Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

What I'm saying is that CORPORATISM doesn't work--and the US government has moved to corporatism for a lot of its needs.

---

Hello Synn:

I don't know what corporatism is. It CAN'T be good because it ends in "ism". It sounds like a gang of corporations trying to take over the neighborhood... If that's what it is, it AIN'T good, and it won't work...

Let me rephrase the "wont work" part, because it depends on which end of the equation you're on. It certainly works for the corporations... Besides, there's something onerous about corporations banding together to seek their goals... In fact, it IS onerous... When banding together is something corporations have to do to make profits, then something is wrong...

It's antithetical to the idea of a business anyway... Doesn't the Wolverine keep telling us that seeking profit is GOOD for everybody?? I don't disagree with him. It is. Then I ask you, why do corporations need to band together... I thought improving your service would be something corporations would do to increase their profits. I thought making a better product would do that. I thought having the best and brightest people working for you would be enough...

But, it isn't. Here's another point the Wolverine and I agree on - when the government gets involved, NOTHING GOOD HAPPENS...

So, when corporations band together, what are they banding together to get?? I'll tell you what. It's the ear of government They want government to pass laws that make it easier for corporations to make money... And, the government obliges... If that weren't true, wouldn't the corporations spend the zillions they spend on lobbying, on R & D, or training new people, or improving customer service?? Sure, they would, but that's the old fashioned way. The NEW way is to get favors... And, they do...

I don't know when that happened, but it did. You KNOW it did too. I'll bet it was about the time they STOPPED have live people answer customer service lines. Why do you need to provide customer service if you can get the government to give you a break?? You don't, and they don't, and you know it.

So, when corporations become perverted, too big to fail, and they get ALL THE DOUGH, it's time for little people like you and me to revolt...

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Synn If I'm not wrong I think you got your economists mixed up. It is Keynesians who want gvt. intervention .
Milt Friedman is famously quoted as saying “If you let the government run the Sahara Desert, soon there will be a shortage of sand.”

edit although you are quite correct that the Keynesians oppose the Chicago school. I meant to say that Excon is proposing Keynesian solutions ....not those of Friedman

---

Tom's right, you did mix up your economists. Friedmanites support free-markets, while Keynesians support government intervention. Most conservatives tend to be Friedmanites, or at least modified Friedmanites. (I happen to be a purist, but not all Friedman supporters are.)

Excon, on the other hand, has gone way past being a Keynesian to being an outright Marxist, as seen in a prior post:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post2020291

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Excon, on the other hand, has gone way past being a Keynesian to being an outright Marxist, as seen in a prior post

---

Hello again:

Isn't name calling what you do when you're out of gas?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again:

Isn't name calling what you do when you're outta gas??

excon

---

I'm not name calling, excon. I'm going by what YOU said you support.

You are the one who said that you're all for the idea of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." That is Marxism. MARX is the one who said it, and you agreed with it. In fact, your exact words were, "It encapsulates my opinion exactly." Ergo, you are a Marxist.

Don't like it? Tough. If you don't like being called a Marxist, then perhaps you should stop supporting his philosophies, positions and economic theories. Till then, you are what you are. I didn't lablel you a Marxist... you did that all on your own by stating that you supported the basic tenent of Marxism.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

So, when corporations become perverted, too big to fail, and they get ALL THE DOUGH, it's time for little people like you and me to revolt...

excon

---

How about when governments become perverted, too big to fail, and they get all the dough? Not to mention taking over private companies, dictating executive pay levels, and controlling production methods of the private sector?

Does that also mean it's time for us to revolt? Or is it OK for the government to do what you think is so evil for big corporations to do?

Elliot

Surely by now you've heard the CBO's estimates of the Baucus bill will reduce the deficit by $81 billion. One problem, THERE IS NO BAUCUS BILL.

Baucus' plan raises taxes on medical devices, which will naturally be passed on to the consumer. The tax goes into effect in 2010, 3 years before the plan would take effect.

Cato says the numbers don't add up.

Gah, what a stupid typing mistake. You are all correct.

My only excuse is that I'm so incredibly swamped at work--working minimum of 60 hours this week--that I'm just getting stupid.

Still don't want the government to RUN UHC. Wouldn't mind if they intervened a bit, but let's try re-making the old system before jumping to a new one run by a government that's run by corporations run by the rich elite, okay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Surely by now you've heard the CBO's estimates of the Baucus bill will reduce the deficit by $81 billion. One problem, THERE IS NO BAUCUS BILL.

Baucus' plan raises taxes on medical devices, which will naturally be passed on to the consumer. The tax goes into effect in 2010, 3 years before the plan would take effect.

Cato says the numbers don't add up.

---

I heard something about that yesterday... I think it was Karl Rove that mentioned it on Hannity. According to the Bill that the Senate Finance Committee has put out, we would be paying for 10 years, but will only be receiving serviced for 7 years.

Well, heck, I could make a "budget neutral" health care plan if I did that too. If I could charge people for 10 years worth of work but only provide 7 years worth of services, I could get rich pretty quick too.

The question is, how many people want to pay for 10 years but only receive 7 years worth of coverage?

I just checked the bill, and yep... we start paying for it in 2010, but we only start getting coverage in 2013. What a scam...

Here's the full bill with all the Chairman's amendments and markups.

http://finance.senate.gov/sitepages/leg/LEG%202009/100209_Americas_Healthy_Future_Act_AMENDED.pdf

Elliot

Edit: Sorry, it really ISN'T a bill. It's 252 pages of CONCEPTS that have not been written as legislation. We have no idea what the final "bill" will actually look like. But one thing we do know is that these "concepts" really don't look all that good... paying for 10 years but only getting 7 years worth of services... that ain't kosher. And trust me, I know kosher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

The problem with this is that Obama's stated goal is a single-payer health care system. Which means:

1) that the government WOULD take over the system, and,
2) that they would be taking over not just the health INSURANCE portion, but the entire system of PROVIDING health care. Simply put, when you control the methods of production (via the FDA) and distribution (via being the sole method of payment) you control the entire system.

As for the cost issue, as I have said before, the government pays MORE for health care services than the private sector does... 35% more for the services themselves and as much as 500% more for the administrative costs. Those costs get transferred to the consumer in the form of higher taxes to support the system. The consumer ends up paying MORE for health care, not less, under a government-run system. So having government in charge doesn't FIX the situation, it actually makes the situation WORSE.

---

I think you will find the government wants to reduce the amount it is paying in the long term, but you are correct you don't want the government as health care provider, but health insurer, and insurer of the last resort isn't necessarily a bad option, after all it is the insurer of the last resort in a number of other situations.

Quote:

---

In order to fix the problem of affordability, there are solutions that have been proposed. These include:

1) making health insurance premiums and the costs of health services pre-tax, which would lower the cost of insurance by as much as 30% INSTANTLY,

2) increasing insurance portability and interstate purchasing, which would make health insurance more competitive, thus lowering costs,

3) tort reform, which could lower medical expenses by as much as 60%

4) create "build-your-own-policy" policies that allow you to pay for what you want and discard what you don't, thus lowering costs of the policies.

---

Why would you want to give an immediate indirect subsidy to insurance companies? Yes it will increase the number of people with insurance but it doesn't fix the problem of those who can't afford it. Pay now and get a benefit later only works when you have money. The other proposals are valid and you would have expected number 4 to have arisen from market initiatives anyway, so lack of competition must be the problem.

Lower tax isn't the answer to everything, sometimes a little more tax, if directed to a specific purpose, can solve a problem by shifting emphasis and if it offsets an extortinately high insurance premium you might come out ahead. People get hung up on the idea of tax because they don't think they see anything for their money. Same thing with insurance, but remember the premiums will always be more than the costs, that's the way insurance works

Paraclete:

WITHOUT resorting to a whole new system by a "company" that Elliot and I don't trust in the least---how would YOU fix the current system?

Government regulation is an okay thing to use in your reasoning, but in no way, shape, or form can you say throw out the car because it has a flat tire.

Tell US how YOU would FIX it. Not replace it: FIX IT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

Tell US how YOU would FIX it. Not replace it: FIX IT.

---

Hello Synn:

I'm not clete, but I'll answer... Have you stopped beating your husband, yet??

If you find that question strange, let's take yours... MY question assumed that you beat your husband... Your question assumes that ANY or ALL of the health care bills before congress "replace" your medical care and/or insurance coverage.

So, if you want to have a debate over what is really happening on the ground in YOUR congress, regarding YOUR future, I'll admit that you probably don't beat your husband, if you'll admit that NONE of the proposals on the table "replace" ANYTHING.

But, if you're unable to get beyond the right wing talking points, then we can't go any further, Synn.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

Paraclete:

WITHOUT resorting to a whole new system by a "company" that Elliot and I don't trust in the least---how would YOU fix the current system?

Government regulation is an okay thing to use in your reasoning, but in no way, shape, or form can you say throw out the car because it has a flat tire.

Tell US how YOU would FIX it. Not replace it: FIX IT.

---

What I see wrong with the system is that it is insurance based and therefore adversarial in nature where coverage can be denied. You should not have a system where need must be proven outside the prescription of a licensed medical practitioner.

So, portability is a must. If you have been insured you should not be denied cover for preexisting conditions. Such a concept is called knock for knock in the insurance industry.

The provision of insurance by employers is a serious flaw in the system, therefore the system needs to be converted to a system of payment of premium by the employer whilst the insurance contract is selected and belongs to the employee. This makes insurance part of a salary package not a benefit tied to employment with a particular employer and not subject to some negotiated package mininising cost to the employer. An employer could be given a right to insist an employee have minimum coverage.

Payment of premiums for a period as part of unemployment benefits when a person is laid off to maintain cover.

Reform of the tort system to limit costs and number of claims by regulating the damages that can be awarded and the circumstance that is regarded as negligence.

Consolidation of the number of insurance providers and licensing insurance providers to operate in all states

Allowing the insured to add options to a basic package of coverage. e.g. dental, health club, optical, cosmetic, etc to be optional cover. Allowing deductables and caps to lessen cost.

Regulating the maximum cost for procedures. Investigation of the billing policies of practitioners who consistenly bill for multiple procedures or whose income is outside the norm. Requiring practitioners to specifiy individual tests required rather that specifying group tests

Where a person is not insured a tax impost as a contribution. This could have a threshold so as not to burden the poor but to ensure that those who run the gauntlet contribute.

These are just a few thoughts obviously there are many areas requiring reform but if the system is broken you do need to fix it even if it means overturning the status quo.

Where I come from all citizens have a minimum coverage provided by a 1.5%taxation surcharge and there are insurers and mutual societies who provide cover beyond that. They are issued with an identity card which enables them to obtain medical services nation wide within the bulk billing system or refunds. Medical expenses beyond a theshold are tax deductable and practitioners are encouraged to bulk bill the system at a regulated fee.
The payment system operates electronicly. They may charge more and the gap may be insured, this places the burden on the patient for payment and claim. The tax surcharge is waived if insurance cover exists. There is also a safety net which helps with serious and cronic illness. Cosmetic surgeries are not included. The Price of Pharmeuticals are regulated and the use of generics encouraged. Because most of the insurance cover is provided by mutual societies (co-ops in your parlance) premiums are relatively low and the insurance industry highly competitive.

Having observed such a system for thirty years, I wonder what the US citizen has to fear from change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Having observed such a system for thirty years, I wonder what the US citizen has to fear from change.

---

We don't fear change, we fear disaster in attempting to completely remake the industry. Fix it, don't replace it. It's been said enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Synn:

I'm not clete, but I'll answer... Have you stopped beating your husband, yet???

If you find that question strange, let's take yours... MY question assumed that you beat your husband... Your question assumes that ANY or ALL of the health care bills before congress "replace" your medical care and/or insurance coverage.

So, if you wanna have a debate over what is really happening on the ground in YOUR congress, regarding YOUR future, I'll admit that you probably don't beat your husband, if you'll admit that NONE of the proposals on the table "replace" ANYTHING.

But, if you're unable to get beyond the right wing talking points, then we can't go any further, Synn.

excon

---

Everything I've seen says that within 5 years, EVERYONE must use the new system, Exy. If you think that getting private insurance after that isn't going to be unaffordable except to the very wealthy, you've got a more optimistic view than I do.

SURE, I can keep things exactly the way they are for me---except my premiums will double, my coverage will be less (because of fewer people in the medical field, and those that ARE will have more patients), and I'll STILL have to pay for the government version that "I'm not using". Yeah, right.

Maybe I don't beat my husband NOW, but 5 years from now, I might HAVE to.

PS--I'm going to admit here that I'm spread thin lately. I've been ill, and working too many hours. If that means that I've misread something or misTYPE something (see yesterday's idiotic answer from me for proof), please point it out in a forgiving fashion.

This is an interesting topic for me, I'm enjoying being involved in discussion, but please try not to murder me if I'm dumber than usual :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

Everything I've seen says that within 5 years, EVERYONE must use the new system, Exy.

---

Hello again, Synn:

SHOW ME what you've seen. If it's from the death panel lady, you KNOW you're going to get an argument... If it's from the words in the bill (any bill), we can discuss it.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Synn:

SHOW ME what you've seen. If it's from the death panel lady, you KNOW you're gonna get an argument... If it's from the words in the bill (any bill), we can discuss it.

excon

---

Please read HR 3200, Title I, Section A. This section talks about the fact that anyone who is not covered under a "qualified plan" as of Year 1 of the bill may only receive coverage under the Government program... private insurance would no longer be available to that person.

Assuming that people stay at a particular job with a particular employer for an average of 3 years, that would mean that within an average of 3 years, most people will have been forced to take only the government plan, because they will no longer be covered under their former employer's plan, and private plans would not be available to them under Title I section A.

That was deliberately written into the House bill in order to phase private insurance out of existence. Which means that Synnen was right... the goal of HR 3200 is to REPLACE private insurance, not augment it.

You wanted the words of the bill... you got them.

Except that you'll tell us that it doesn't really say that... it really says something else.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Please read HR 3200, Title I, Section A.....

You wanted the words of the bill... you got em.

---

But you really didn't show the words of the bill.

Copy/paste them from here: Text of H.R.3200 as Introduced in House: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress It's much easier if you use the Section numbers as they are unique.

Edit to add: here 's a great resource: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/H.R._3200 You can link directly to the relevant section!

Actually, I have the entire Bill downloaded as a PDF file.

But the secdtion that I refer to is several pages long... too long to post here. That's why I didn't do a C&P, but rather referenced the section in question.

Elliot

Use the wikisource to link to the relevant section. There are many Title I in all the Divisions.