universal healthcare

[Jim]

Hi Occhi my old friend :wub:

WHAT A CROCK OF $HIT [ALL of it...you're j/k right ?]

<strike>Best</strike> Regards,
a Moron...aka...>Jim

Edit: correct you'r to you're...only a spelling error or am I a moron ?

Dear morons:

This (morons) means eppie, and maybe a few others.
The House passed a spending bill, one among others, but not a commensurate revenue generating bill that pays for it. What matters is scope and scale here.
THis is sorta like GW Bush and his majority funding a war on a credit card: unfunded mandate, to be paid for by some nebulous future revenue.

*Sorry, I am not impressed with this change and hope, version 2.0. On top of the largess of Bush's not paying for that war, but deferring that payment to a future revenue stream, we have now added something else, a certain special something that becomes an entitlement, also unfunded in the out years.

Jester, that last sentence I ask you to pay particular attention to, as you proclaim to be a student of economics.
What Freakin' Free Lunch are these people counting on?
My grandkids are broke, and not even born yet. Thanks, W and O, ya both deserve my contempt and spittle. Be in the same room as I, and you'll both get it, in the flesh.
Baby Boomer presidents: zero for three. Do NOT vote for a Baby Boom president EVER again. Ever.
"Talking 'bout My Generation," aka the generation of abysmal failures in the White House.
And as for brains, F*** me, Gerald Ford looks like Einstein compared to Clinton, Bush II, and Obama.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

King Jim,

I was wondering why you are so enthusiastic about this plan which diverts 500 billion in medicare spending into a new entitlement for non-seniors?

I am not seeing anything appealing in the changes that Obamacare will bring for seniors. The only benefit I see is the closing of the donut hole slowly by 2020 (if it survives that long).

But, on the down side for seniors;

• 11 million seniors who use Medicare Advantage will pay $200 billion collectively to keep their current benefits. (source)<>
  
• Anyone with adjusted incomes over $85,000 will pay more (including seniors)(source)<>
  
• Rationing care (source)<>
  
• 20% cut in Medicare payments to doctors resulting in less Dr. choices for seniors (source)<>
  
• Huger deficits for our children and grand children (source) <>
  
• Losing employer offered retiree drugs and health care (source)<>
  
• Destruction of private insurance as we know it driving almost everyone to state based exchanges(source)<>
  
• Most likely a bunch of other negatives due to the ripples of unintended consequences.(source)<>
  [st]

[kandrathe]

Most people with a good income just find having 6 cars more important than a good health care system for people that are less lucky.

First, you can only drive one car at a time. Second, what does this have to do with the price of horse feed? Third, would you supply your source?

[Jester]

Conservative pundits are conservative.

Remind me why I should believe the Wall Street Journal opinion page on their say-so?

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

But, on the down side for seniors; . . .

This is exactly the type of self centered appeal that is causing so much of the grief in this country. As soon as the advantage to one group is set above the good of all, divisiveness begins. Citizenship becomes an expression of greed.

I, for one, still believe in the greater good and that (sometimes) it is worth some sacrifice to achieve it. But that might just be residual Catholic <strike>brainwashing</strike> upbringing talking.

--Pete

[Roland]

Well, I linked to an article giving the results of polling. It looks like, as of Sept. 2009, that it still commanded a large majority of support - 59% support, 28% oppose. If that were an election, it'd be a landslide. Support has been eroding, but it certainly hasn't shifted to net negative, or even 50-50.
Unlike the weather, people don't randomly talk about how nice their health care is. You hear the problems much louder than the benefits, and everyone likes to kvetch. Which is not to say that, simply because it is still popular, Massachusetts health care is a great way to go. I don't think we know enough to really judge yet, but I certainly hope the Federal version deals with some of the problems you've outlined.

As I said, it sure ain't the bill I would have passed, if the US Senate gave a hoot what I think.

-Jester

All very true points. I don't care much for polls, but I do have to give merit to the numbers (to a certain extent). However, my experiences have been more from those on the actual care provider's side, being that at my place of business we service more than a few doctors. I haven't heard too many complaints from people who actually have MassHealth, to be sure. I have, however, heard about its problems from those who have to deal more directly with it than the consumers. I've also seen first-hand some of the ripples it is causing, but I can't lay blame on the actual health care so much as the short-sighted people who enacted it.

At any rate, I'm truly not well-versed enough on the subject to comment further than I have at present, but I appreciate the dialogue all the same. It will be interesting to see what unfolds, both locally and nationally.

[DeeBye]

Hi,
This is exactly the type of self centered appeal that is causing so much of the grief in this country. As soon as the advantage to one group is set above the good of all, divisiveness begins. Citizenship becomes an expression of greed.

I, for one, still believe in the greater good and that (sometimes) it is worth some sacrifice to achieve it. But that might just be residual Catholic <strike>brainwashing</strike> upbringing talking.

--Pete

The "greater good" stuff sounds like RED COMMIE TALK!

I am against basic health care for everyone. I am also against widespread literacy and clean drinking water.

[kandrathe]

This is exactly the type of self centered appeal that is causing so much of the grief in this country. As soon as the advantage to one group is set above the good of all, divisiveness begins. Citizenship becomes an expression of greed.

And... You don't think our current batch of politicians are motivated by greed? It is not greedy to believe in keeping the fruits of your own labor to give away as you see fit. This is the progressive brainwashing. In that plan, forced altruism is the only pure philosophy. We work, but we don't care what happens with the fruits of our labor as long as we have bread and circuses. Self interest is exactly why taxes should pay for only equally shared government services. Otherwise, when some lose in favor of other winners, then you build K street.

I, for one, still believe in the greater good and that (sometimes) it is worth some sacrifice to achieve it. But that might just be residual Catholic <strike>brainwashing</strike> upbringing talking.

You contributed a huge amount of money into FICA, and SSI over your working years -- but, now they are cutting back on the promises they made to your generation because they mismanaged the accounts for 50 years. There is no easy answer, but this is not a fix to Medicare. This is in fact, siphoning off medicare funds to pay for a new entitlement program for people who've contributed nothing. What actually happened here, other than shuffling money around, raising some taxes, and dismantling two private markets (health insurance, and student loans)? The same amount of care, and work will be performed, but we are to believe that Government will administer it more efficiently and cheaper than the private sector.

Time will tell, but off hand it seems to me that seniors take a big hit. The 85% of people who are generally happy with their insurance coverage, will be faced with an insurance market in turmoil, with eventually losing their current plans to be given the generic State run, government mandated plan, or be forced into Medicare or Medicaid. 5% were happy without insurance, and will now be forced to pay for it. So, the remaining 10%, who lacked insurance will be the only group who have a chance at being happy about this. Obama says people will learn to love this plan. Why do I feel like we were just set up on a blind date, and ended up kissing a mule? Now we have to pay for the mules dinner too!

[kandrathe]

Conservative pundits are conservative. Remind me why I should believe the Wall Street Journal opinion page on their say-so?

All sources are biased. I have a good mix from all sides in there. What I was aiming for is a good over view of each topic, rather than which side of the issue was taken. For example, Doc Fix... It was broken before this health care bill, but then I would ask why break Medicare further without fixing something really broken in it. It is dishonest to not include it now, and then pass an emergency $138 billion fix in the near future once doctors start rejecting Medicare patients due to being underpaid for services. They know it's broken now, and Sen. Reid pulled it from the bill to bring the cost under a trillion. Anyway, my point is that each bullet there is an entire discussion thread of pros and cons.

[DeeBye]

It is not greedy to believe in keeping the fruits of your own labor to give away as you see fit. This is the progressive brainwashing.

So when a neighbour comes over to ask to borrow your hose or a cup of sugar, do you immediately slam your door in his face, do you yell "SCREW YOU GOT MINE!" before slamming your door in his face, or do you calmly explain the reasons you refuse to offer your hose and/or sugar because it would be too progressive of you?

I'm trying real hard to see your point of view, but every time I get close all I see is a hateful man.

[kandrathe]

So when a neighbour comes over to ask to borrow your hose or a cup of sugar, do you immediately slam your door in his face, do you yell "SCREW YOU GOT MINE!" before slamming your door in his face, or do you calmly explain the reasons you refuse to offer your hose and/or sugar because it would be too progressive of you?

Bad analogy. The correct way to phrase that would be that the local building inspector drives by and sees that I've got a nice full yard of green grass that I've worked hard to seed, grow and mow. While I was at work, the city comes by and removes about half to sod my neighbors yard, who hasn't done a darn thing to grow his own grass. With government, and taxes, I don't get asked if I want to borrow out my hose, or give away my cup of sugar. They just take it, and if I don't give it to them I go to jail.

I'm trying real hard to see your point of view, but every time I get close all I see is a hateful man.

I think I am one of the most beloved people in my neighborhood, and I donate my time and money to help people all the time. I've been studying philosophies around freedom and "social justice" for over 30 years, and I've got very definite strong opinions. That may come off as hateful, but I'm really just trying to emphatically stand up for just simple justice. The kind of justice defined by Locke, or in common law, or in the Magna Carta. We all have the natural right to live our lives without being a bound servant to any king or ruler, even if that ruler is the government itself. I've been desperately poor, and homeless. I've been beaten, broken, and deathly sick. It was always people that helped me, and never the government. No social program ever came and swept me out of my destitution, it was always myself with the help of kindly friends who gave me a break. When I did climb out of poverty, it was the government who came and took away half of my earnings to spend as they saw fit. Perhaps it has jaded me.

You live in the same type of cold deadly climate that I do, and you know that if you refuse people aid (cars break down, or people go in the ditch) they might die. I think it shapes us into being much more helpful, and caring. If people are homeless in this climate, they die. Then again, perhaps there is a similar cordiality and concern in warmer climates. Not being a southerner, I wouldn't know.

Don't confuse my distrust of authority and government institutions, for my demeanor with my fellow man. If I were asked, I would give you(or any other stranger) the shirt off my back, but if you try to take it by force you'll get a fight for sure.

Edit: Also as an afterthought... When I refered to bread and circuses, I meant it in the ancient Roman context; "Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses"-- (From the poet Juvenal, Satire X pp. 77–81) I'm comparing our current populist uninvolved populace to that which precipitated the fall of Rome. Now where are those barbarians at the gates?

[Jim]

King Jim,

I was wondering why you are so enthusiastic about this plan which diverts 500 billion in medicare spending into a new entitlement for non-seniors?

I am not seeing anything appealing in the changes that Obamacare will bring for seniors. The only benefit I see is the closing of the donut hole slowly by 2020 (if it survives that long).

But, on the down side for seniors;

• 11 million seniors who use Medicare Advantage will pay $200 billion collectively to keep their current benefits. (source)<>
  
• Anyone with adjusted incomes over $85,000 will pay more (including seniors)(source)<>
  
• Rationing care (source)<>
  
• 20% cut in Medicare payments to doctors resulting in less Dr. choices for seniors (source)<>
  
• Huger deficits for our children and grand children (source) <>
  
• Losing employer offered retiree drugs and health care (source)<>
  
• Destruction of private insurance as we know it driving almost everyone to state based exchanges(source)<>
  
• Most likely a bunch of other negatives due to the ripples of unintended consequences.(source)<>
  [st]

Hi :)

Yes I am aware of the many down sides of this bill. I have given it much thought, I almost burned out watching cable news and researching the pros & cons online. It is better than NO bill, it is a good start there will be many amendments and at the end it will be a Good thing.

I came to this conclusion:
I can live with this bill so that 32 million people less fortunate than myself without health insurance can get the help they need and maybe even live a life as good as mine, that will make it worth the paper it is written on for me.

As you know I am a Randest at heart, I do NOT believe I am my "Brothers Keeper".

[kandrathe]

I can live with this bill so that 32 million people less fortunate than myself without health insurance can get the help they need and maybe even live a life as good as mine, that will make it worth the paper it is written on for me.

Thanks. I can respect that. :D I too want our tax money to help the poor. My only wish would have been that it could be done without destroying the private sector. The upside I can see is that people are much more engaged in the political system. They see what happens when you get complacent and believe the campaign lies every 4 years. I mean that from both sides. My leftist commie friends feel betrayed by this administration, and detest how centrist Obama has been. My right wing nut friends are about to run off and join the Michigan militia (well... not quite that bad, yet. :) ).

It will be an interesting fall election season. The Democrats, with their centrism, have alienated the MoveOn.org crowd who thought Obama would finally make the US like the rest of Europe, and the Republicans have this Glenn Beck inspired wacko tea party ultra conservative movement rising up and to top it off, the SCOTUS has ruled that corporations can spend as much as they want in political advertising. Woohoo!

[Jester]

All sources are biased. I have a good mix from all sides in there. What I was aiming for is a good over view of each topic, rather than which side of the issue was taken. For example, Doc Fix... It was broken before this health care bill, but then I would ask why break Medicare further without fixing something really broken in it. It is dishonest to not include it now, and then pass an emergency $138 billion fix in the near future once doctors start rejecting Medicare patients due to being underpaid for services. They know it's broken now, and Sen. Reid pulled it from the bill to bring the cost under a trillion. Anyway, my point is that each bullet there is an entire discussion thread of pros and cons.

The Doc Fix has already been passed by the house, has it not? Would it not be "dishonest" to imply that they are being dishonest by not including it, when they in fact are? Would it perhaps also be dishonesty by ommission not to mention that it is the Republicans, and not the Democrats, who oppose it?

You already used it as a reason why the bill doesn't actually cost quite as little as the CBO scoring says it does. You can't simultaneously say the Dems are dishonest for not passing it until some future emergency, especially when that would not be true.

Further discussion of the Doc Fix and its relation to health care, via Jonathan Chait.

-Jester

[eppie]

First, you can only drive one car at a time.

I know. Weird, isnt it?

Second, what does this have to do with the price of horse feed?

Like Jester said before. You are still incredibly rich but have a culture which is much more 'every man for himself' (I know this is not completely true) than we have in the north of europe for example. Not because we are different people but because historically it has grown like that. We think a good health insurance for everybody is a right and a recipe for a succesful society, you don't. Well at least, it seems that around half of the population might do....that is why this (beginning of) change is being made.

Third, would you supply your source?

Well you are right, I guess all those people writing threatening letters to democrat congressmen, and all those farmers really have been doing some good reading on this topic, and after that concluded that change is bad. So I should take back that statement.

[eppie]

Thanks. I can respect that. :D I too want our tax money to help the poor. My only wish would have been that it could be done without destroying the private sector.

Could you explain this? What I see in holland is that the insurance companies are doing just fine. (we also have a system were you are obliged to take an insurance and where companies cannot refuse to give you an insurance. (which would be very handy if I decide to go back and live in Holland and I or someone in my family would have a medical condition)
I do realize that it might be anoying for the company to have to give someone that will for sure cost them a lot of money an insurance. Of course we came from the other way (partly state run health insurance) and also find the new system worse than what we had before.

It will be an interesting fall election season. The Democrats, with their centrism, have alienated the MoveOn.org crowd who thought Obama would finally make the US like the rest of Europe, and the Republicans have this Glenn Beck inspired wacko tea party ultra conservative movement rising up and to top it off, the SCOTUS has ruled that corporations can spend as much as they want in political advertising. Woohoo!

But isn't this always the case. To get things done you should move to the middle.

I like this sentence ''''would finally make the US like the rest of Europe''''. :D

[kandrathe]

Could you explain this? What I see in holland is that the insurance companies are doing just fine. (we also have a system were you are obliged to take an insurance and where companies cannot refuse to give you an insurance.

It may or may not work, since the reformed Dutch system is only 4 years old.

An Experiment with Regulated Competition and Individual Mandates for Universal Health Care: The New Dutch Health Insurance System<blockquote>"The first lesson for the United States is that the new (post-2006) Dutch health insurance model may not control costs. To date, consumer premiums are increasing, and insurance companies report large losses on the basic policies. Second, regulated competition is unlikely to make voters/citizens happy; public satisfaction is not high, and perceived quality is down. Third, consumers may not behave as economic models predict, remaining responsive to price incentives. If regulated competition with "individual mandate's" performs poorly in auspicious circumstances such as the Netherlands, how will this model fare in the United States, where access, quality, and cost challenges are even greater? Might the assumptions of economic theory not apply in the health sector?"</blockquote>

I'd still like to review the profitability, and growth projections for Achmea, CZ, VGZ, Menzis, Agis, and ASR.

[eppie]

It may or may not work, since the reformed Dutch system is only 4 years old.

An Experiment with Regulated Competition and Individual Mandates for Universal Health Care: The New Dutch Health Insurance System<blockquote>"The first lesson for the United States is that the new (post-2006) Dutch health insurance model may not control costs. To date, consumer premiums are increasing, and insurance companies report large losses on the basic policies. Second, regulated competition is unlikely to make voters/citizens happy; public satisfaction is not high, and perceived quality is down. Third, consumers may not behave as economic models predict, remaining responsive to price incentives. If regulated competition with "individual mandate's" performs poorly in auspicious circumstances such as the Netherlands, how will this model fare in the United States, where access, quality, and cost challenges are even greater? Might the assumptions of economic theory not apply in the health sector?"</blockquote>

I'd still like to review the profitability, and growth projections for Achmea, CZ, VGZ, Menzis, Agis, and ASR.

As I said, the difference between you and us is that we came from a system with for the largest part state run health insurance (with obligatory payment) except for higher incomes who could take a private insurance. (costs didn't even differ so much), and you come from the other way if I'm correct. (often arranged via private inusrance though employers).

Of course profitability depends on what is compensated and what not, and how expensive health care is (so costs for pharma and manpower). And of course the duty to insure people even when they are sick (and will likely give you a loss) will make it less atractive for health insurance companies. (something they will get back from their other customers just like a government would do via taxes).

Most of those companies are not on the tsock exchange. I read on wikipedia dat e.g. achmea had close to 1 billion profit in 2007.

[--Pete]

Hi,

First, you can only drive one car at a time.

I've actually driven two at once. Of course, they were slot cars, but . . .

:P

--Pete

[kandrathe]

As I said, the difference between you and us is that we came from a system with for the largest part state run health insurance (with obligatory payment) except for higher incomes who could take a private insurance. (costs didn't even differ so much), and you come from the other way if I'm correct. (often arranged via private insurance though employers).

Ah, yes that would make a difference. Your options have expanded, and you now have more choices.

Of course profitability depends on what is compensated and what not, and how expensive health care is (so costs for pharma and manpower). And of course the duty to insure people even when they are sick (and will likely give you a loss) will make it less atractive for health insurance companies. (something they will get back from their other customers just like a government would do via taxes).

Here is my concern; Population = mostly decreasing, illness rates = ~ constant (maybe falling), therefore, profits within the industry are mostly falling. Profitability will exist through consolidation, until a status quo is reached in population, and minimal competition remains. Unless, you are increasing prices, or healthy people consume more health care (i.e. wasting resources). As Jester said, healthy people don't choose things they don't need.

Most of those companies are not on the stock exchange. I read on wikipedia dat e.g. Achmea had close to 1 billion profit in 2007.

While looking at Achmea, for example, I noticed they offer many products other than health insurance. So, the gross profit for the company encompasses all their offerings (e.g. Life, Home, Mortgage, Banking, Pension, etc.).