The American people are turning on socialized healthcare. Indeed, the push to socialize healthcare and use it as a vehicle to put the American people in eternal debt has done the impossible – brought the conservative movement from near-death back to national political viability and power, inside of a year.
Healthcare may or may not turn out to be the epic miscalculation that it was for Bill Clinton, when it sparked the conservative onslaught in 1994. I’m gonna hold out for “may”, of course, and do my best to make it a “will”.
And we had a good sign in that direction yesterday; the Dems are P trying to snooker the American people (emphasis added by me):
In an appearance at a Florida senior center, the Democratic leader referred to the so-called public option as “the consumer option.” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., appeared by Pelosi’s side and used the term “competitive option.”
Both suggested new terminology might get them past any lingering doubts among the public—or consumers or competitors.
“You’ll hear everyone say, ‘There’s got to be a better name for this,'” Pelosi said. “When people think of the public option, public is being misrepresented, that this is being paid for with their public dollars.”
Ah.
So our tax dollars – notwithstanding the longtime Democrat meme that everything we earn belongs to the government before it belongs to us – are not public, now?
Wow. Maybe those “the income tax is unconstitutional” people have a point!
And since it’s my money, then Nan Pelosi and her hamsters in Washington should have no control over how I spend it, right?
So our tax dollars […] are not public, now?
They’re using the Bill Clinton defense: it depends on what the meaning of “tax” is.
The plan they’re promoting (at this instant in time) only forces you to pay on your “tax form” if you don’t buy insurance. They’re mandating that you buy insurance and only assessing you a “penalty” if you don’t.
“So our tax dollars – notwithstanding the longtime Democrat meme that everything we earn belongs to the government before it belongs to us – are not public, now?”
I think you’re missing the point. She is saying that the health care bill will be self-sustaining. So your tax dollars will not be spent on the health care bill, therefor it shouldn’t be called the public option. [I am not claiming she is correct, I’m just saying that this is what she’s saying. I am NOT defending Pelosi past this point.]
“brought the conservative movement from near-death back to national political viability and power”
The conservative movement is not politically viable and will not be so until they find a political party.
You are engaing in fantasy. A majority of Americans identify as conservative. A smaller number claim to be independent, and a tiny minority identify as liberal. The conservative movement is not only viable, the Marxists in Washington are guaranteeing it’s succession.
The conservative movement is not politically viable and will not be so until they find a political party.
As a conservative Republican, I don’t disagree. The GOP is making baby steps in the right direction. We need Shaquille O’Neil-sized steps.
“You are engaing in fantasy. A majority of Americans identify as conservative.” It’s not a fantasy and I’m sure you’re right about more people identifying themselves as conservatives. But as long as they’re splitting their votes between RINOs and psychos they are not politically viable.
I may be a liberal (sorry K-Rod, I’ve turned back to the dark side. but as a liberal I could change my mind at any moment so don’t lose hope) but I am not happy with the lack of leadership the GOP is facing right now. The DNC has always been weak. They aren’t any stronger than they have been, they just look stronger by comparison. A stronger GOP and a stronger DNC are both good for this country.
“We need Shaquille O’Neil-sized steps.”
You need to go to Cleveland?!?
Well as the Congressional race in New York is showing, conservatives (and the sane) are not going to vote for a liberal with an “R” after their name. This is why Al Franken is a fraudulently elected Senator today.
Look, I’m no expert on politics :).
I assume the reason that this ‘penalty’ takes the form of a tax collected by the IRS is because congress has no power to collect this money other than as a tax. Why isn’t that a big deal? Next year will congress charge me a special tax for buying a car from Toyota or Ford rather than GM or Chrysler? When did we stop being a republic and become instead a people ruled by a minority of social progressives?
Massachusetts has a public health care system much like the one that is being proposed by Pelosi et al. Public option, fines for not buying a plan, free health plans for the poor and subsidized insurance for those in the middle class. Their system is bleeding money, in part because citizens are making the entirely rational decision to pay the fine until they need care, and when they are healthy again, they leave the system until they need care again.
Patheticboy, there is nothing wrong with being a Classical Liberal. 8)
Most liberals today are actually Liberal Fascists.
I’m a mixture of Classical Liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism.
I want to vote for the Republicans but they aren’t much better than the Democrats.
Sometimes it is darkest just before the dawn. The problem is that history tends to repeat, just as we are now seeing with the Obama Depression.
Mitch wrote:
“So our tax dollars . . .are not public, now?”
The public option does not involve the expediture of additional tax dollars (aside from the minor cost of setting it up). All plans offered through the insurance exchange will paid for with a mixture of private payments and tax subsidies. If there is no public option in the exchange, those private payments and tax dollars will simply be paid to a private insurance company.
Simply put, what makes the public option ‘public’ is not its financing (which is the same as the private plans), but it’s governance and mission. Pelosi is simply pointing out that the public option receives no addtional tax payments.
Terry wrote:
“Next year will congress charge me a special tax for buying a car from Toyota or Ford rather than GM or Chrysler?”
It is called an Import Duty and we have been charging them on various items for as long as we have been a republic.
The public option does not involve the expediture of additional tax dollars (aside from the minor cost of setting it up). All plans offered through the insurance exchange will paid for with a mixture of private payments and tax subsidies.
If you ever needed proof that Rick is deranged read that statement again.
The public option does not involve the expediture of additional tax dollars…
Ok, no additional tax dollars will be spent. That’s nice. The deficit is Obama’s at this point.
All plans offered through the insurance exchange will paid for with a mixture of private payments and tax subsidies.
Oh, I see, private payments. Hey, wait a minute! Tax subsidies?! I thought no additional tax dollars would be spent! Where did those subsidies come from? The tax tree in the corner?!
And I’m giving Rick the benefit of the doubt and allowing him to be Clintonian in saying that mandating payments with the threat of jail and collected by the IRS aren’t taxes. I’m not sure how this arrangement differs from having the government collect the taxes and then pay straight into the pool is practically different, but I do have to give points for style in trying to hide the effects.
A liberal knows the difference between a subsidy and a tax. No one else does.
Nerdbert:
“If you ever needed proof that Rick is deranged read that statement again.” Care to point out anything inaccurate in it.
“I thought no additional tax dollars would be spent!” No additional tax dollars would be spent by including a public option. Without a public option you still have to pay the same subsidies.
“saying that mandating payments with the threat of jail and collected by the IRS aren’t taxes” Whether you want to call them ‘taxes’ is your business. But they don’t have anything to do with the public option. Your objecting to the individual mandate, not the public option.
It wasn’t that long ago that RickDFL was claiming that socialized medicine would enrich every American (or me, anyhow) by $3500/year.
He doesn’t mention that the ‘public option’ — or whatever Pelosi is calling it this week in attempt to hide its true nature — will be payed for by cuts in medicare. Whether this is a good or bad thing is immaterial, because it will not happen.
If there is a ‘public option’, insurance companies will dump their bad risks into it.
Obviously health care needs to be reformed. The idea that the best reform, or even reform that is an improvement on the current system, can be implemented by the fools in the US Congress and their buddies who run the bureaus is laughable.
Without a public option you still have to pay the same subsidies.
Aside from the minor cost of setting it up? Let me see what’s the budget of the SSA? $11.6 billion. With Obama running trillion dollar deficits forever, yeah, I guess you can call that minor. Of course, if you ever want to put that minor amount in my bank account I won’t complain.
If you look at how things are structured the public option makes it more profitable for companies to drop coverage and force their employees into the public option. That costs more money no matter where it comes from since CBO estimates the cost of coverage to be much more than the penalty for not paying, meaning those public pools will need refilling from the taxpayer hose.
Then there’s the issue of the “public option” using Medicare’s cost structure as at least one of those lead balloons the Dems tried to float suggested. Since the states have to contribute to that, then, boom, we get more taxes since the states can’t go printing money.
Your objecting to the individual mandate, not the public option.
We could go on about that, too. Like where the Federal government derives that power. In fact, I bet we do if this gets passed.
But not calling it a tax when it clearly involves a transfer of money to the government is splitting hairs, which is why I invoked the famous hair splitter in chief. You can opt out of car insurance by not owning a car, from income tax by not having an income, but there’s no way to opt out of the health care tax.
Terry:
“It wasn’t that long ago that RickDFL was claiming that socialized medicine would enrich every American (or me, anyhow) by $3500/year”
Sadly Obama is not going to pass socialized medicine so will will not see immediate savings on this scale. Savings will be modest at first, but certainly preferable to continuing with the current skyrocketing costs.
” the ‘public option’. . .will be payed for by cuts in medicare” OK tired of beating a dead horse, but the health care reform with public option does not cost anything more than HCR without the public option. Subsidies paid through the exchange will, at worst, be exactly the same with or without a public option.
“insurance companies will dump their bad risks into it”. If they do (despite new laws to prevent that), then the public option will go out of business. The public option will not be allowed to pass those costs on to taxpayers.
Terry wrote:
“Next year will congress charge me a special tax for buying a car from Toyota or Ford rather than GM or Chrysler?”
It is called an Import Duty and we have been charging them on various items for as long as we have been a republic.
Since we’re at it Rick, reread that. When was the last time you had an Import Duty on your Taurus (made in Chicago)?
Import Duty. A nice idea. It used to be how the government was funded. Now if we tried that we’d have to tax every import we have at 150%, assuming that taxes that high wouldn’t reduce consumption of imports (Hey, I can play Democrat budget analyst, too!).
The public option will not be allowed to pass those costs on to taxpayers.
The ‘public option’ is not a person, RickDFL. You are talking about congress, and congress will do whatever it wants to do, restrained only by the courts, the constitution, and the threat of armed rebellion.
If they do (despite new laws to prevent that), then the public option will go out of business.
You are familiar, of course, with the Lewin Group study that estimated that approximately 103 million people would be transferred into the “public option” by economic forces alone? That’s roughly half the private insurance pool.
And Medicare reimbursement rates save very little as compared to private insurance. The Medicare cost is rising at 9.4% as compared to 10.2% for private plans and much of that difference is cost shifting from Medicare patients to private patients. Without that cost shifting there would have been even more of a rise in Medicare costs.
And without legislative mandates on acceptance of “public option” patients there will be NO cost savings, since even backers of the “option” admit that they don’t think the “option” can do better than private companies’ negotiations.
Nerdbert:
“Let me see what’s the budget of the SSA? $11.6 billion.”
But unlike the SSA, the public option will not be able to rely on the Federal government to pay for its administrative expenses. It will be required to pay those out of it’s own premiums, just like a private plan.
“If you look at how things are structured the public option makes it more profitable for companies to drop coverage and force their employees into the public option.” If employers drop their coverage, they will be required to allow employees to purchase insurance through the new health insurance exchange. If they drop coverage, they will be assessed a fee sufficient to cover the cost of covering their employees through the exchange. Employees will be allowed to pick from a variety of private plans and the public option. No one can be forced onto the public option.
“You can opt out of car insurance by not owning a car, from income tax by not having an income, but there’s no way to opt out of the health care tax.” Again, this is an objection to the indivudual mandate, not the public option.
Frankly, I wish you luck with your fight against the indivvidual mandate. The individual mandate is the only way to save the private insurance market. Without it, there is no alternative to some sort of universal entitlement to some level of health care.
Nerdbert:
“the Lewin Group study” addressed the issue of how many people would be on the public option, not whether they would be sicker than those on private options. The latter was the issue Terry raised.
As for the rest, perhaps the public option won’t do any better, but then we will be no worse off. Frankly, I think you are just afraid of the competition.
As for this: “When was the last time you had an Import Duty on your Taurus (made in Chicago)?” Dumbass, off couse you don’t pay an import duty on something not imported. I am simply pointing out that there is nothing unconstitutional about taxing an imported good while not taxing the domestic version of the same good.
Terry:
“congress will do whatever it wants to do”
And what it wants to do is create a self-sustaining public option.
“the threat of armed rebellion”. Hot air never restrained nothing.
RickDFL, first you say that the ‘public option’ will pay for itself with no tax increases. Then, when Nerdbert raises the legitimate point that it will only pay for itself because of the individual mandate, you say that he’s not against the public option, he’s against the individual mandate.
But unlike the SSA, the public option will not be able to rely on the Federal government to pay for its administrative expenses. It will be required to pay those out of it’s own premiums, just like a private plan.
Now that is some funny shit right there. CBO estimates put the cost at $1 trillion. Private insurance companies make around 2% profit. Government makes 0% profit.
It is fools like Rick that are destroying this country.
Frankly, I wish you luck with your fight against the indivvidual mandate.
That would be the unconstitutional government mandate, you collectivist creep.
Terry:
You are confusing an individual mandate to have insurance with a legislative mandate that a healthcare provider accept the public option and whatever rates is pays.
I did not respond because I am pretty sure there is no such provision in any health care plan. In fact, I think doctors are free to refuse Medicare patients if they want.
I am simply pointing out that there is no credible claim that hcr including an individual mandate is more expensive with a public option (in fact is saves money, but that is another argument).
I think it is funny that you have no idea what any of this legislation does.
Kermit:
“CBO estimates put the cost at $1 trillion”.
Sorry Charlie, you are refering to some version of the CBO cost of the entire bill, not the administrative cost a public option. The ‘cost’ of the whole bill comes mostly from tax subsides to employers and individuals who buy insurance (from private companies or the public option). Remove the public option and you still have to pay an equal amount of subsidies for those people to buy private insurance.
Of course the CBO says a public option would actually cost less in subsidies, but I have not been relying on that.
I think it is funny that you have no idea what any of this legislation does.
I think it’s funny that you cling to a naive presumption that government can do anything for less cost than the private sector. It shows that childish quality all Marxists harbor.
Where do the “tax subsidies” come from? In case you haven’t noticed, Obama and his crowd have quadrupled the national debt. In less than a year. There is no money to “subsidize” with.
You suffer from magical thinking, Rick. And as I said before, you are a fool.
Kermit:
“naive presumption that government can do anything for less cost than the private sector.” Then what are you afaid of. If the public option can not compete more effectively than private insurers it will go out of business.
“Where do the “tax subsidies” come from?” Cost savings from slower growth in the cost of health care and new taxes, either on high-income earners (House) or capping the deduction of expensive health insurance plans.
“There is no money to “subsidize” with.” That is why the President has insisted that HCR be deficit neutral. In fact, some versions reduce the deficit.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/07/baucus-bill-healthcare-reform.
Sure Rick. I have a slightly used unicorn you might be interested in.
Kermit:
Then it should not be that hard to come up with evidence that I have made some false claim. For example, some economic projection that the House or Senate bills will add to the deficit.
Oh, I don’t know Rick. How about the evidence of 50+ years of history? Your naivte is not charming. It’s sad.
Kermit:
‘Naivete’ is usually reserved for the party that can not produce any evidence. In this case that would be you. The CBO says the healthcare bills do not add to the deficit. Feel free to come up with some people who say they will.
“How about the evidence of 50+ years of history?” You mean the 50+ years the U.S. has paid more than anyone else in the world for health care.
For the record, RickDFL, I think that it is hilarious that you think Missouri was confederate state and that you don’t know what anecdotal evidence is.
It’s typical of your debating style to misconstrue what is being said by your opponent and then using then attempting to refute that misunderstood point. It won’t work, RickDFL, in the short term or the long term. People can tell shit from shinola, which is why the RickDFL endorsed health plan gets less support as time passes.
Viz:
You are confusing an individual mandate to have insurance with a legislative mandate that a healthcare provider accept the public option and whatever rates is pays.
No I am not. If this discussion goes the way it usually does with you, you will find yourself backed into a corner and making some bizarre claim — like Lincoln was a Southern democrat because he was born in a border state and everyone knows those border states were democrat strongholds — and then accuse me of treason.
For example, some economic projection that the House or Senate bills will add to the deficit.
Like, even Democrats noting that the House plan, even in its idealized form, requires constant economic growth, with no downturns, to even think about claiming that there’ll be no adding to the deficit?
Exactly. When Great Leader Obama promises he will not sign a bill the “adds one dime” anyone with an ounce of brains knows he is lying. Just like he has lied about everything else.
The end game is single-payer health care, and fools like Rick can pretend all they want. People with brains are not fooled.
“adds one dime”
Techinically thats true, he’ tripling the national debt over the period of a decade so its more like 75-100 trillion dimes, ;). Also why are my comments being moderated? Just wonderin…
Wannabe commissar RickDFL knows very well that this plan will cost the taxpayers money. Notice he hasn’t brought up the Mass. plan? Or any other countries plan? They _all_ cost more money than their architect’s dreamed.
Anything this congress says or writes into law can be changed by the next congress. That’s life in a democracy.
“the Lewin Group study” addressed the issue of how many people would be on the public option, not whether they would be sicker than those on private options.
And you don’t think that the sicker folks would be pushed to the public option? You don’t understand capitalism or logic, that’s pretty clear.
As for the rest, perhaps the public option won’t do any better, but then we will be no worse off. Frankly, I think you are just afraid of the competition.
I’ve seen the Feds up close. There’s no fear about them being able to compete on equal footing. It’s on unequal footing that they will win, such as being able to mandate through legislation that doctors must accept Medicare rates rather than negotiating competitively.
For some reason you don’t believe that politics will come in to manipulate the public option. Your version of reality is pretty challenged. We’ve seen what Fannie and Freddie did to the market for houses and what the wonderful world of student loans is going through. What the government and politics will do to health care will be tragic.
As for this: “When was the last time you had an Import Duty on your Taurus (made in Chicago)?” Dumbass, off couse you don’t pay an import duty on something not imported. I am simply pointing out that there is nothing unconstitutional about taxing an imported good while not taxing the domestic version of the same good.
Jackass, you might note that Terry was talking about Fords and Toyotas as specially taxed as compared to the government owned GM and Chrysler products. Last I checked Fords were pretty much domestic and not imported, so your point is pretty damn dumb, as usual.
Oh, you want another example of how well the government runs things? They’re already talking Bailout II for GM and Chrysler since it’s pretty certain they’re swirling down the drain. There’s little chance either will survive and the betting is that Obama is just trying to delay the collapse until after the economy recovers slightly.
You also might note that the Constitution explicitly gives the government the power to levy import duties. I don’t see a provision in there to provide health care/insurance, nor to mandate it.
Cost savings from slower growth in the cost of health care and new taxes, either on high-income earners (House) or capping the deduction of expensive health insurance plans.
And yet all of those public plans rely on growth far beyond normal to be “cost neutral” while ignoring any effects the $1 trillion they’ll take out of the economy. You really believe that pulling $1 trillion out of the hands of business and workers won’t have an effect on economic growth?
When has the Congress ever restrained Medicare? In case you haven’t noticed Obama tried to bribe the AMA by pushing through yet another suspension of the cuts in payments. That failed, but it will still pass later like it always does simply because seniors would complain loudly that they couldn’t get doctors to serve them (it’s hard enough now) and between the seniors and doctors Congressmen know they’d be toast if they didn’t raise reimbursement.
The problem with socialists is that they aren’t able to understand that there are limits on what government can achieve, given the crooked timber of mankind. They love the potential of the state so much that eventually they come to blame, not the human institution of government for its failings, but the people. Democracy. Then we have the tired old repeat of government by the few to achieve the goals of the few. The absolute antithesis of what America was supposed to mean.
Look at who has a seat a seat at the table where they are negotiating this shibai. The government is there. The insurance companies are there. The pharm companies are there. The doctors are there.
The only people missing are the people who need health care and will be required to pay for it.
Just in time to stomp all over RatioRinkyDink’s incoherent ramblings:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703567204574499034177212064.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
But don’t expect RatioRinkyDink to comprehend.
DickyDFL gets taken to task, repeatedly, once again.
Terry:
“It’s typical of your debating style to misconstrue ” if I misconstrue what people write here, it is because so many of you have a problem with English. For example, when you said Nerbbert argued the public option “will only pay for itself because of the individual mandate”, what did you mean? How does requiring every person to have insurance help the public option pay for itself?
Mitch:
“‘requires constant economic growth” Since every CBO score makes estimates of future economic growth, I don’t understand your objection. Is this a special objection to the CBO’s health care score or just a general objection to all CBO scores?
Kermit:
“People with brains are not fooled” People with brains produce evidence. You don’t.
Ben: “he’ tripling the national debt over the period of a decade so” Source please. But no matter what the deficiti, passing a health care plan that reduces the deficit is critical.
Terry: “Notice he hasn’t brought up the Mass. plan? Or any other countries plan? They _all_ cost more money than their architect’s dreamed.”
I don’t know where you get your data on Mass. but as far as I can tell, costs have been about what was expected.
“The monthly cost per member in the subsidized insurance program is $352.43, which is about what was budgeted and considerably less than the median cost of employer-sponsored coverage in the state.” Enrollment was higher than expected, but that is not an bad problem.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/26/2757
As for other countries, first your statement in nonsensical. I don’t think anyone who created the British or Candadian health systems had any idea what costs would be 50 years latter. Second, the one thing you can say about costs in other countries is that they are all at least half of the U.S. and are generally rising slower.
Nerdbert:
“You don’t understand capitalism or logic” Maybe, but you have not explained how private insurers will push sicker patients onto the public option. Of course they would want to, but why would a public option be any more willing to allow this than another private insurer?
“such as being able to mandate through legislation that doctors must accept Medicare rates rather than negotiating competitively.” But no doctor is required to accpep Meidicare nor would they be required to accpet the public option.
“you don’t believe that politics will come in to manipulate the public option.” Be specific.
“what the wonderful world of student loans is going through” Actually that is a paradigm case of governement doing a job more efficiently than the private sector. When the Federal student loan program was privitized it added costs with no improvement in service.
“Terry was talking about Fords and Toyotas as specially taxed as compared to the government owned GM and Chrysler products.” Ah I see. That makes more sense. He should be clear.
“You really believe that pulling $1 trillion out of the hands of business and workers won’t have an effect on economic growth? ” Actually the tax increase is only about $300 Billion over 10 years and the CBO does not think that will have a major impact on GDP projections, which makes sense given the size of the economy.
Terry:
“they aren’t able to understand that there are limits on what government can achieve” Nobody is talking about a utopian fantasy. Every other real country manages to deliver health care of equal or better quality at half the cost. You are the one who refuses to accept the empirical evidence that there are limits on what a private market can achieve.
JPA:
Gee a big insurance company says legislation that reduces their profits is a bad idea. Color me impressed. I would try to rebut the study, but niether Well Pointe nor the WSJ saw fit to publish the study. All I can say if it is anyuthing like the AHIP study, bring it on. Thay bogus POS was criticial to getting the public option this far.
DickyDFL, stop digging.
The innovation tax would cripple the medical device industry. A big OUCH for MN businesses.
K-Rod:
“The innovation tax would cripple the medical device industry. A big OUCH for MN businesses.”
Maybe, Maybe not, but that does not have much to do with the public option or the need for healthcare reform.
Now this is some of the funniest shit I’ve ever seen RickDFL say:
Then what are you afaid of. If the public option can not compete more effectively than private insurers it will go out of business.
GO OUT OF BUSINESS!! Just like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, USPS, Amtrak, VA. They’re all losing money hand over fist. You be sure to let me know when they “go out of business”, mmmkay?
RickDFL is affecting the rotation of the earth with his frenzied spinning. Leap year will fall on February 34th, 2012.
You don’t understand capitalism or logic, that’s pretty clear.
Frankly, I think he perfectly understands capitalism. He also despises it because it allows other people who are more capable than him to achieve more than him. He prefers an equal distribution of misery and poverty than the opportunity to achieve as much as you are willing to work for. He is using the typical leftist tactics of lying, deception, misdirection, and distraction. Saul Alinsky would shed a tear of joy if he could see his prodigy in action.