitting hairs here.

But AARP could lobby on behalf of UHC, Delta, Aetna, and whomever else's insurance they market to their members so they can get a waiver.

He actually provided information they are non-profit in the citation he used.  Non-profit is misleading anyhow.  Lots of big salaries being doled out at that non-profit, as well as millions spent on lobbying.

With all due respect.  They don't need to be the insurer, they are in essence the seller.  They are steering policy based on their revenue source just like any big corporation with a lobby.  The dishonest part is that they are using the guise of a lobby group representing retired people who pay dues to AARP to represent them.  While a little underhanded, I wouldn't have so much of a problem with that except that they are protecting the revenue source OVER the interest of the people they are supposed to be representing.

I am convinced that you understand this, but simply continue to feel the need to spoon your dear leader.

You can relax now. I don't feel the need to continue to explain this ad-nausium.
 ::)

They could, but that was not the claim that was made. The claim was that AARP received a waiver as an insurance company, which is a lie.

+1  That would be the honest way, but no, they are lobbying on "behalf" of Aunt Millie.

Okay so we are back at what is the definition of is.  Got it.

Do you get the underlying point that AARP's activities on this seem pretty nefarious, regardless if they are the insurer or they are doing this on behalf of for-profit insurers whose products they market to AARP membership?

I believe I remember hearing that McDonalds asked for an exemption.  Are they the actual underwriter or are they just the agent for their employees?

I'm still foggy on what AARP actually did, if they are not in fact an insurer and therefore did not receive a waiver from price regulation.

I'm not sure if Gaspar made this assertion, but the articles I could find related to his claim stated that royalties from Medigap plans made up some 60% of AARP's revenue. That is another lie. All royalties from all of the co-branded products and services made up only 53% of AARP's revenue. It's simply not credible to claim that it's all from Medigap.

RA, that's a completely different thing. The ACA specifies that the Secretary of HHS may grant waivers of the coverage limit regulation until 2014 if without the waiver a company would either eliminate coverage or increase the employee's cost of coverage without said waiver. It's part of the "nobody will have to change their present insurance if they don't want to" promise.

Another interesting fact available for all to see if you read their 2010 financials: Only 8.3% of their revenue was spent on lobbying.

Back to Gasper's subject.

I believe the claim is that Underwriter A sold insurance through AARP.  The Underwriter received (for example) $100 from AARP.  AARP charged the final customer $110.  New regulations would reduce that to $105.  AARP asked for an exemption to be able to continue to charge $110.

Whether or not that is a legitimate issue with the new regulations, I don't know.  This is what I believe Gasper is saying.

That's not how it works with the Medigap plans, which are what are the bone of contention here. With the group health insurance plans, AARP acts in the same way an employer would. There has been no exemption issued for that (as far as I'm aware)

The exemption being discussed is that Medigap plans have been determined to be exempt from federal rate regulation in general. AARP merely receives a commission/royalty based on the amount of Medigap business United Health sells using the AARP name. Supposedly, AARP gets around 7% of AARP-branded Medigap policy revenues from United Health, who actually issues the plans. I haven't found a specific number in the financials, so I'm not quite sure where that number comes from.

That's not really germane, though, because the discussion is about the exemption from rate regulation, not loss ratio or anything of that nature.

Same coverage, less income.  Sounds financially undesirable to both United Health and AARP.

Actually 46% in 2009.  60.3% in 2010 and expected to exceed that this year.  

Start on about page 7
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/AARP_REPORT_FINAL_PDF_3_29_11.pdf

Here's what's really interesting though is that "royalties" revenue is 2.75 times membership dues.  Are they an insurance marketer or advocate for those over 50?  I also take note of your claim of a little less than 9% spent on lobbying.  Was that the $79 million specifically noted as "legislation and research" or could there be more which falls under the $330 some odd million listed as "programs and field services"?

Link to the '10 audited financials:

http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/about_aarp/annual_reports/2010_aarp_consolidated_financial_statements_12_31_10.pdf



I've belonged to the NFIB before when I owned my own business.  I believe they are a non-profit as well.  Sure they did some lobbying on behalf of small business and sending out a slick newsletter and emailing questionaires, but their main bag was offering health insurance to the self-employed.  They had reps who would sell you the "membership" and the insurance as well.  You had to be a member to participate in the insurance program.

I've not had time to read and digest, but if others would like to, Congress seems interested in this very issue.

http://www.aarp.org/about-aarp/info-03-2011/website_overview.html

Funny, I'm reading their 2010 financials and as I said earlier, the entirety of the royalty income is 53% of their revenue for the year. Unsurprising that that the Republicans are making smile up, though. Also unsurprising that they completely mischaracterize the nature of the organization.

Edited to add: Royalties includes much more than health insurance. There's all sorts of AARP branded products. I would be interested to see a breakdown of that from a legitimate source. And I seriously doubt they are misrepresenting their activities in their financials. I guess they could if they wanted to lose their tax-exempt status, but it seems unlikely.

You can't cite that.  It was prepared by Republicans.   ;D

I dunno, when you are raking in almost three times the amount of membership dues in royalties from selling insurance, that sort of skews what the mission is.  If not in reality, at least in perception. 

I also noticed their investments increased from around $1bln to $1.5 bln in a year's time.  Can't make a profit by tax code, can't spend the money fast enough, so what do you do? Invest it.  Basically what Saint Francis does every time they make another improvement at 61st & Yale.

You can't cite that because the citations in the "paper" are bogus. It claims that the consolidated financial statement says things it does not in fact state.

You know what?  I think you are right.  Unless reports are rolling up one of these other investments under royalty income like reinvestment in the insurer or some bundled investment stratagy.  Indeed direct royalty income is 53%.

They make over half their income on royalties from the sale of their branded products.  We can agree on that. ;D

Or the argument could be made that they're doing right by their members in keeping their dues low by finding ways to get other people to fund their operations. Depends on how you want to look at it, of course. Given that they're not aligned with Republican ideals, it's not surprising they're under attack. Of course, nobody gives a smile how the right-wing lobbying organizations make their money. It's quite the double standard.

That we can. If I were an AARP member, I'd be happy I wasn't footing the whole bill.

I'd still like to see how much royalty revenue their various products bring in. I wonder if one might be able to at least pin down the Medigap part in United Health's financial statement.

Not really a right wing/left wing issue.  Last time I checked AARP was not a Republican/Democrat organization.  You are insinuating that they are somehow a Democrat organization when in fact they fall behind both parties on many different issues.  They are supposed to be a non-profit representing the issues of their paid members.

No, I'm stating quite directly that because their nonpartisan opinion happens to be opposed to that of the present crop of Republicans on several major issues at present, they're being smeared by said Republicans.

I will criticize them in one area, however: One of their 2009 CEOs was paid over a million and a half dollars. Seems a bit high for a nonprofit.

So. . .If you subscribe to Consumer Reports so that you can be informed when purchasing a car, and you see on their website that GM vehicles have the very best rating, you are more likely to buy that product.  Right?

You then find out that Consumer Reports gets 53% of their revenue from selling GM vehicles to their members.  That makes you happy that they do that instead of increasing your subscription fees?

That is illogical.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4c/SpockVulcan.jpg)

Now take that a step further. . .you then find out that the government is going to start regulating the profit margins on the sale of automobiles, and your advocate, Consumer Reports, is leading the charge. 

That legislation passes and then you find out that an exemption has been signed waving all regulation on GM vehicle sales.

It depends. Do GM vehicles have the best rating because they are in fact the most reliable vehicles? By the way, CR does have a car buying service. I presume they make a commission from the dealer or manufacturer. I'm not sure, though, as I've never looked into it very closely.

Your analogy does not hold, however. AARP does not claim to rate the companies that use the AARP co-brand, at least as far as I've seen.

No, looking at how much their investments grew from '09 to '10 it looks like the non-profit is having one hell of a time trying to launder all that money so they can remain non-profit.  If I have time tonight, I'm going to read further into the links they provided on this investigation.  I do appreciate the integrity they are trying to show by at least acknowledging the investigation, their response, as well as any supporting evidence.

You might note that their assets at the beginning of '09 were a mere $10 million according to their 990.

Consumer Reports accepts no outside fees, advertising, or product samples.

$414 mil at the end of the year.

Did you notice average payroll cost per employee is about $106K?

Technically AARP is non-partisan, however they are most definitely in opposition to the GOP on many issues at the moment, that much is correct.

Does that include the ridiculous salary they pay their CEO, or is it exclusive of executive compensation?

In any event, yes, they clearly can make quite a bit of money, but my point in noting the 2009 beginning of year assets was that they clearly use the money for something, they don't have a long history of just letting assets sit there unused. (except as much as they have to for their pension plan)

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/firms-halting-coverage-as-reform-starts-survey-2011-06-06

That will guarantee the company gets to keep their best and brightest.  Just go somewhere else.  Oh, wait...tough to do when there is no competition left, huh??

I dont choose my job based on benefits. 

Benifits used to be just that, but then everyone in the workforce began to feel entitled to them.  Now they are simply another step closer to enslaving a workforce.  It's sad that today, some people won't leave a low paying job simply because of benefits.  We've arrested the development of many in our workforce by morphing them into dependents rather than professionals, and naturally that appeals to power at all levels.

Now we have a huge portion of our population demanding their chains!

Or . . . you could see them as the only compensation gains that workers have made over the last couple of decades.  Considering that, for all intents and purposes, salaries themselves were flat.

Ahh!  But look at what's happened. . . these "compensation gains" have gotten more and more expensive and companies are now intent on abandoning them.  Unfortunately the people have been conditioned to view themselves as entitled, so they immediately turn to government and demand "compensation gains."

Of course politicians more than happy to provide any service that delivers guaranteed voters.  Such services make it easier for politicians to wield power. 

When you control the health of the people, you don't have as much to fear from the will of the people!

Salaries are not flat for most people.  They are declining in real terms.

Gaspar,
You don't factor in benefits?  Vacation, health insurance, disability, or 401k ??  I find that hard to believe, but if so, the implication is that you are dismissing about 25 to 30% of the pay package.

??

So you'd rather that all employees be compensated solely in cash, then?  At all times?  So things like 401ks, or meal vouchers, or vacation days or . . . anything other than cash dilutes the compensation system?

Yes!  Tis the root of the problem!

If you compensate all workers/employees/executives with cash only, then it becomes their responsibility to shop for healthcare, and shop for retirement plans.

Instead of a handful of monster providers who can dictate price because they low-ball the employers based on volume, you would get hundreds of companies all competing for your health insurance, and your investment portfolio, and your dental, and your vision.

You would get competition that we lack.  This drives prices down and increases efficiency.  People would also have the ability to choose quality over quantity or vise versa.

Man, We vs us, you've just been setting them up for me!  Thanks!

Woo, I practically heard all those eyes rolling.

I thought you didn't pay any attention to my posts.  Please continue. 8)

Economic Crisis Putting More Americans in Peril, Say Nurses

http://www.thewashingtoncurrent.com/2011/06/economic-crisis-putting-more-americans.html

"The nurses are linking enduring economic hardship to broad declines in health and living standards for substantial segments of the U.S. population. Low wages, unemployment, hunger, substandard housing and declining access to education and health are cited by the RNs as the source of serious harm to communities across the nation."

Those mentioned have no time or resources for participating in TNF.... is it any wonder this site only hears from the right(eous)?

BTW, nurses do it until you feel better....

My annual blood work is %50 higher than last year. WOW.

My Mom's supplemental insurance plan premium is up %50.

The Affordable Care Act does not kick in until 2014. But, of course, right wingers never let facts get in the way of their pro-corporate, anti-American, anti-democratic agenda. The private un-socialized system has utterly failed, which flies in the face of right-wing corporatist dogma that the "free market" is perfect and only private industry, not the government, is capable of solving problems. The private insurance industry has had at least since it killed Hillarycare in the 1990s to solve this crisis. Instead, it has gotten much worse, while, of course, their profits have gone through the roof.

They could solve the problem TOMORROW if they wanted to. All they'd after to do is lower premiums so that they were affordable for people who make $24,000 a year. Yes, they'd lose some high end profit -- and their corporate earnings would drop a billion or two -- but they'd have 50 million new customers.  Unfortunately the House, Senate, and White House are full of Republicans, although half of them lie and call themselves Democrats (Borem). Is ObamaCare a Republican plan to steal a trillion dollars from working Americans for the insurance mafia?

Does your Mom buy her supplemental insurance via AARP?  They were a major lobbyist for Obamacare.

I think I get your point, and one would like to think that more people would buy their own insurance voluntarily if the premiums were cheaper.  Problem is, many people earning $24K per year either are quite young and think they are in such great health, insurance is a waste of money, or if they are older, they may have other financial priorities they place ahead of having health insurance.

Not sure where your rant on Republicans is going.  It's the ruling class.  The two party system is nothing but a shell game while each "party" takes turns fleecing the treasury.

Looks like happy hour has arrived early at this thread too.

I feel your pain, Teatown, but there has been very little "free-market" involved in medical insurance in a loooong time.

Your insurer has very little competition to worry about.  He is one of a handful of mammoth companies licensed to operate in this state, and hand picked by your employer for his rates alone.  Sure there are hundreds of insurance providers that would love to compete for your business but that's against federal and state regulations.

The prices you see on your bill are likely 200% inflated.  yYu will probably notice that the insurance company only pays a percentage of the "presented actual cost" because they have negotiated that based on inflated numbers.  Even so, those numbers are a function of losses to be recouped from Medicare and Medicade patients.

A pair of latex gloves at the hospital is going to run you about $5, and an alcohol swab will cost over a buck because your paid visit is a function of all of the unpaid visits by people who have no intension of paying their bills.  

Don't blame free-market forces for regulated and subsidized failure!  

 

Gaspar,
You said it in the second line, then contradicted in the last.

You are close to right - free market forces have failed, due to sellout by Congress step by step, right down the line.
Because there ARE NO free market forces.  There are only the forces of monopolism, price-fixing, and collusion.  Right down the line.
And that means there is NO capitalism left in that market, but not because of government action.  It IS because of government inaction.

Sounds a lot like big oil, huh?

You must understand that regulation IS collusion, just with a government stamp on it.  As an unnatural market force, it causes companies to band together, organize, and unify rather than compete.  Regulation ALLWAYS encourages collusion and "price protections."

You hit the nail on the head, just with the wrong end of the hammer!

In free markets, monopoly is impossible.

Manufacturing and commercial monopolies owe their origin not to a tendency imminent in a capitalist economy but to governmental interventionist policy directed against free trade and laissez faire. – Ludwig Mises

Every coercive monopoly was created by government intervention into the economy: by special privileges, such as franchises or subsidies, which closed the entry of competitors into a given field, by legislative action. – Ayn Rand

The final Obamacare challenge will be decided today in Atlanta (perhaps today).  This will be the case that will end up going to the Supremes.  When that happens, Elena Kagan will recues herself (she was the primary architect for the Obama defense of the act). 

This leaves the court with 8 justices to decide the case and it is expected that they will be split 50/50.  What that means is that the Atlanta decision will stand.

The singular question that is being decided in Atlanta today, and will serve as precedent for millions of other cases in the future is:
Can the Federal Government punish an individual for not engaging in commerce?

If it is found that Government can indeed impose punishment on individuals for not engaging in commerce, this will forever change the relationship between government and the people in the United States.  It sounds simple, but this restriction on government has vast consequences that will forever change the lives of all US Citizens.  This simple change unravels the bonds.

The pressure on these justices must be immense.  Offer them your prayers.

So far, it looks promising for the American People.  In yesterday's testimony:

Judges Dubina and Marcus demanded that the government articulate constitutional limiting principles to the power it asserted. And countless times they pointed out that never in history has Congress tried to compel people to engage in commerce as a means of regulating commerce. Even Judge Hull, reputed to be the most liberal member of the panel, conducted a withering cross-examination to establish that the individual mandate didn’t help that many people get affordable care, that the majority of people currently without coverage would be exempt from the requirement (presumably due to their income level).

Wow!  So close, yet so far away!  In the entire history of the country, the only time a regulation ever was created was IN RESPONSE to an excess of the monopolists!  Usually after the level of pain, suffering, death had reached such egregious proportions that the Congress was virtually forced to act!  (See History 101)

Things/people/companies like Union Pacific, Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Triangle Waist Shirt company, the packing houses in Chicago (time to re-read some Upton Sinclair - The Jungle), 1929 Crash, the dust bowl, and myriad others.  This is what Bush and Company were all about - take us back to an earlier day - say, 1906?

Regulation and protection from force are two different things.  It is governments duty to protect citizens from force.  Your above examples are where government failed to carry out it's basic duty and protect the rights of citizens.

Your above examples deal with safety, not trade/price regulation (apple/orange).

When we are discussing the regulation that is in place for medical insurance companies, we are not discussing laws related to the safety of the citizen.  We are discussing price/trade regulation, and subsidization. This ALWAYS results in coercive monopolies, government advocated trust situations, collusion, "price protection" (price fixing) and depletes competitive forces.

And in the case of Obamacare, it's actually resulted in shrinking the pool of competition. 

GM with the trolley destruction.  Protecting against trade/price problems.  Convictions.

Anti-trust against Microsoft.  Convictions.

Union Pacific was/is against economic activity - and the criminal activities it engendered.
Triangle Waist shirt was another case of economic destruction of the people - right up until they burned a bunch of the workers to death.
Packing houses??  Well, "capitalism" run wild.
As was Ford calling out there goons with machine guns to mow down the workers!

There was no protection of the people by the government until WAY after the fact.  And each of these, as many others, are the direct effect of unregulated capitalistic monopolism.  Much like we have come full circle to in the latest economic meltdown - the deregulation of banking.

How much does it take before reality intrudes??

The penalties were trivial.

Absolutely!  In all those cases!!  Just shows that even if there is some window dressing "penalty", there is still enough money floating to the people making the rules that there is no real penalty.

Wouldn't it be nice if we had something like, oh,...I don't know...maybe a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people..." ??  Rather than of, by and for the corporations??

Us real people don't have the money or the power, though, so it remains an unrealized dream!

Here's a great idea, use the "secret shopper" approach to determine if there are enough doctors out there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/health/policy/27docs.html?_r=1

Kinda thought you would want to know that before you passed Obamacare.

Saw today the 6th Circuit found the mandate constitutional. This is a real mess now.

Yeah,...what a mess!  Several hundred billion in savings over the next few years!  Won't that be a shame?

Love to have your link for that assertion.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/01/battle_over_health_care.html

Here's an interesting article from the first of this year that says the CBO predicts $143billion in deficit reduction at the end of the first decade.  There is still a good deal of uncertainty surrounding the actual number, because prevailing economic conditions and demographic trends will cause it to fluctuate.  But it's almost certain that HCR will be a deficit reducer in some capacity.

Of course there will be fluctuations.  How many CBO scores and projections of measures done from 2000 to 2005 got totally hosed by wars, Katrina, and the eventual near collapse of our financial system and economy?  We tend to think of CBO numbers as being so authoritative, but any number of factors could really skew their best case scenario.

And, of course, the projections are also based on program implementation actually rolling out as it was proposed in the original scoring.  HCR still has a lot of unknowns.  I'm also curious how the waivers are going to affect the costs as companies are carving themselves out of the program which was supposed to spread costs.  Start taking away good risks from the risk pool, and then what?

The waivers as I understand them weren't permanent and were intended to allow certain businesses/orgs/etc a longer period than the standard mandate to make the HCR switchover.   These were groups in areas that might be more sensitive than most to the accounting or cost changes.  But it's moot now, because mandates are off the table. 

I obviously can't tell you the ins and outs of the CBO scoring or their accounting methods, but in all of this they're in the position to be the most authoritative on costs/benefits. 

Interesting piece on the subject:

"No evidence. When legislation creates new kinds of health models, or even expands a local model to a national one, the CBO often has little or no evidence for its projections. With health legislation, as opposed to, say, building new bombers, the CBO must try to determine costs for both the system and how changes would affect human behavior. When Congress proposed a "doughnut hole" in Medicare benefits coverage, something no commercial policy had ever used, the CBO had to guess how the system would react. It overestimated the cost by about 35 percent, according to some estimates. In the current reform debate, there's disagreement between the CBO and the White House's Office of Management and Budget over how many billions can be saved by tweaking Medicare benefits, with the CBO coming in on the low end of the spectrum. Who's right? The safe bet is that no one knows."

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/the-gaggle/2009/10/08/why-the-cbo-s-estimates-shouldn-t-count-for-much.html

That information has been on this site for at least a year.  All over the internet and news - including Fox - for the same time.  Neurons fading??  That's supposed to be my old age problem, not yours.

Each CBO snapshot is a picture at a moment in time.  It changes yearly, monthly, and sometimes weekly.  This one has remained steady and I read something that I may try to go find again that said it was expected to be even bigger savings than originally calculated.

Wouldn't that put a twist in the panties of the RWRE??

I expect the Thunder to win the NBA championship next year, but we won't know for certain until next June, now will we?

You sound like one of the %70 Republicans who can't make their mind up but they sure do not want any of the announced candidates for Prez. Predictions for next June?

Especially if they're still locked out, as they are right now.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-wojnarowski_nba_lockout_players_063011

The CLASS program was just cut out of Obamacare.  Basically everyone agreed it was poo-poo math, and so the administration pulled it out of the bill.

Now half of the accounting gimmicks are gone, and what is left is a disjointed trash heap.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_LONG_TERM_CARE_PROGRAM?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-10-14-15-24-47

So was my original characterization of "pile" very far off the mark?

As my 3yo would say. . .It's a fartcloud!

Obamacare provisions being withdrawn by Obama's administration:


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_LONG_TERM_CARE_PROGRAM?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-10-14-15-24-47

I guess we should have read the bill before passing it.

Never! You have to pass them to find out what's in them!
They are like presents.

I wonder how many millions or billions were wasted before this was trashed?

According to FMC, Aflac has far better products than CLASS.  Lower premium, better benefit, very similar product to what I'm reading CLASS was.  That's not an ad for her FYI, she's not appointed with the duck people ;)

It doesn't matter. Remember, Iraq and Afghanistan cost much much more. There, got the straw man out of the way.

Peanut gallery is strangely silent.  Of course they didn't go single-payer like Nate and Wevus wanted.  That would have been so much better.

Who else believed the government monopolizing the health insurance industry would translates into better results in healthcare? Yeah, I used to believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny too.

I don't think this will be the big election issue that republicans want it to be. I believe the nominee will be Mitt Romney and he can't run against his own idea.

I know the republicans will simplify their message into something that doesn't affect most of us anyway. It will be flag-burning or gay marriage or some other topic to enflame the less educated populace to vote straight ticket GOP.

Spoken like a true Democratic Party worker.  I would expect nothing less.

Voting a straight Democratic ticket is just as stupid (actually more in my opinion) as voting straight Republican.  Both parties have their hot topics to inflame (alternate spelling, I looked it up) their less educated populace.

Do people still actually vote straight ticket? For myself I have never voted a straight ticket in a general election.

Now now.  The only reason I think single payer is the way to go is that it works stupendously (better results, far cheaper costs) in every other first world country, not because I necessarily think the government is a panacea for every problem under the sun.  But this problem?  Definitely.

And you know . . . Iraq and Afghanistan have absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare.  Hence, I didn't feel the need to respond. 

I vote straight ticket (surprise!) but because 1) I tend to agree more with with Democrats than Republicans and use that as a guide if I don't know about a particular race; and 2) looking at the type of people the Republicans are putting up in local, state, and national elections, I know I'll disagree with them on just about everything.  Problem solved! 

Except that Blake Ewing cat.  I hear he's an R and I just might have to pull the lever for him anyway. 

We are not every other country in the world.


Wow! We agree on something.


No surprise


Same reason that I vote Republican if there is not a compelling reason to vote otherwise.


Don't do it.  You will regret it for the rest of your life.  Kind of like when I voted for Turpin.

I have never voted straight ticket.  I have voted individually for every Republican but have never checked the straight ticket box.  It's a matter of principal.

Yep. I have made clear that I am a singe issue voter. It just so happens that one party generally supports my issue. I have voted for the other party when that candidate supports my issue.

You got that right!  We are the ones sliding the most/fastest from where we were.  Unless you think 38th in healthcare in the world is an improvement? 

Third world type levels of infant mortality (one place behind Cuba).  Yeah, that's great.

Highest costs in the world!

Can it possibly get any better??

Well, yes it can.  And it has started.

I can think of a few hundred people that are now firmly against Obamacare.



http://www.freep.com/article/20111111/BUSINESS06/111110345/Stryker-cut-5-workforce?odyssey=mod

Oh give me a break. You really can't see through this lie? Corporation scapegoating government for their need to increase their margins.

The BigPharma extremes that went on unchecked are now under pressure to get their costs under control. They need to quit gigging the sick and using Medicaid/Medicare and Insurance companies as their unlimited suppliers.

Please quit putting your politics in front of the need to corral the ridiculous increases in health care costs born mostly by the disadvantaged.

You asked for it:

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Lj5KP8OgZVk/SCOqfKtAOsI/AAAAAAAACFA/2zl-Lq5PzLE/s400/8557060_f14bd4f251.jpg)

A Socialist wrote the Pledge of Allegiance. Jesus healed the sick and helped the poor, for free.

Actually, I think most of the cost is born by the middle class lucky enough to have health insurance. 

And look what it got him.

Wait until you try and sort through the quagmire of retirement benefits and Medicare parts A & B when some one has hip replacement surgery and two months of rehab, and home rehab and health care for a month. I can tell you I would rather do my 1040 than sort this out.

I don't doubt that at all.

Yes, they do.  It is a symptom of the ignorance and laziness of the voter doing so.  I have never voted straight ticket and probably never will - at least I hope I never degenerate to that low a level of mental performance....but there is a lot of 'early onset Alzheimers' around... (just look around here...LOL!)

The reality of all the other first world countries is just another rallying cry to the NIH crowd (not invented here).  Just because it works well everywhere else means we should NOT do it, most of the time.  Plus, it would be too much like we were doing the right thing for the country and its people - which is directly opposite the plans of 'you-know-who'.  ('you-know-who' is what I use when I don't want to rile Conan up to much by saying RWRE!)

I was just rereading this part of the thread and literally can't figure out why we would be exempt from how single payer works everywhere else.  I'm thinking of Red Arrow's comment, "we aren't every other country in the world." 

And actually he's right, we're not.  Our preferred solution costs us much much more per patient and our outcomes are much worse.  In fact, the way we've decided to do healthcare takes up approximately 1/6th of our entire economy.  What a waste of capital. 

Because it's all about giving to the rich and taking from the poor.

This is just another reason why we are #38 in health care outcomes.

But, you know what?  I bet when guido's kids get out of high school and into that transition time when they used to be ineligible for his health care plan, I bet he keeps them on 'til 26 if he needs to.  Unless he does live by the conviction of his beliefs and cuts them off at 18 (or 21 depending on past plans) and let's them 'sink or swim'.

You know why we are supposedly #38 in outcomes?  Because Americans do not take a proactive approach to their health.  Somehow we've been lulled into believing you can abuse your body daily and there will be a pill or procedure to cure the accumulated damage.  Obesity results in heart disease, diabetes, and many orthopedic maladies.

Don't believe me?  Take a look at obesity charts, mortality tables (i.e. longest surviving), and "outcomes".  Obesity rates are almost an exact inverse with the other metrics.

You mean like when Warren Buffet voluntarily pays more taxes than he is required to pay?

That too!  

We got massive problems - not too much pun intended.  We are in huge part just like the spaceship residents in that movie "Wall-E".

Don't you think it's a little funny that you can get more than one of the top 400 asking to please be taxed more and Congress is too beholden to party politics to actually take them up on the offer?

Have them add a box for additional donations specifically for debt reduction.  Folks like Mr. Buffett can give to his heart's content.  He's also quite capable of paying himself a much larger salary which would be taxed at a much higher rate, yet he declines to do so.

Mitt Romney May Consider Privatizing The Veterans Health Care System

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/11/14/367586/mitt-romney-may-consider-privatizing-the-veterans-health-care-system/

“if other health care providers followed the VA’s lead, it would be a major step toward improving the quality of care across the U.S. health care system.”

I will look up some talking points and get back to you, since you also seem to be content with pithy talking points.

How ‘Obamacare’ Could Lose in the Supreme Court

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/11/14/how-obamacare-could-lose-in-the-supreme-court.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/11/14/how-obamacare-could-lose-in-the-supreme-court.html)

(http://forgifs.com/gallery/d/190610-1/Slowmo_toface.gif)

what

He found the GIF and had the shakes he wanted to use it so bad.

You Teabagger/GOPer's really don't want SCOTUS ruling in your favor, do you?

I mean, it's your only issue 'cept for RomneyCare in the coming year.  :D

I envision a folder on his desktop labelled DILDO GIFS.  Sitting next to a folder labelled DILDO JPGS.  Sitting next to a folder labelled DILDO DOCS, and DILDO PDFS.  

Pithy talking points?  How about how Buffett is incredibly disingenuous when he talks about paying too little in taxes, yet spends millions a year in tax avoidance schemes for himself and all of his varied companies.  What's pithy about adding a box to the 1040 for those who want to add to their tax remittance to help reduce the debt. 

What's the matter Nate?  Make too much sense?

You shake it more than twice dont you.....?

Wrong tree if you're looking for this kind of back and forth.

Giving up so soon...I thought you liked getting the wood laid to you.....

Bad touch bad touch

You think that "people who want to pay for their government should volunteer to pay more while everybody else skates by" makes sense. If you want to reduce the size of government, that's fine, but we can't continue on the path we're on. Tax policy and spending policy should be unrelated. Tax policy is secondary. We should decide what we're going to spend money on, then we raise the money to pay for it, whatever those spending choices may have been. Clearly, there should be discussion about how much we should spend, but raising money to pay for programs we've already enacted should not be controversial.

There may be reasons to temporarily run a deficit, but we should not be in this deficit as far as the eyes can see situation.

Even if we eliminate much of government as Rick Perry would like to do, we still have to pay for what we've already used.

Paying for what we are already doing and have done but not paid for is going to get a lot lower on the income ladder than many would like to admit.

Were we not in the midst of an epically stagnant and broken economy, that wouldn't really present any big problems. As it stands, deficit spending is necessary to get us out of the hole, but going forward we're simply going to have to reduce the size of the deficit unless we'd like a repeat of the 70s. What we need to do now is not what we need to be doing when the economy begins to recover. What we need to be doing when the economy recovers is not what we will need to do for the next bump in the road.

Unlike the Congressional Republicans, I think tax cuts have to be paid for, just like spending increases. I don't think either needs to be paid for now, but they do need to have future offsets tied to some measure of performance. We need stimulus? Ok, borrow for now, but when the economy improves to some defined point, we raise taxes to pay for it. We need a tax cut? Ok, provide offsetting spending cuts or revenue increases elsewhere.

The irony is that reducing the deficit or paying off existing debt right now is counterproductive. We're presently in a very deflationary environment. Deficit spending is offsetting that to some degree. Conversely, were we inhabiting an inflationary environment deficit spending would be counterproductive.

But soooo typical.

Interesting article today in Bloomberg by the CEO of CKE Restaurants:

Our company, CKE Restaurants Inc., employs about 21,000 people (our franchisees employ 49,000 more) in Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s restaurants. For months, we have been working with Mercer Health & Benefits LLC, our health-care consultant, to identify Obamacare’s potential financial impact on CKE. Mercer estimated that when the law is fully implemented our health-care costs will increase about $18 million a year. That would put our total health-care costs at $29.8 million, a 150 percent increase from the roughly $12 million we spent last year.

The money to cover our increased expenses will have to come from somewhere. We are a profitable company and, after paying our obligations, we reinvest our earnings in the business. Reinvesting in the business is how we grow, create jobs and opportunity. This is true for most U.S. businesses.

Cutting Spending
To offset higher health-care expenses, we will have to cut spending on new restaurant construction, one of our largest discretionary spending areas. But building new restaurants is how we create jobs. An $18 million increase in our costs would more than consume the $8.8 million we spent on new restaurant construction last year, leaving nothing for growth. We will also need to reduce our general capital spending, which also creates jobs and allows us to improve our infrastructure and maintain our business. In summary, our ability to create new jobs could vanish.

To reduce the financial impact of Obamacare, many businesses, including ours, will have to consider increasing the number of part-time employees (those who work less than 30 hours a week as defined under the health-care law) and reducing the number of full-time employees. So, some individuals seeking full-time work will need to find two jobs.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-27/job-creation-is-price-for-new-u-s-health-law-commentary-by-andrew-puzder.html

They say they have 3,000+ stores.  And in 1995 they had 3,500 (second link).  So, I'm thinking that maybe the inability to spend $8 million on a very small handful of new stores is not REALLY related that much to any new health care initiatives.  They have struggled for a long, long time - way before this came along.  And as mediocre as they are, I suspect they will continue the struggle.

One thing this does say is that on revenue of $1.59 billion (2007 - before being taken private), they are not serious about anything other than milking that cash cow as hard as possible.  0.55% "new product" investment - in this case restaurants - is a joke.  They are kidding you.


http://investor.ckr.com/investor_faq

http://kelley_keith.tripod.com/mgmnt5313.html

http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/CKE_Restaurants_%28CKR%29

Federal Agency Denies Okla. Request on Premiums

http://www.ktul.com/story/16445691/federal-agency-denies-okla-request-on-premiums?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.ktul.com/story/16445691/federal-agency-denies-okla-request-on-premiums?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)

Ha!

That should sew things up for United and BCBS.

Sure didn't see that coming, did you Gas?

Yep. So much for that ol' competition thing.

The libs are searching for toppings to be happy about on their pile, and small victories over free-market and competition have now become acceptable prom dates.

Guido, are you interested in paying the DOI's copying fees? If so, I'll be happy to pore over the financials of Oklahoma's small insurance carriers and tell you where the money is going. ;)

Let it all out, Gassie. What do free-market and competition have to do with health care?

Sometimes, I think you're just providing oral service for the opposition.  ;D

So you can misinterpret the stats and reach conflated conclusions?  ;D

He might qualify as a Fox News analyst then.  Maybe he should send them his resume.

Leave him alone.  If he thinks that government regulation leads to financial streamlining, then more power to him.

Obamacare has become a pet rabbet, leaving little pellets everywhere.

I must admit, that the bill has done some good by teaching us a valuable lesson.  I doubt we will ever allow congress to pass legislation without thorough analysis.  Hopefully, we will never "pass a bill to see what's in it" again.

You're more than welcome to take your own look. I just don't have the 40 cents a page to have the documents emailed to me. If we weren't so backwards it would all be available online to begin with.

Gaspar, if you think requiring an insurance company spend a certain amount of the premium dollar on actual medical care is intrusive government regulation, having any kind of conversation with you is hopeless. Why do you even bother when you could be reading Atlas Shrugged again? It seems to be your bible.

I don't see where the government can set arbitrary spending percentages without causing harm to companies or causing premiums to rise even higher in order for companies to stay in business.  Mandating a 20% administrative cost and profit cap on health insurers seems like an overly lofty goal.  What happens if the companies don't comply?  Do they go out of business or pay heavy fines which make it even harder to attempt to hit a 20% cap?  Personally I see it as a way to back-door single-payer when the realization hits that insurers won't be able to hit the 80% health care expenditure limit.

Seems almost like telling my boss he needs to spend 50% of his revenues on payroll or 30% on new capital projects every year.

You're seriously arguing that an insurance company can't make it on cost + 20%?

Your boss isn't claiming to sell people a product that will pay for health care expenses and then refusing to use the money paid in for those expenses. Your boss also doesn't make a mint on holding people's money and using it to speculate on securities. Insurance has long been treated as a trust which is subject to strict regulation relative to other businesses.

Without question, there have been and are serious problems in the insurance industry and your characterization isn't far off the mark.  However, I honestly don't see how an insurer can cover overhead, COGS, and make any sort of a profit on 20% of total revenues, unless I'm missing something in the equation.  Do you know of any business which can do that?  I'll be curious to see if there is shrinkage in payrolls throughout the health insurance industry either by cutting heads, or pay rates.

You're missing that COGS in insurance is almost entirely part of the 80%, not the 20% and that they can make extra money using the float. (there are companies with greater than 100% medical loss ratios that still post profits) What I don't know which is actually important for smaller insurers is how reinsurance costs are allocated.

Any idea what they typically are paying brokers for commission?  That's another and very important part of the COGS figure.

I've seen offhand remarks that the total is around a billion a year across all health insurers, but no hard figures.

Edited to add: For comparison purposes, the top 25 health insurers collected $650 billion in premiums in 2009.

FMC has an appointment with BCBS, I'll ask her what the commission structure is on that.  If it's 20 to 25% that's going to make paying 80% of revenues on claims pretty difficult.  Considering that so many companies are shopping new insurance every year to mitigate rising costs, looks like there could be an industry average of 15% or so.

If 25% of our health insurance premiums are going to brokers, I think we've found a large part of the problem.

However, Aetna's Q3 financials state that selling expenses were a hair under 4% of collected premiums for Q3, so I don't think that's actually happening. I can look up others if you like.

UnitedHealth reported 2.6% for Q3, FWIW.

So let's say it's 4% of revenues, that leaves 16% for profit, claims processing (unless that's considered part of the 80%) administrative, taxes, etc.  Still seems like that leaves a very narrow precarious margin for profit and makes skeptics like me think of it as a back door approach to single payer once the private insurers figure out there's no money in healthcare insurance any more.

UnitedHealth didn't publish an MLR, but Aetna claims they were at about 82% last year and about 78% this year. I presume they're using the NAIC-recommended HHS formula. Aetna's after-tax profit margin on operations for Q3 was about 5.8% (I excluded investment income, since it's not really germane). Not a money factory, but not bad, either. And that's with a CEO pay package that's 6.8% of total net income, or about 12% if you exclude investment income from the net income figure.

And TBH, I have no sympathy for the insurance companies on claims processing. They refuse to standardize, so they bring a lot of that expense on themselves (and export a bunch of expense to doctors).

Why do you suppose there's a reluctance to standardize?  It makes good sense to people like you and I.  It not only would be a cost-saving move, it would certainly stanch a lot of the criticisms commonly hurled at health insurers.

It's probably the usual BS that has (almost) always prevailed in the absence of governments requiring it. Nobody wants to buy into somebody else's standard. Sometimes they think theirs is better. Sometimes they just don't want to give a competitor that sort of perceived control. In IT, we call it "not invented here" syndrome.

Beyond that, I'm sure there would be significant expense involved in reprogramming systems to deal with the new input formats. Given the present business situation where the top brass is always focused on next quarter's results, nobody is interested in making an investment that won't bear fruit for several years.

Think about how many other things have standardized without government intervention, VHS, compact DVD's, MP3, etc. ad nauseum.

I guess I don't know enough about medical coding and billing and probably think it should be over-simplified, but seems like there should be one coding standard nomenclature for procedures and diagnoses and really only one format needed for the patient info.  Seems like it would be easy enough to simply adopt Medicare or Medicaid coding and forms.  If it meant a better bottom line for carriers, you'd think they would jump all over it.

In all of those cases, standardization was slow in coming. When it's not a consumer product, the split market can last a lot longer; sometimes even indefinitely. There are still people other than railroads using 25Hz AC power. You and I can't pass on the extra cost of having both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray to someone else.

It's worst when there's no clear advantage to one "standard" or another. The advantage comes with everybody just picking one and moving on, and nobody is willing to be the one to spend the money to change their systems, policies, and procedures to move to somebody else's. It doesn't help that the overall cost isn't even entirely clear, even as the benefits to society as a whole are obvious.

This is why Congress was empowered to set standards of weight and measure by the Constitution. My pound might be different than your pound and there's not really any advantage to either of us individually to change. Thus, society suffers under the increased expense of dealing with two or more disparate systems until Congress steps in and defines the system of weights.

That's where it starts to get ridiculous, the government has an existing standard for the health care they pay for.  Unless the Medicare system is incredibly arcane, I'd think the government would even be willing to help subsidize any change to a common format based on that, as that is one common issue cited for higher health care costs.  You'd think that would be a great common ground with private insurers and the government.  Again, it's an area I have virtually no personal knowledge of, I'm just relying on common sense, something government nor big business seems to have much use for.

You really like to fool yourself. Single payer is the only answer. You're getting there....

I see where you're coming from, but at the same time I wonder why it is we should give private insurance companies even more public funds to do something that they should have done a decade or more ago. It seems that route will just perpetuate the government dependence you rail against in other threads. I don't mind government money going to a good cause, but I don't really want it used to perpetuate an obviously broken system and I'm quite against it being used to reward corporate stupidity writ large.

Yes, this is somewhat inconsistent with my view on the bank bailouts, but those were loans to illiquid but solvent institutions. The insurance companies are neither illiquid nor insolvent. They're also not integral to the provision of health care services.

Well this is terrific news:


http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/05/smallbusiness/doctors_broke/index.htm?hpt=hp_t3&hpt=hp_c1

Not the one next door who just bought two new expensive cars. Perhaps his large living hasn't caught up to his family yet or maybe he just has done well with his other investments.

When I was growing up, the doctors around town did not make money off their practice like the docs do today....

@ssclowns doctor in his day:

(http://cabinetcardgallery.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/housecall.jpg?w=470)

I wonder how many malpractice lawsuits this guy had against him which forced him to practice defensive medicine and pay expensive med mal coverage?

They also weren't being squeezed from all sides with ridiculously high student loan balances, ridiculously high insurance costs, ridiculously high costs in accepting insurance, ridiculously high costs for medical equipment, and ridiculously low payments from insurance companies.

The way I see it, doctors both make too much and too little. They, in aggregate, make more than is sustainable for our society, yet they often make less than they need.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=61&articleid=20120106_61_A16_Frsael421567 (http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=61&articleid=20120106_61_A16_Frsael421567)

Babies excluded from new insurance program

Alot of the blame is on the insurance companies.  I am a huge advocate of standardizing forms, but the insurance companies won't do it, for whatever reasons.  The costs then either get shuffled to the doctor, or the doctor has to drop which insurance he accepts.  Either way, the doctor loses money.

No. Not the private hospital docs....and those 5013c units hide their share in the medicare reimbursement/write off column.

Single payer may take a while but it's coming....SOCIALIST MEDICINE IS THE ONLY SOLUTION!

Nice to see Tulsa World get it right....

I'm sure that will work.  All we have to do is combine the efficiency of the Postal Service with the compassion of the I.R.S., and the cost accounting of the Pentagon.

. . .Wait?

I note you left out Medicare. Good call, actually, since their MLR is far beyond what most of the private insurers can do. Also, I dare say any organization that can move as much crap as the Postal Service as fast as they do and with as little getting lost as does is pretty efficient. It's OK, though. I know every time you attempt to internalize the fact they make an operating profit (pension prepayments are painful, though!) every year you wake up in the woods naked having cold sweats. We all have our weaknesses.

(http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/384968_360027504010899_100000109579112_1647995_1481862916_n.jpg)

Careful!  Reality isn't popular around here....

Anyone got a kid 19 to 26 years old who is still on their insurance?

U.S. to Force Drug Firms to Report Money Paid to Doctors

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/health/policy/us-to-tell-drug-makers-to-disclose-payments-to-doctors.html?_r=1&nl=afternoonupdate&emc=aua2

Kudos to the Obama Administration.  Now whether or not that reporting will have a meaningful impact remains to be seen.

Good job!

The talking points will arrive soon. I believe one has to do with the heavy burden of paperwork and red tape like this driving up the cost of health care.

Per the Tulsa World FB

“This state Senate will stop at nothing to stop Obamacare from coming the state of Oklahoma,” said Sen. Dan Newberry, R-Tulsa.

So, these "patriots" will set up a State health care exchange but without a mandate? They plan to fight the Federal guidelines? Who is this Newdingleberry? I bet the private hospitals, their doctors, and big pharma make his pay.

What will happen next?

This is just going to bring us Single Payer sooner....

Go righties!

Not that it's important, but the CBO has just doubled the cost of Obamacare.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/cbo-obamacare-cost-176-trillion-over-10-yrs/425831

I told you that you can take any CBO estimate and simply double it to get a more realistic figure.

The report also shows that 4 million fewer people will be covered under employee insurance plans as a result of companies eliminating health insurance as part of the standard employee package.
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf