Home › Blogs › Max Borders's blog ›

No Compromise

Submitted by Max Borders on Tue, 08/18/2009 - 09:24
in

You’ve heard some chatter about scrapping the “public option” in favor of a co-op model. Remember: government healthcare by any other name smells just as bad. We can’t let them sneak in any variant on the original evil using doublespeak and legerdemain. As Harry Reid said: “We’re going to have some type of public option, call it ‘co-op’, call it what you want.”

Congress is also considering a federal mandate that would force insurers to cover people after they get sick or injured, called “guaranteed issue”. In states like New York and Massachusetts where this mandate is already the law, premiums are about four times the national average. This is simply unacceptable if Congress wants to make insurance affordable for people. (It’s not insurance if you can call and buy a policy after your house burns down. Likewise, it’s not insurance if you can call and buy a policy after you break your leg.) But they’re not interested in making insurance affordable. That’s never been the goal.

It’s always been about getting us to a socialized system. If you can drive up costs with government mandates, then turn around and blame insurance companies—that’s the quickest way to get what you want: single payer.

With this bill, Congressional Democrats are going to do anything they can to create dependant constituents and special interests. In other words, people, companies and providers will depend on them for resources. Creating dependents helps keep them in power, so they're happy to hop into bed with the very companies they publicly malign. This reform bill is, and has always been, a resources for votes-n-contributions deal. So they’re going to pull out all of the tricks. But it’s now clear: we won’t be duped. Let us go forward with Zen-like patience and continue to oppose anything these shifty politicians propose.

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (5 votes)

Comments

Hmmm .... so you oppose Medicare?

Submitted by acinphx on Tue, 08/18/2009 - 11:41.

With this bill, Congressional Democrats are going to do anything they can to create dependant constituents and special interests.

By this, do you mean something like the "Don't Touch our Medicare!" folks in the angry crowds? 

Were you expressing these concerns when President Bush and the Republican Congress were creating more dependent consitituents and special interests when they passed Medicare D, which they made no effort to find funding for and even agreed not to negotiate costs with Big Pharma?  And assured the senior vote for 2004?  Somehow I doubt you were taking to the streets to oppose that.

I'll give more credence to GOP opposition to health care reform when you advocate for the elimination of Medicare -- all of it.  Until then, you're just talking out of both sides of your mouth and using your scare machine to whip seniors who already "have theirs" in terms of government-run insurance into a frothing frenzy to deprive others of similar access.  Don't our seniors deserve better than government-run insurance?

I'm also curious about your position on Veterans Administration health care, one of only two truly socialist health care services in the world (BHS being the other).  If government-run health care is so bad, why do you think veterans should be forced to endure the most socialistic of systems?  Don't our veterans deserve better?  Are you planning to advocate for the elimination of the VA health care system? 

So you think every govt program is perfect?

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Tue, 08/18/2009 - 12:47.

Seriously, anyone can play the strawman game.

Medicare is in serious trouble and will someday bankrupt us. Instead of cretqaing new bad programs, Obama+Dems need to FIX whats broken in Medicare already. If we had a clean sheet, we could come up with a lot better than a program that has driven more growth in govt spending than any other program in the past 3 decades.

And if you think Status Quo on medicare is fine, you really are not paying attention.

 

There's no strawman here

Submitted by acinphx on Tue, 08/18/2009 - 16:05.

Medicare is, plain and simple, government-run health insurance.  No, I don't think it's a perfect program, agree with you that it's in serious trouble and it's driven such growth in government spending because health care costs have risen so much more dramatically than other goods and services.

What I object to is all the ridiculous misinformation fed to seniors that leads them to go out there and protest, carrynig signs that say "Don't Touch my Medicare!"  Yes, Obama, Dems AND Republicans need to fix it.  How likely do you think it is now that Obama/Dems/REPUBLICANS can realistically deal with the problems in Medicare, now that the GOP has whipped them to a frenzy with the threat of any changes to it?  And seriously, Obama+Dems need to fix it?  While the GOP got a free pass for the Bush years -- in which they not only didn't try to fix it, but created a huge new UNFUNDED entitlement in Part D and gave away the ability to negotiate costs with Big Pharma?  Where was the GOP "fix" to it?

And one of the major fixes to Medicare would be for the feds to have the power to negotiate drug prices, just like every other country in the world has done.  Do you ever wonder why you pay at least eight times more for the same medication than a Frenchman does, or the little lady in Singapore?  It's because the GOP gave away the ability to negotiate costs.

Medicare also has the crummiest insurance risk pool in the world.  It exclusively covers the highest cost users, with no healthy low-cost insureds to offset the high cost users.  No private insurer on earth would accept a risk pool like that, and no private insurer would offer coverage at any price to most of Medicare's risk pool. 

So since you don't like the status quo on Medicare:  what are your proposed fixes?  I'm dying to hear.  If the GOP doesn't have any, the only strawman here is "Obama+Dems need to fix it."

Medicare also has the

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Wed, 08/19/2009 - 14:02.

Medicare also has the crummiest insurance risk pool in the world.  It exclusively covers the highest cost users, with no healthy low-cost insureds to offset the high cost users. 

Don't be silly. You do know we all pay into Medicare whether we use it or not, correct? It has a huge number people contributing to it that are not covered and can't make a claim. Yes it  covers primarily high cost users, but it is offset with literally millions of  no cost non-users! I pay more in Medicare taxes than I do for my own company offered policy, and I'm not covered by Medicare.

And they (Medicare)pay out a fraction of the "commercial rate" that hospitals bill. And yet it is in real trouble.

Lonestar, you're correct we

Submitted by acinphx on Tue, 08/25/2009 - 23:37.

Lonestar, you're correct we all pay into Medicare but not nearly at a rate that covers our future Medicare costs even considering the millions currently contributing but not yet eligible to make a claim.  The current average Medicare recipient has been estimated to have paid apx. $64,000 in Medicare taxes over a working life, while receiving an estimated. $174,000 in benefits (thus receiving about $108,000 more in benefits than paid in taxes over a working lifetime).  Source link:  http://blog.american.com/?p=3990

I can't speak to the details of your current policy costs but it's important to remember that your Medicare taxes (and mine, and those of everyone else under 65) are properly viewed as paying for our future healthcare coverage costs, which of course in almost all cases will be far higher than our current costs. 

Please take a look at the linked article.  It makes a compelling argument against the GOP relying on scaremongering seniors about potential Medicare cuts.  GOP or Dem, if we don't soon face some hard facts about Medicare costs and make serious changes, and instead keep promising all seniors the moon to buy their votes, we'll be bankrupted with or without a public plan for those under 65. 

So I think that Health

Submitted by Lonestar Bill on Tue, 09/01/2009 - 14:15.

So I think that Health Savings Accounts in addition to Medicare may be part of the answer. What about moving the date of eligibility from 65 to 70? What about tort reform? What about needs testing?

I like your link because it quantifies the problem in dollars and cents. But what part of the Obama proposal addresses this issue?

Hard choices have to be made. A six week or six month debate with a bill jammed through will not solve the current Medicare problems. This is a serious issue that deserves more thought than it is being given by Congress and the White House.

Any or all of those ideas

Submitted by acinphx on Tue, 09/01/2009 - 17:54.

Any or all of those ideas could be part of the solution, as could the Dem proposal to negotiate Medicare drug costs with Big Pharma.  I was primarily responding here to the claim that "Obama+Dems" have to fix it.  I would have hoped that some conservative ideas could be part of the mix but sadly, FreedomsTruth has been proven right.  It's a moot point now, because with the GOP's Seniors Health Care Bill of Rights, they have clearly stated their intention not to be part of the discussion.  They will not be making any hard choices.  They will be screaming "Soshulist! Nazi!" and leaving it to the Dems to make fixes, if any.  The best you can hope is that the Dems co-opt some of those ideas.  A lazy, craven and who knows, maybe successful tactic for the GOP in the short-term.  When Medicare goes belly-up in about 10 years if the Dems don't fix it, it may come back to haunt the GOP, but maybe we'll all be too mired in the crisis of everyday survival to much care about depraved politicians. 

Seniors, and only seniors, have a right to healthcare insurance, without any cuts or changes?  Nothing immoral or unconstitutional about that, now is there?  It still boggles me that the GOP creates a new right and openly endorses government-run insurance if it's for seniors, but I guess it shouldn't.  Seniors are the only demographic that McCain did better with than Bush, so they're going all in with the buy more senior votes tactic.

Still, it's amazing what a difference a year makes.  Here's the GOP nominee's take on it last October:

John McCain would pay for his health plan with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid, a top aide said, in a move that independent analysts estimate could result in cuts of $1.3 trillion over 10 years to the government programs.

The Republican presidential nominee has said little about the proposed cuts, but they are needed to keep his health-care plan "budget neutral," as he has promised. The McCain campaign hasn't given a specific figure for the cuts, but didn't dispute the analysts' estimate.

In the months since Sen. McCain introduced his health plan, statements made by his campaign have implied that the new tax credits he is proposing to help Americans buy health insurance would be paid for with other tax increases.

But Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Sen. McCain's senior policy adviser, said Sunday that the campaign has always planned to fund the tax credits, in part, with savings from Medicare and Medicaid. Those government health-care programs serve seniors, poor families and the disabled. Medicare spending for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30 is estimated at $457.5 billion.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122315505846605217.html

Until then, you're just

Submitted by cicurug (not verified) on Wed, 09/02/2009 - 03:49.

Until then, you're just talking out of both sides of your mouth and using your scare machine to whip seniors who already "have theirs" in terms of government-run insurance into a frothing frenzy to deprive others of similar access....thank you Stop Dreaming Start Action | Rusli Zainal Sang Visioner | kenali dan kunjungi objek wisata di pandeglang | mengembalikan jati diri bangsa | Sukabumi | lowongan kerja | webdesign murah

http://www.christianlouboutinmart.com

Submitted by xinyexinye on Wed, 08/19/2009 - 02:56.

 

 

 

 

  Apr. 3, 2008 (b5media delivered by Newstex) -- When black patent leather pumps and cork wedge sandals are making you yawn, dig deeper in the treasure trove of shoes this Spring for this golden nugget:   The <a href="http://www.christianlouboutinmart.com">Christian Loubutin shoes</a> Strappy Slide is made entirely with golden woven straps, and plenty of gaps to shoe off those pampered feet. The nearly 4 heel offers just enough lift to help you reach those model-like heights, and the signature red sole ensures you have a bona fide Louboutin prize on your hands (feet). <a href="http://www.christianlouboutinmart.com">Christian Louboutin</a> Gold Strappy Slide: $745 available at Bergdorf Goodman Tags: Christian Louboutin, christian  louboutin sandals, christian  louboutin slides, <a href="http://www.christianlouboutinmart.com">Christian Louboutin shoes</a>, Heels, luxury, Slides

  

  http://www.christianlouboutinmart.com

According the AP, President

Submitted by natasharodinova on Wed, 08/19/2009 - 08:17.

According the AP, President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats wants to tax your income, your alcohol consumption, soda and sugary drink consumption as well as establish a national sales tax, entitled the “value-added tax.” Websites for sale

How would you deal with the obesity pandemic?

Submitted by undoctored on Wed, 08/19/2009 - 19:50.

 Tell us what would be wrong with levying a tax on sugary drinks to raise money to improve the health of all?  Do you not know that the consumption of sugary drinks is the leading cause of obesity in young people? Does this concern you? Why shouldn't government (which is you and me and others like us) have a role in helping citizens avoid diseases of any kind?

But Max, you've misdefined the critical terms!

Submitted by dean2 on Fri, 08/21/2009 - 11:19.

Single-payer DOES NOT equal socialized medicine.  Given that distinction is incorrect, your article is seriously flawed.  It's a mistake people on both sides of the aisle are making regularly and it's a big problem.

Socialized medicine, at least in the western world, is ONLY practiced in the UK and in the VA system in the U.S.  To have socialized medicine is to have the government being the only player in the system.  Therefore they own the doctors/nurses/staff, they own the hospitals and clinics, and they're the only insurer.

A single-payer only gets to the insurance portion of it.  While the government does providing funding and have public hospitals (generally attached to university systems), it's not for the purpose of Medicare, but for the purpose of coverage &/or research.  Medicare is a single-payer system, but our government does not employ any doctors/nurses/staff.  Just like a private insurer, our government collects premiums from customers and acts as the payee for private doctors/nurses/staff when they provide services to people who pay Medicare as their insurer. 

The argument in favor of single-payer is that insurance is nothing more than a risk pool, and the larger the pool, the lower the costs.  A larger pool provides the leverage to keep costs down from the suppliers (doctors/nurses/staff, clinics and hospitals, etc).  The cost is shared amongst a larger group of people, and the larger the group, the lower the costs.  It's no different in any way from what any private insurance company does, but it is cheaper because the pool is larger.

Without this distinction, Max, I think your argument is pretty much shot.