Health-care reform: Counting votes (60)

The Republican plan is to have even less regulations on the morally and ethically bankrupt insurance industry.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,564501,00.html

Denying coverage to 4 month old babyies who are "too fat", that is what the Republicans want to make easier for insurance companies. That is the Republican vision of health care reform.

The final bill on the Senate floor will probably look nothing like the current Baucus bill. The big fight will be reconciling the liberal House with folks like Lieberman in the Senate.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Healthcare reform needs a “Parody Option.” Check out “Healthcare Fighting (King Fu Mix)” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nc1VwJOb9Y

After credit card "reform", everyone was scr8wed because the stupid "lawmakers" were not vigilent in writing the law. No lawmaker could see, or think like the devil's advocate to know banks would scr8w all of us with huge overdraft charges and take away the good credit of people who pay on time. Same with TARP. Stupid lawmakers thought no oversight was needed. The lawmakers didn't play devil's advocate regarding Wall Street. They couldn't see that Wall Streeters would kill their mother's for a dollar. They thought Wall Streeters were Americans.

Given the stupidity and greed of our lawmakers, reform is just another word for scr8wing citizens. This is a bill WRITTEN BY THE HEALTH INSURANCE LOBBY.. Why do Obama and "lawmakers" hate us and love the for-profit insurance corps? They better get this right and not screw middle class, good working people who already have health-care benefits. Why pay for a policy if it will never be used? Better to pay for single payer, then, all that's paid for is actual health care Tx. It would be cheaper for Americans in the long run by shutting out the b@stard private muddleman insurance companies. An insurance policy pays for Tx only when needed--and allowed by same insurance company, otherwise, the citizens' money from the policy goes to the private, for-profit shareholders and the private, for-profit insurance companies. A policy does nothing to make me well, or to heal me. Why am I forced by law to pay for nothing? We have a BS government that forces people to do business with certain private corps. Why not put a gun to my head to force me to buy at for-profit Sears, or put a gun to my head to force me to buy for-profit Burger King for lunch, or force me to pay to get my nails done at a for-profit salon? Guns-to-our-heads forcing us to pay private, for-profit insurance corps. is BS, and another huge con job by our BS "lawmakers" and Obama. And now, the b@stard private, for-profit insurance companies PROMISE us that the cost of our policies will go up greatly WITH HEALTH-CARE REFORM. Scr8w them, and get 51 votes for single payer, or just expand Medicare. Why couldn't I, or another citizen with no conflict of interest have been sitting behind Baucus during the entire write-up of the bill, instead of that private-corp $$$$$, insurance industry lobby woman? I'd like to bring Baucus in front of a court to see how much he has received from the health insurance lobby. I want to know how this is legal and how NOT a conflict of interest.

Yo, Obama--How about REALLY reforming the banks and REALLY reforming health care? Why not just give those American citizens without health care Medicare, instead of scr8wing me and my children by putting guns to our heads. How about not allowing Guiethner to continue to hobnob with his Wall Street buddies anymore--or else he can quit. The middle class will be scr8wed again due to the mismanagement of the health-care "reform". I don't have to read history. I can remember from two minutes ago.

Posted by: Vivian | October 13, 2009 12:21 PM
.
I'm sure you made the Swamp censors cringe, but I couldn't stop smiling throughout your post. Amen.
.

Since The Swamp (widely viewed as part of the Democratic Party) won't give both sides of the issue, here's a link to a Heartland Institute study on Maine's Version of ObamaCare. The results?

"While Dirigo [Maine's version of obamaCare] was intended as a program for the uninsured, it attracted two people who had been previously covered by private insurance for every one uninsured individual who signed up for the taxpayer-subsidized coverage. As a result, costs skyrocketed and the percentage of uninsured Mainers remained relatively static.

In September 2007, at its highest level of enrollment, only 15,000 of the 128,000 uninsured Mainers were enrolled in Dirigo. Today, only 9,630 Mainers are enrolled. Of those, just 3,467 were previously uninsured—less than 3 percent of the number proponents of this costly program claimed it would help.

The original funding regime for Dirigo—government confiscation of the savings expected to be realized by private insurers as a result of the miraculous drop in costs proponents inexplicably thought Dirigo would bring about—ended up being little more than a tax on private insurance policies."

See more at http://www. heartland.org.

Random connections. As to the looming threat of increases by the insurance companies, isn't there something like that going on right now in Maine (the state vs Horizon?).......and who is the senator from Maine...........THE Olympia Snowe. Could Maine be the future staring us in the face? The chickens pave the way for the fox only to have him bite back....

* * * * *
Posted by: Vivian | October 13, 2009 12:21 PM
.
I totally agree, Vivian. I’ve always said that this scheme merely uses the federal government to drive the game (us) to the hunters (the insurance companies). I am mystified by the way people are willing to lie down for this rubbish - especially those who claim to totally hate large corporations. Instead of putting the insurance companies in their place, this bill puts them in the driver’s seat to stay. Worse yet, it provides for wholesale robbery to feed the coffers of these insurance companies. I guess someone can dress up any bill - good or bad - to sell it to today’s partisan public.

Now John W comes from a political viewpoint that says that the solution to the healthcare problems of this country is to let the insurance companies and the healthcare providers do whatever they want. He is a staunch liberatrian who believes that the government should have no role in business matters, and that we can just trust the free, unregulated market to take care of our needs. He also believes that any government spending to help the poor get healthacre is "theft" from taxpayers. His view like all good libertarians, is "every man, woman and child for themselves. If you can't afford healthcare, tough. You don't deserve it. Don't be looking to John W or any of his liberatrian friends to help you. John W is a rugged individualist who doesn't believe that he would ever need help, nor stoop to ask for it, and that no one else should either. Those who seek help from the government are slaves who are beneath his haughty, elitist, libertarian contempt. He'd rather die than accept government healthcare, and thinks the poor should do the same.

Sad that health insurance reform opponents are reduced to getting their information from discredited industry front groups like the Heartland Institute. Major thanks to Sen. Snowe for being willing to cross party lines. I hope Sens. Collins and Voinovich follow her lead.

* * * * *
Posted by: Libertarians care only for themselves. | October 13, 2009 10:27 PM
.
You come out of the blocks claiming, “John W comes from a political viewpoint that says that the solution to the healthcare problems of this country is to let the insurance companies and the healthcare providers do whatever they want.” And this is patently false.
.
A market without government regulation does not translate into a government without any laws at all. Governments are designed to protect people from being harmed and to enforce freely contracted promises. Thus, a government could legitimately prohibit many of the abuses practiced by the insurance industry without offending my Libertarian ideals. For example, it wouldn’t offend me in the least to see a government provide for summary remedies against an insurance company for improperly denying coverage or cancelling an insurance contract for reasons not fairly contemplated by the terms of the contract. This would hardly qualify as letting “the insurance companies and the healthcare providers do whatever they want.” And this is only one such example of what I’m talking about.
.
You also stated that I believe, “If you can't afford healthcare, tough. You don't deserve it.” That is also quite false. I am 100% behind the idea of privately funded, chartable institutions to provide health care services for the poor; and I am more than happy to share my good fortune to assist them. Private charities have proven to be much more efficient at providing services than any government ever has. All the same, I might also favor some assistance from state governments in this regard. But what is not true is that I would ever just say “tough” to those who are down and out. Just because Libertarians don’t believe the government is a proper vehicle for charity doesn’t mean we are uncharitable.
.
On the other hand, you are correct in suggesting that I believe people are not generally “entitled” to health care services, or that they have a “right” to them (contrary to Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric) apart from the services they have contracted and paid to receive. “Entitlements,” once created by law, involve protected property or liberty interests that are enforceable against arbitrary denial. “Rights” are also protected interests that one can enforce against the government or fellow citizens. Thus, if people were “entitled” to health care or had a “right” to them, we wouldn’t need Congress to pass a bill. Everyone could just line up and demand health care services from the government right now. If refused, they could sue to force the government to provide them. But that is simply not the case. There are no laws - other than for Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and whatever State Governments offer, that create entitlements for limited categories of people. Nor has there ever been a law or constitutional provision that guarantees health care services as a matter of right. The mythical right to health care services is not one that has any basis in the history and traditions of this country. Under the Supreme Court’s current test for identifying un-enumerated constitutional rights, the absence of an historical or traditional basis for an asserted right is fatal to claiming constitutional protection for it. But, again, don’t blame me for this situation.

Cool I'm glad that this is happening...

Ahh the old "let private charity take care of it" dodge. meaning "I'll throw $5 Salvation Army Bucket once a year and pretend that takes care of the problem. I never see the poor anyway, so I can safely pretend then that the suffering doesn't happen." All ignoring the proven facts that private charity has NEVER been able to care adequately for the poor without government help. I guess in the view of John W and his ohh so compassionate liberatrian friends, we sahould thhrow out the entire safety net and just hope and pray that the poor get adequately taken care of by private charity. If the charities can't handle itt, too bad, just don't come "stealing" from the rugged individualist liberatarians through taxes to make sure poor children can eat and see a doctor. That's tyranny. They'd rather die than feed and care for those kids through taxes. (Actually they'd rather see the kids die than to pay taxes to help them.)

I forgot one. Under federal law, no one can be turned away from an emergency room for an emergency medical condition based on an inability to pay. A hospital must also provide care for such a person until his or her condition is stabilized. The law applies to all hospitals that receive Medicare money. This law, along with Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP and whatever programs are offered by State governments represents the current panorama of government entitlements to health care services. They still do not generally entitle everyone to health care services.

John W , for you to argue that Medicare and Medicaid require certain things is made moot by your own position that those programs are unconstuitutional and should be eliminated. You want to eliminate the very protections you are now supporting. If you had your way there would be no law requiring that hopspitals see anyone, even in the case of emergency. That's your libertarian ideal,, letting the hospitals decide to not treat those in desperate need of life saving medical care if they can't pay, without the tyrannical federal government forcing them to treat them. Hey, maybe some generous Libertarian like you will just happen by at that momenet and offer to pay for their care. But then again, maybe not. If not, they die. Oh well. They died for Libertarianism. Hooray! I bet you can't wait until the hospitals have the freedom to let the poor die on their doorstep, can you John?

* * * * *
Posted by: Libertrians care only for themselves | October 14, 2009 4:52 PM
.
What a load of rubbish.
.
First of all, your little rants are based on the assumption that I would consign all the poor to the care of private charity. In this, you conveniently ignore that I wrote, “All the same, I might also favor some assistance from state governments in this regard.” So, no, I did not state that private charity should be the sole source of assistance regardless of the circumstances. In which case, I have to ask: Are you a liar or just stupid?
.
In the second place, your beloved “safety net” is a an expensive failure. Since Johnson started the welfare system back in 1964, the federal government has spent approximately $9 trillion dollars in its war on poverty. This isn’t even accounting for the money spent by state and local governments. The monies spent should have been enough allow every man, woman and child living under the poverty level to wage their own war on poverty. But the percentage of the population living in poverty hasn’t materially changed for the better. In fact, despite increases in social welfare spending (including an increase of an inflation-adjusted 22% during Bush’s administration alone), the percentage of those living in poverty as of 2008 rose to 13.2%. That is only one tenth of a percentage point less than the poverty level in 1965. It would help, of course, if the safety net tried to help people lift themselves out of poverty rather than enforce and institutionalize it. It takes a nut-case like you to believe that this is efficient, or that the federal government has the ability to efficiently run such programs.
.
In the third place, you cannot begin to prove your claim “that private charity has NEVER been able to care adequately for the poor without government help.” Private charities haven’t been given the chance of taking on the entire job - or of failing by themselves. There has been state-run public assistance in this country, in one form or another, since the 19th Century. And, furthermore, unlike our big, bloated and wasteful federal government, private charities are noted for keeping their overhead down and, thus, spending more of their money for the benefit of the needy.
.
Fourth and finally, a person can only ascribe evil or want of goodness to another only if he or she can imagine it about himself/herself. That you could imagine that I would settle to contribute a mere $5 once a year (which is less than I give every time I go to the grocery store) is a reflection on you. You don’t know me, and you don’t know how often or how much I give to various charities. How dare you assume that anyone else is as much of a skin flint as you are?

John W, what does the word "might " mean to you?

Secondly, please find an example of any country in the world, at any time, that adequately cared for the poor without government assistance. Just one. Can you do that John W? Is the US in the 21st Century some magical place, so different from every other place and time in human history, where this is suddenly going to happen? Does the presence on any Government program, no mattter how small, eliminate the possibility of private charity taking care of the poor? Were the poor adequately cared for in 1860 John? 1880? 1900? 1920? 1940? 1960? Where was all that wonderful, efficient private charity then John? Why were children suffering from malnutrition in this country in all of those years?

Private charity hasn't been enough in the past, it isn't enough now, and won't be enough in the future. TAnd you expect me to be impressed that you, in your elite high minded goodness "might", not will, but "might" see some role for the government. Talk about rubbish. Your claims to care antything about what happens to the poor are just that. Rubbish.
Libertarians are no friends of the poor. The poor would suffer greatly if people with the same political views as you ever got any power. Thankfully Libertarians are on the far fringe of our society, and rightfully so.

* * * * *
Posted by: Liberatrians care only for themselves | October 15, 2009 10:36 PM
.
I noticed how you entirely ignored my first two points. Charming.
.
I also like the way you entirely dodged my point that it is impossible to say what can’t be done unless it is tried and failed. The U.S. is not the rest of the world in another time and place. Don’t ask me about other places. Consider exactly how much private charities are doing right now - which is quite a lot, and more than you would ever be willing to admit - and then how much more they could do if given the chance. This, I am afraid, is something too big for your tiny little mind to consider.
.
And you still haven’t answered my criticism about the inability of the federal government to run you beloved safety net efficiently, or how it has failed. Nor have you said a word to rebut my assertion that private charities are run more efficiently than the federal charity we call the Department of Health and Human Services (which is responsible for the Welfare State gimmees).
.
What you really want to do is bad-mouth me and suggest that I am some heartless skin-flint - even though you know nothing about me. You judge me blind, and that is all you will ever do regardless of what I say. So, let’s just agree to disagree. If you insist on not agreeing with that, then I suggest that you take a long walk off a short pier into Lake Michigan.
.
Oh, and by the way, I do have a good idea who you are despite your inability to own up to your own track record.

John W, your casual acceptance of letting private charities "try and fail", with failing meaning malnourished and dead children is truly appalling. How many thousand dead children would it take for you to admit failure? How many million hungry children? How much suffering are you willing to accept to test your hopey dopey theory?

Tell you what John W, why don't you call the local administrators of the Slavation Army, Catholic Charities, the United Way, and a few others and ask them if they think they could even begin to handle the extent of the need in the absence of the Federal programs? They'll be horrified at the thought. Those good people, (and I have tremendous respect for private charities) live in the real world, not your naive libertarian fantasy world. You have no more idea who I am than I you. I judge you based on what you have written here, which is proof enough of your lack of any real concern for the poor, because no truly caring person is willing to pull ourt the safety net, hoping that the falling person will have suddenly developed the ability to bounce.

Why do you people throw around the term "For-Profit" like it's some kind of condemnation? Any material item or service that you have or use thats worth a crap has a profit-motive. Besides, before you go accusing insurance companies of greedy corporate profits at the expense of medical treatment, you had better investigate the actual "SLIM" profit margins that insurance companies receive. Trading private insurance for corrupt government insurance is NOT the answer. WAKE-UP