Insurers say if Trump follows through with his threats it will "throw markets into turmoil and even cause the type of death spiral Republicans in Congress have long warned against".
The ACA will not fail unless predisent Trump sabotages it. With this tweet he announces his intention to do just that. Yet he will still claim that ObamaCare "imploded" after entering a (Republican caused) death spiral. Because Trump is a dissembling POS with a loyal following of fanatical, moronic, brainwashed rubes eager to believe his lies (i.e. the Trump-aligned Right's "fake news" and "deep state" bullshit).
Barack Obama warned us that Trump is uniquely unqualified. "All the progress we've made these last 8 years goes out the window if we don't win this election" the former president said 5 days before a reality TV show buffon was "elected" (by losing the popular vote). With the help of Kris Kobach and Vladimir Putin.
According to the opening dialogue of Comedy Central's The President Show, Donald Trump is the "45th and FINAL president". Obviously a joke, although one that could turn out to be an accurate prediction. IMO the longer this pathetic, racist, misogynist, narcissistic, low IQ, evil, bullying butthole is allowed to remain president the greater the chance.
Yertle the Turtle (Mitch McConnell) and Eddie Munster (Paul Ryan) would have moved on already if not for (what Bob Cesca refers to as) Trump's "idiot strength" (he is too dumb to know when to give up). Trump has outright violated or blatantly ignored other campaign promises, yet this one is important for him to keep. Likely because the ACA is known by the stupider of his adherents only as "ObamaCare" (they are unaware that the ACA and ObamaCare are the same thing). Everything "Obama" must be destroyed.
Most Congressional Republicans were (and still are) clearly onboard with the bloodthirsty plan to murder Americans by making their health care insurance more unaffordable. I have to wonder what lies they would have spun if their legislation had passed and that inevitably happened. Given the fact that they said their motivation was to bring DOWN health insurance costs. It boggles the mind.
Perhaps they are convinced that Trump's sham Election Integrity Commission means they no longer have to answer to the voters. Trump told us the election was going to be rigged (SWTD #355). Now, as predisent, Trump has tasked Kobach with increasing the rigging of future elections (eliminate even more minorities via Crosscheck). Suppress enough votes and Republicans will win every election going forward. Dead people (despite Republican fantasies) also do not vote.
With President Forrest Trump, every day is like a rancid box of chocolates. You never know what kind of shit you're going to get next ~ Stephen King on Twitter, 4/11/2017.
According to Trump, "we had the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake that you've ever seen" (him and Chinese President Xi), but I say he's full of shit. I have not and will never see this cake he says is "beautiful". Although I'd be more concerned about how it tastes than how it looks.
So Trump says to Maria Bartiromo (re what he told Xi) "we've just launched 59 missiles, heading to Iraq". Iraq? I'll assume he misspoke, but who knows? Maybe he thinks the missiles were going to Iraq instead of Syria.
Then Trump told a bigger lie. "Anybody that uses gases to do that to young children and babies, it's OK", the Orange sexual-assaluter-in-chief says was Chinese President Xi's response when he told him about the 59 Tomahawks. But that is how Trump feels! Or how he SAYS he feels. But I say he lied because I think he launched the missiles to sell the narrative that he didn't collude with Russia to steal the election (SWTD #374).
Selling this narrative is why his idiot son Eric said (following the strike) "If there was anything that Syria did, it was to validate the fact that there is no Russia tie". Bullshit. I'm not saying there is a Russia tie (although there surely does appear to be one, given all the advisors who communicated with Russian officials/are retroactively registering as foreign agents), only that this action doesn't "validate" that there isn't one.
Me, I think that Malcolm Nance's theory that the the Syria strike is a setup to justify lifting Russian sanctions is possible. Despite what some say concerning this theory being "dumbfuckery".
Also, "soon after the meeting ended, Chinese state media scolded Trump for his military action in Syria" (Trump-Xi meeting concluded without gaffe, but criticism soon followed). The STATE media! Proof that Xi did not agree with Trump. Perhaps he just said he did. Or Trump lied. I'm going with the later. He lied about Xi agreeing with him, just as he lied about the freaking chocolate cake!
Because he is a pathological liar. He cannot help himself but to lie about everything! BTW, CNN reports that Trump's Mar-a-Lago kitchen slapped with 13 health violations "including three categorized as high priority ... [which is a violation] which could contribute directly to a foodborne illness or injury and include items such as cooking, reheating, cooling and hand-washing".
Eat the cake and you could die. Via "illness causing bacteria on plates served in the dining room" (quote from 4/13/2017 airing of "All in with Chris Hayes" guest hosted by Joy Reid). Although probably not. Trump and Xi are both OK.
Unlike what would happen if TrumpCare is ever passed. Then we know for sure that people will die. Possibly an extra 50,000 people a year!
It's all part of a determined rewriting of history that casts any Republican president not named Coolidge or Reagan as a progressive and therefore a socialist determined to undermine the Constitution ~ Edmund Morris, author of the book The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, the first volume of what would eventually become a trilogy on the life of the 26th president. It won the 1980 Pulitzer Prize and National Book Award for biography.
George Pataki, the 53rd Republican Governor of New York (from 1995 to 2006) who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal, recently announced he's launching a futile bid for the presidency.
The following is from his announcement speech.
George Pataki: We are here in Exeter, NH, birthplace of the Republican Party.
Abraham Lincoln's party, who saved the Union and brought the promise of freedom to all Americans.
Teddy Roosevelt's party, who fought for the Square Deal, to make sure the rich and powerful couldn't limit the freedom of working Americans.
And Ronald Reagan's party, who restored Americans' belief in ourselves and in the transcendent value of freedom; the freedom that has given us the greatest country the world has ever known; the freedom a man named Amos Tuck, declared as the foundation of that party right here in Exeter, NH.
The same freedom that I fear is at risk today from an ever more powerful, ever more intrusive government in Washington.
It is to preserve and protect that freedom for us that I stand here today. It is to preserve and protect that freedom for future generations that I rise. It is to preserve and protect that freedom that I am announcing I am a candidate for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. (Read the speech George Pataki gave in Exeter, N.H., the Buffalo News 5/28/2015).
Pataki's bid for the presidency is futile because it's mostly the Base that turns out to vote in primary elections, and the Republican Base is socially conservative. But that isn't what is most bizarre. What is even more bizarre is that Pataki mentions two past presidents who could not be farther apart ideologically in his announcement that he's going to run for prez.
Teddy Roosevelt (president from 1901 to 1909) fought for the Square Deal to make sure the rich and powerful couldn't limit the freedom of working Americans... because he was a Progressive Republican. Wikipedia notes that "by 1907, his agenda had worn thin his mandate with Congressional Republicans". Because the GOP had become more Conservative (moving away from it's Progressive roots) TR split with the Republicans to form his own party, the Progressive or "Bull Moose" party in 1912.
Teddy ran for POTUS again that same year but was defeated by the Progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson. After this election TR's Progressive Party faded and died, and the Progressive banner thereafter has been largely born by Democrats.
Failing to make itself a believable third party, the Bull Moose Party ended up losing strength. Its candidates did poorly in 1914. It vanished in 1916 with most members following Roosevelt back into the Republican party. However, the Taft conservatives controlled the party and its platform from 1912 to 1928, and thus some Progressives like Harold L. Ickes joined the steadily more liberal Democratic party. (Wikipedia/United States presidential election, 1912/Consequences).
(Note: Harold L. Ickes was responsible for implementing much of President FDR's New Deal (as Secretary of the Interior) along with Labor Secretary Frances Perkins).
The Republican Party of today is the party of Reagan, a Conservative Republican - both fiscally and Socially [1+2] - which is why George Pataki mentioning two Progressive Republicans (Lincoln then TR) and thirdly Reagan is bizarre.
He of course mentions Lincoln because he freed the slaves, and Republicans like to bring that up to "refute" the fact that LBJ signed Civil Rights Legislation and the vast majority of African Americans vote Democratic. What they're saying is "hey, it was our guy who freed the slaves, Blacks, so why aren't you voting Republican?". Except that Lincoln was a Progressive Republican and Republicans aren't progressive anymore. But a lot of White voters are ignorant of history and do not know this (although African American voters obviously do).
By mentioning TR and his Square Deal, I'm guessing Pataki is attempting a run as a populist Republican, but it won't work. Not for him, anyway [3]. I mean, he knows the current Republican Party worships Reagan, which is why he mentions him, but Reagan stood in opposition to the Progressivism of TR.
Prior to the Reagan presidency, the concept of supply side economics—with its lower personal income tax rates for the wealthy, reduction in the capital gains rates and increased tax responsibilities for the middle and lower classes—was viewed with considerable suspicion by mainstream Republicans. For many, it was, as defined by the first President Bush, "voodoo economics". (The Numbers Don't Lie-Why Lowering Taxes For The Rich No Longer Works To Grow The Economy by Rick Ungar. Forbes, 9/16/2012).
And the modern Republican Party stand opposes the Progressivism of TR to an even greater degree than Reagan.
The GOP's War on Teddy Roosevelt: Here's how crazy our politics have become... Legendary Republican President Theodore Roosevelt is being called a socialist by conservatives like Glenn Beck. The man on Mount Rushmore, the Rough Rider president, is getting caught up in a party-purity dragnet 91 years after his death, an exaggerated symptom of the rabid hunting of RINOs...
If conservatives want to kick TR out, Obama seems ready to welcome him in. As if on cue, the president's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, announced yesterday that the president is now reading the classic The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt by Edmund Morris...
In [the] book, Glenn Beck's Common Sense, the author devoted a chapter to "the cancer of Progressivism" and lays the blame at TR's feet, in addition to Roosevelt's rival Woodrow Wilson. (Article from The Daily Beast by John Avlon, 3/8/2010).
So TR has been kicked out of the Party for his Socialist leanings and for being opposed to everything the modern Republican Party stands for.
...TR was an early apostle of health care reform - not to mention draconian regulation of banks and interstate corporations, inheritance taxes, and protection of the environment by executive order. These things are a matter of record, although TR's progressivism was actually much more radical after he left the presidency in 1909. He didn't call for national health insurance until he ran for a third White House term in the famous Bull Moose campaign of 1912. His platform was so radical that many of its proposals were not enacted until the New Deal administration of his fifth cousin, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. (Article from The Daily Beast by Edmund Morris, 3/9/2010).
Today's GOP loathes FDR and the New Deal because it "succeeded in doing something that Republicans detest from the bottom of their hearts, which is using government as a tool to better the lives of middle-class and poor Americans". With his Square Deal, TR called out the "the representatives of predatory wealth" as guilty of "all forms of iniquity from the oppression of wage workers to defrauding the public".
Huh. Sounds like TR's Square Deal bashed the "job creators". But the only deal Republicans are interested in extending to wage workers is a raw one [4], given their favoring of things like eliminating the minimum wage and union busting via Right-to-Work-for-less laws [5].
And Pataki, while he may be socially liberal, is not Progressive, but a believer in Reagan's Supply side Voodoo Economics.
Pataki has been a long-time advocate of tax cuts during his administration and his time in the state legislature. He signed and sponsored several tax cuts during his first term in office and in addition made spending cuts to the budgets he proposed. (Wikipedia/George Pataki/Fiscal Policy).
In regards to the ACA, Pataki said "ObamaCare is worst law of my lifetime" and that "he would repeal and then replace ObamaCare with a more market-based alternative". WTF? ObamaCare *is* market-based, in that it relies on for-profit insurers [6]. This is the ACA's huge flaw, BTW. We should have gone the TR route of national health insurance provided by the government on a not-for-profit basis [7].
Additionally, Pataki, as governor, strongly opposed spending the necessary monies to ensure the students of his state received a first rate education. According to Pataki "the state constitution only guaranteed a sound education until 8th grade". This despite the fact that High school encompases grades 9-12 [8].
This does not sound Progressive to me. So, was his mention of the Progressive TR is his "I'm running" announcement, suggesting he is a populist Republican, total BS? Was his mention of Reagan, given the fact that Reagan was a Social Conservative (and Pataki is not) transparent pandering? Yes and yes, I say [9].
Also bizarre, given the current GOP's rejection of TR and Progressivism and worship of St. Ronnie for his Voodoo Economic theories involving cutting taxes on the wealthy (the antithesis of Democratic Progressivism)...
Footnotes [1] Real Clear Politics: Ronald Reagan... Social Conservative? (article excerpt) Abortion was not then an issue, but Ronald Reagan's strong stand for life came from this coherent core to his thought. Almost 25 years ago, a mother named Ruth Smith wrote to Reagan to thank him for standing strong for life and family... The fact that abortion was illegal saved her daughter's life, she said... "I just liked Ronald really well. He was put down for his stance for life, and since I had that experience - I had gotten pregnant and had the child and she such a blessing! ...life and marriage... are core conservative issues... (by Maggie Gallagher, 2/9/2011). [2] Wikipedia/Conservatism in the United States: President Ronald Reagan set the conservative standard in the 1980s; in the 2010s the Republican leaders typically claim fealty to it. For example most of the Republican candidates in 2012, "claimed to be standardbearers of Reagan's ideological legacy". Reagan solidified conservative Republican strength with tax cuts, a greatly increased military budget, continued deregulation, a policy of rollback of Communism... and appeals to family values and conservative morality. [3] Even more bizarre than Pataki thinking he can appeal to both populist Republicans AND socially conservative ones, it appears that Rick Santorum - he whose prior campaign was financed by the billionaire Foster Friess - is running as a Republican populist. He'll
have better luck with this deception than Pataki, IMO. [4] In the book by Joe Conason "The Raw Deal: How the Bush Republicans Plan to Destroy Social Security and the Legacy of the New Deal", the author examines how the New Deal is under attack by Republicans. [5]Right-to-Work Laws, Explained (Mother Jones article excerpt): Jimmy Hoffa, the president of the Teamsters, has said that right-to-work proponents are waging a "war on workers," and Martin Luther King Jr. called right-to-work a "false slogan" and said the laws "rob us of our civil rights and job rights". Where does Pataki stand on busting public sector unions or on unionization in general? I admit I am not sure. I Googled for awhile but could not find any definitive answers. Although the NY Firefighters union apparently likes him, but then so do the unions that Scott Walker exempted from his changes in collective bargaining rights (police, firefighters and state troopers but not educators). [6] A number of RW sites also advocate for "market-based" reforms. Heritages says "[The ACA] moves health care in the wrong direction. It puts government, not patients, in charge of individual health care decisions"... To which I say (again) WTF? How are people NOT in charge of their individual HC decisions under the ACA? Heritage also claims that people are "forced" "into government-run health insurance exchanges" but this is a LIE, as people are only required to purchase HC insurance. Buying from the exchange is an OPTION. HC insurance can be purchased outside the exchange if a person so desires. In any case, most Americans get HC insurance through their employers. So, most people aren't using the exchanges (or being "forced" into them, as Heritage claims). [7]Wikipedia notes that "Under the Pataki Administration a number of new health care programs were created focusing on expanding care to the state's poorest citizens. ...Governor Pataki... provided health insurance coverage, under Family Health Plus, to lower income adults [and] children [and later offered] free insurance to families and single adults who had too much income to be covered by Medicaid but could not afford insurance... NY's EPIC program lowers fees and expands eligibility [in regards to medications for seniors]. [There is also] ban on smoking in public places... The NY Times ran an editorial praising his work on health care". So... in regards to HC it appears Pataki is a lot more progressive than your average GOPer. So why not do the same (be more progressive) in regards to education (see below)? [8] From Wikipedia/George Pataki/Fiscal Policy: Pataki's tenure had been marked with the long-standing Campaign for Fiscal Equity suit regarding the state's funding of public education. The CFE sued in order to get more state money for the New York City public schools and to guarantee a sound education for all students. Pataki fought the lawsuit, saying that the state should not pay for the increased funding and that the state constitution only guaranteed a sound education until 8th grade. [9] Pataki may not be a Progressive, but he (Wikipedia excerpt) "has long been regarded as an environmentalist and he has made the environment and open space preservation a top priority of his administration. He has long cited that Theodore Roosevelt is his political hero for his work as a conservationist". So his mention of TR may not have been as BS as I originally thought... although Pataki did specifically mention TR's Square Deal, and not his environmental work. Is there any evidence that Pataki is a Square Deal guy? My opinion is NO, and I stand by my conclusion. It seems a lot of presidents admired TR, including Reagan... and Edmund Morris (whom I quote at the top of this commentary) was commissioned by Reagan to write the Reagan bio "Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan". Does this mean Reagan was a Progressive? The evidence decisively says NO.
Thirty-two of the thirty-three developed nations have universal health care, with the United States being the lone exception ~ quote from True Cost, a blog on American policy, economics, and social issues, as examined through the concept of "true cost".
rAtional nAtion, an individual I frequently disagree with recently made a comment on the blog of Willis Hart which I believe has some merit to it.
rAtional nAtion: I'm wondering if their is something missing here. I recall seeing an actual bill for childbirth back in the day. Total cost just over 300 dollars. Ever shopped for health insurance on the private market? It's interesting that prices for comparable plans Don't vary much and prices never seem to come down. (6/10/2014 AT 7:42pm).
This is in response to a Willis Hart Libertarian-bullplop "the free market can solve all our problems" screed, as follows...
Willis Hart: On the Idiotic Assertion that Competition Won't Bring Down the Cost of Healthcare Because Healthcare is a Necessity... This is an easy one to refute, folks. All that you have to do is compare healthcare spending as percentage of GDP prior to Medicare and Medicaid with that of what it's been since these programs. And here's the evidence. For the first 180 years or so of the republic, healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP was consistently in the low to middle single-digits, and it wasn't until government got massively involved (in the 1960s) that the numbers started skyrocketing.
And the reasons for this are obvious. Whenever government gets into the business of subsiding something, the cost of that something invariably escalates. That, and the third-party payment system acts as a disincentive for folks to shop around and be better consumers, take better care of themselves, etc. I mean, I know that the phrase, "getting rid of the middle man", has gotten a little clicheish over the years but in this instance I gotta go along with it. (6/10/2014 AT 7:23pm).
Like the Word Salad Man I am also wondering if "their" is something missing. Scratch that... I'm positive THERE is something missing... because I know what it is. Missing from Hart's analysis of the healthcare market is the fact that other industrialized nations have Single Payer insurance. And THEIR subsidization is very high. However, their costs are much lower. But Willis foolishly overlooks this fact to make his magical "free market" argument.
Turns out it is Willis Hart's nonsense that is easy to refute. We really SHOULD get rid of the "middle man" and costs really would come down. Except we should replace the middle man who greedily desires huge profits (the private HC insurance companies) and replace them with a middle man that will do the job for no profit. That would be Single payer, a middle man insurance setup (and we do need to do this via insurance) where everything is under the control of We The People.
So, REALLY, why did health care costs being skyrocketing in the 60s? Willis blames government subsidization, and foolishly says it's "obvious" that "whenever government gets into the business of subsiding something, the cost of that something invariably escalates".
Sorry, but no, that was NOT the reason. As Forbes points out, in an article titled the "capitalist case for nonprofit health insurance", the reason for the costs going up was because we switched from a nonprofit to a profit model.
financial writer John Girouard: If you want to know what went wrong with our healthcare system and the best way to fix it, all you have to do is look back a few decades to a time when health care was a community concern, considered as essential as any public utility. ... Blue Cross, the most recognizable name, began in 1929 as a tax-exempt insurer covering a community of teachers in Dallas. Blue Shield was started as a tax-exempt insurer to cover employees of mining and lumber companies in the Pacific Northwest, with a group of local doctors providing care through a service bureau. We lost the positive aspects of affiliation health insurance starting in the 1960s and through the 1980s when Wall Street discovered there was money to be made turning nonprofit health insurers, hospitals and nursing homes into investor-owned companies. (Link to the 10/12/2009 article).
The greed of Wall Street is why the United States did not go the route of the other 32 developed nations. By the way, the "True Cost" blog says "the US will have universal health care in 2014 using an insurance mandate system" but this is not true given the SCOTUS decision that individual states could refuse the Medicaid expansion. Those too poor to afford HCI in those states still are without access. As a result 5.7 million Americans in 24 states that could otherwise qualify for Medicaid have been left behind - that is according to the White House website.
In addition, a transition to Single Payer is at least feasible, unlike the foolish Hartster's idea of getting rid of HCI altogether (except for catastrophic coverage). I guess he thinks Congress will be able (and willing) to pass a law getting rid of insurance companies... then what? Some people die during the transition period as people "shopping around" begins to drive down prices.
More likely quite a few people would die before the HC providers realized they had to make due with less profit. Although I imagine a lot of hospitals would close their doors. Yeah, I think a LOT of people would be onboard for this brilliant plan of action... NOT.
And I guess he thinks that when everyone is "shopping around" for the lowest prices, the HC insurers won't gouge for that catastrophic coverage because... who the f*ck knows?
A better idea? Transition to Single Payer by allowing people to buy into Medicare. Slowly the HC insurers would go not for profit or go out of business.
Finally, the assertion that competition won't bring down costs because healthcare is a necessity is not "idiotic", it is TRUE.
Joe Flower, author of Healthcare Beyond Reform: Doing It Right for Half the Cost: For the most part, people do not access health care for fun. Recreational colonoscopies are not big drivers of health care costs. In some cases, such as cosmetic surgery or laser eye corrections, the decision is clearly one the buyer can make. It's a classic economic decision: "Do I like this enough to pay for it?" But for the most part, people only access healthcare because they feel they have to.
[Also]
Risk has no relation to ability to pay. A poor person does not suddenly discover an absolute need to buy a new Jaguar, but may well suddenly discover an absolute need for the services of a neurosurgeon, an oncologist, a cancer center, and everything that goes with it. And the need is truly absolute. The demand is literally, "You obtain this or you die".
A person can shop around for the lowest price, but for a market to be "free" a person must be able to decide NOT to buy at all. Supply and demand drives a free market, and, obviously, when the demand is such that people must buy your product or die, the supplier can charge more. The only thing idiotic here is that someone would be deluded enough (by Libertarian free market fantasies) to believe this is not the case.
Taxation with representation ain't so hot either ~ Gerald Barzan*.
My response to the Libertarian idiocy of equating taxation with armed robbery, as articulated in the following commentary from the blog of a democracy-distrusting and State-hating (and fearing) paranoid... Specifically in regards to the following delusional rant...
Willis Hart: Yeah, Maybe We DO Need Some Gun-Control... Holding a gun to Stan's head and making him pay for Phil's hip replacement seems like such a morally untenable position and, yet, that is exactly what the socialist thugs have been advocating for close to a century now. Running out of other people's money, indeed. (6/7/2014 AT 10:23pm).
Pure stupidity, as well as vehemently anti-government and anti-reality. All governments employ a certain degree of socialism in order that vast swaths of people are not denied the necessities they require to live. Health care is one of those necessities of life. Wealth under a capitalist system tends to concentrate at the top. No economic system is perfect, and this is capitalism's big flaw.
Yet Libertarians DON'T consider it any kind of theft at all when the rich and powerful use their power to steal from workers (by paying them LESS than the value of their labor) in order that they can accumulate even more wealth.
Because of this flaw The People in this representative democracy have decided (via voting) that we need Progressive taxation. In our REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY THE PEOPLE DECIDED THIS BY VOTING! We may be a nation of individuals, but society has needs as well, and it is the job of government to see to it that those needs are met.
Only total morons would refer to the meeting of these needs as "theft", especially given the fact that we all have a vote! What other way SHOULD we see to it that the needs of society are met in the addled brains of these Libertarian stupids?
Run out of "other people's" money? Yeah, that really is something that we should be quite concerned about... much more so than our poverty problem... NOT.
"Wealth, Income, and Power" by G. William Domhoff, Excerpt: In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2010, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 35.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 53.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 89%, leaving only 11% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.1%. (from the website Who Rules America).
No sane individual, in my strong opinion, would spend most of their time worrying about rich people RUNNING OUT of money when the top 1 percent has 35.4% of it. This type of a mindset is a kind of mental illness, I believe, and the Hartster suffers from it GREATLY, writing post after post on his blog in which he ruminates on the plight of the wealthy and imaginary "socialist thugs" who want to steal all that they have.
As someone who worships at the altar of the wealthy, the story put forth by Willis (Stan being forced at gunpoint to pay for Phil's hip replacement surgery) illustrates his serious lack of perspective. This fool is more concerned about the rich Stan "running out of money" than he is that Phil, without that surgery, might end up an invalid lying in his bed - unable to work and contribute to society - and be unable to provide for his family too.
Me, I'd rather get Phil that surgery so he can get back to work and provide for his family - because he will have to go on public assistance in order to LIVE otherwise. I mean, unless this idiot's suggestion is that we let Phil live in excruciating pain... and he and his family lose everything and become homeless - which course of action will actually cost less? (this is an EASY one folks). And it BY FAR the more morally untenable situation as well.
Most people (rich or middle class or in between) realize that paying taxes is a necessary to live in a civilized society. Only a very small number complain and falsely equate taxation to armed robbery. We know them as "Libertarians" (and Republicans, to a lesser extent). This (Libertarianism) is an selfish ideology that says the greedy rich person has little to no responsibility to society as a whole.
Taxes in a democracy are NOT robbery, armed or otherwise... they are what we have all agreed (via voting) is necessary. Taxation with representation might not be so hot either (when you're the one paying), but all rational people acknowledge it's necessity... and they don't moronically suggest "gun control" for federal agents come to collect the taxes of people who refuse to pay.
If you believe that taxes should be lower vote Republican... or Libertarian (which very few people actually do). In regards the various method by which society can be run, democracy is the fairest, so complaints about "robbery" when we're doing things as fairly as we can is beyond ridiculous.
And by "as fairly as we can", I mean within an imperfect system (as there is no such thing as the PERFECT system). Sure, there will always be room for improvement, but (in my strong opinion) people complaining about "robbing" rich people (who have a LARGE percentage of the wealth) when we've all agreed (via elections) to the level of taxation we need... well, I think the term "total moron" might apply to these worshipers of wealth.
*Note: Who is Gerald Barzan? Apparently, aside from him being a humorist, nobody knows.
There is no free market. And, you know what? We are the only country in the world that insists on the notion that there can be a free market. Everybody else has tried something else and it works better. They get better health care results at a much lower cost ~ Steven Brill (dob 8/22/1950) a columnist for Time Magazine, whose most recent story is Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us, which is a "special report" in Time's March 4, 2013 issue. Quote from an interview with Jon Stewart on the 1/16/2014 episode of The Daily Show.
This commentary addresses yet more misinformation from the true believing Libertarian who "is wholly incapable of critical thinking [and] at the very minimum useless". This time the misinformation the non-critical thinker believes to be true when it isn't comes from a commentary he titled "Toward a Free Market Solution to Healthcare and a Hell of a Good Lesson to Learn"...
Libertarian Blogger: Singapore's system is one of personal health savings accounts (mandated but with subsidies for people who need it) supplemented with catastrophic plans for emergencies. (1/14/2014 AT 4:47pm)
Not quite true. Not by a long shot. The method Singapore uses to fund it's health care payments system is significantly dissimilar to health savings accounts (HSAs) as they exist in the United States, as explained in a 10/23/2013 Slate article...
Matthew Yglesias, writing for Slate: [Funding for health care in Singapore is provided for by] Medisave, a compulsory individual medical savings account scheme ...Singaporeans and their employers contribute a part of the monthly wages into the account to save up for their future medical needs. [However] ...these Medisave accounts are deposited into the Central Provident Fund, a government-run investment pool, rather than constituting private savings as we would understand them. HSAs [As they exist in the United Sates], are a tax exemption for savings that are set aside for health care purchases; that's totally different from a mandatory contribution to a sovereign wealth fund. (What Do Conservatives Like About Health Care in Singapore?, Slate 10/23/2013)
This sounds very much like our system currently works. The employee pays a portion and the employer pays a portion. In the US the portion paid by the employer is considered by the employer as a cost of retaining the employee (part of their wage). US health savings accounts, on the other hand, are wholly funded by individuals, are not compulsory, and the accounts are controlled by the individual, not the government. US HSAs and Singapore's Medisave are clearly quite different animals.
Also, as pointed out by Slate, Singaporeans rely heavily on socialized direct payments to hospitals...
Slate: The first tier of protection is provided by heavy Government subsidies of up to 80% of the total bill in acute public hospital wards, which all Singaporeans can access. [The second tier is the Medisave program, and the third tier is] MediShield, a low cost catastrophic medical insurance [program] supplemented if like by private insurance called Integrated Shield. (source same as above).
So, what we have here is a highly socialized health care system that includes publicly-owned highly subsidized hospitals that a Libertarian is holding up as a "free market" solution that we should consider adopting in the United States.
But a 8/23/2013 HuffPo article on the most efficient health care systems in the world (which has Singapore ranking 2nd), says "the unifying factor seems to be tight government control over a universal system". I don't know about you, but "tight government control" does not sound very Libertarian to me.
So, where does the "free market" come in? Mr. LB says it is a "free market" approach in Singapore that keeps costs down via competition... according to this excerpt from Mr. LB's misinformed commentary...
Libertarian Blogger: [the Singapore system] has in fact produced solid healthcare outcomes while at the same time bending the cost-curve. I mean, just take a look at these huge comparisons; hysterectomy - $20,000 in the U.S., $7,000 in Singapore, hip replacement - $43,000 in the U.S., $12,000 in Singapore, heart bypass - $127,000 in the U.S., $22,500 in Singapore... (1/14/2014 AT 4:47pm)
Maggie Mahar, Writing on Her Blog "Health Beat": The government... put price caps on all services and procedures delivered in public hospitals, which provide 80 percent of hospital care in Singapore. These caps apply not only to procedures like surgery, but also to ward stays. So while patients are in fact able to choose between types of accommodations for a price, those prices are fixed by the government (except in the case of private hospitals, which can charge whatever they want). (Health Care in Singapore: What's the Secret? by Maggie Mahar 7/30/2008).
So, no HSAs and no competition keeping prices down (but rather price controls). In addition, one of the reforms instituted by Singapore to keep costs down was to restrict "how fast new, unproven technology can be introduced into government hospitals"... so none of that "cutting edge" technology we're so proud of in the US.
As for the publicly-owned hospitals, Singapore's Ministry of Health website reports the following...
Ministry of Health/Hospital Services: In 2012, there were a total of about 10,756 hospital beds in the 25 hospitals and specialty centres in Singapore, giving a ratio of 2.0 beds per 1,000 total population. About 85% of the beds are in the 15 public hospitals and specialty centres with bed complements between 185 to 2,010 beds.
Does a figure of 85 percent socialized (AKA government owned) when it comes to available hospital beds sound like competition? What about a government that covers 80 percent of the bill, uses price controls to keep costs down, and has a Medicare-like program for the poor called "Medifund aid"... does that sound like the "free market" in action? Or does it sound like Socialism?
To me it sounds like the success of the Singaporean system is due to Socialism. And it also sounds to me like Mr. LB's assertions have been thoroughly debunked. And, while Mr. LB says "Progressive goals but with free market solutions is kind where I am right now", the ACTUAL "hell of a good lesson to learn" from Singapore is that they didn't attain efficiency via free market competition. The REAL lesson to be learned, as Maggie Mahar concludes is...
Maggie Mahar: Singapore's health care experience isn't an argument for consumer-driven medicine, but for targeted government interventions and smart, timely, regulation of over-treatment. (Health Care in Singapore: What's the Secret? by Maggie Mahar 7/30/2008).
Laughably, the latest from Mr. LB is his enthusiasm for "ridiculously low prices" he thinks are the result of free market competition in Singapore (and this from an individual who often cries about doctors not getting paid enough... under Medicaid and potentially the ACA).
But there is no notion that there should be a "free market solution" in any other country in the world (including Singapore) as Steven Brill points out (see quote at the top of this commentary). That Mr. LB believes otherwise is, frankly, delusional.
Are we so heartless that we let the rich live and the poor die and everybody in between become wracked with fear - fear not of disease but of Deductibles? ... What, on the eternal list of priorities, precedes health? What more obvious role could government have than the defense of the life of each citizen? ...Government's essential role [should be to] facilitate it, reduce its cost, broaden its availability, improve my health and yours... ~ Keith Olbermann in an program-length special comment, "Health Care Reform: Saving American Lives", Countdown 10/7/2009.
Even if you aren't a huge Keith Olbermann like I am, you may have heard that Keith abruptly parted ways with MSNBC on 1/21/2011, ending his highly rated news-commentary program for unspecified reasons. From what I've heard differences of opinion with management were to blame.
When Keith and MSNBC agreed on 2/16/2007 that Countdown would continue to air through the 2012 presidential election - MSNBC president Phil Griffin proclaimed, "Countdown is our signature program" and that, "Keith Olbermann is at the core of MSNBC's current success". With this statement Phil Griffin appeared to acknowledge the fact that MSNBC would be nothing without Olbermann. Before Countdown MSNBC had settled on the idea that they should try to be another CNN. It wasn't until after Keith's program proved so successful that MSNBC decided they should become a Left-leaning alternative to Fox.
Given the fact that the success and growth of MSNBC can be directly attributed to Keith Olbermann, I think Mr. Griffin exhibited extremely poor judgment and total lack of appreciation for everything Keith has done for the network. According to Nielsen, Countdown was the network's top-rated program (with 1.1 million viewers). But, instead of doing whatever it took to keep his star happy, Mr. Griffin was apparently looking for an excuse to jettison Keith. Things came to a head after Keith was suspended for making campaign contributions to several Democrats. Phil Griffin told Keith's manager that they were "at war".
Personally I didn't have a problem with Olbermann's donations. Mr. Olbermann isn't, nor does he pretend to be, a non-partial facts-sans-opinion political reporter. Countdown was a political-commentary/opinion program. Phil Griffin realized that the success of Countdown was due to Keith's decidedly Left-leaning opinions, which is why MSNBC added Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz to their lineup. It is also why they replaced Keith with Lawrence O'Donnell - a self-described "practical European socialist" who reportedly said, "I am a socialist. I live to the extreme left, the extreme left of you mere liberals".
One of the rumors regarding Keith's departure was that the "Comcast honchos did not like Keith's defiance and the way he played in the sandbox" (TMZ1/22/2011). Comcast purchased a controlling share (51%) in NBC/Universal (MSNBC's parent company) on 1/28/2011. An LA Time Business article from 1/21/2011 says, "conspiracy theorists [are] speculating that Olbermann jumped before he was pushed by his new bosses".
The Comcast/NBC-Universal merger needed approval from the FCC due to the huge media monopoly the union created. The lone FCC dissenter, Democrat Michael Copps said he thought the deal was "damaging and potentially dangerous" because it "opens the door to the cable-ization of the open Internet [and creates] the potential for walled gardens, toll booths, content prioritization, [and] access fees to reach end users". His conclusion was that, "a stake in the heart of independent content production is now very real".
Given the fact that the MSNBC lineup is still very much Left-leaning, I'm going to conclude that Keith did not leave MSNBC because the Comcast bigwigs wanted him gone. That said, I oppose monopolies and am very disappointed that the FCC approved this merger. I believe this merger threatens Net Neutrality and that Mr. Copps' fears will prove to be accurate.
Some of the haters have stated that the reason they dislike Olbermann was because he has a "big ego". According to what I've read so does Phil Griffin, which is why they clashed. It's my opinion that Phil Griffin (for this reason) was a poor choice to lead MSNBC. Whether or not Keith has a "big ego" - I frankly do not care. The only thing that mattered to me was that I found his program highly enjoyable. When I watched Countdown I was convinced that Keith is a very principled, moral and humble person.
I based this conclusion on a number of observations, the primary one being his strong advocating for government intervention in making sure all Americans have access to quality health care. Keith shared with his viewers his dismay that the only reason he was able to pay for his father's health care needs was because of his good fortune. He made it clear he is truly concerned that so many Americans go bankrupt or die for purely financial reasons, and how wrong it is that health care insurance is a for-profit industry (when, in every other industrialized nation health care insurance is not-for profit). This is why Keith used his MSNBC platform to raise money for free health clinics.
Keith Olbermann is a man with deeply held convictions regarding right and wrong. Like myself, he has sided with the political party that best represents his worldview. The Republican Party opposed (and continues to oppose) the social safety net programs championed by (a majority of) the Democratic Party. The Republican Party hates Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and any flavor of health care insurance reform (as illustrated by the Paul Ryan budget).
Because these things require that the wealthy elites whom they represent pay slightly more in taxes. European socialism, which has worked so well for our friends across the Atlantic (citizens of those countries don't go bankrupt due to medical bills) is somehow "evil". I categorically reject the notion that a higher standard of living for everybody is "evil". Over the years (of watching Countdown) Keith has made it clear to me that we are on the same team. This is the team that opposes oligarchy and is working to build a "we" society, not a "me" society.
This brings me to the reason why I composed this post and put up my webpage dedicated to all things Keith. The "Moderate Independent" blogger Willis Hart is one of the Olbermann haters I mentioned earlier. It appears as though one of the primary objectives of this blogger is to relentlessly bash Keith Olbermann. According to this individual, "Countdown with Keith Olbermann is the most biased news program in television history". Biased in favor of a government that acts in the interest of a majority of it citizens and not just the wealthy elites, I say. Which, in my mind, is a good thing.
I did a Google site search and counted a total of 32 anti-Olbermann posts on his blog. The first was on 02/14/2008 and the latest (but undoubtedly not the last) was posted on 05/15/2011. Also, after examining the 32 posts Google returned, I counted a total of 26 unique insults Mr. Hart hurled at Mr. Olbermann (see list below). Is it just me, or does anyone else find the shear volume of disparaging posts and insults more than a little odd? Especially given that many of the posts reference events on specific episodes? Clearly Hart is (or was before it stopped airing on MSNBC) a regular viewer. There are a number of Fox News pundits which I do not like - which is why I don't watch them (not very often, in any case). So why is William obsessed with Keith Olbermann?
He watches, and criticizes Fox pundits like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, but to nowhere near the extent he criticizes Mr. Olbermann. In fact, early on (back when I did not realize the exact extent to which he loathed Mr. Olbermann) I made some comments defending Keith. That resulted in a post critical of both Keith AND myself (8/27/2010). William accused me of not being a free thinker, and asserted that I was a part of "the problem" due to the fact that I only listened to Olbermann - because he reaffirms what I already believe.
To these accusations I say, baloney! While it is true that like Olbermann because I agree with him (or he agrees with me), I also watch and listen to other commentators who invite guests on their programs who disagree with them. People like Thom Hartmann (who Willis has also bashed). I believe discussion, debate and independent investigation are all valuable methods of arriving at the truth. And I also agree that it is a "big part of our problem these days" that some people only listen to political commentators they agree with - and never consider alternate points of view. Especially given the fact that a lot of these pundits are lying to them (Fox Nooze scumbags).
By the way, the "shrine" to Keith is partially tongue-in-cheek. I don't actually "worship" him. Also, the reference to my "man-crush" comes from a comment made by a rabid Liberal-hating Conservative that frequents Hart's blog (a particularly fulsome individual who calls himself "Rusty S"). He accused me of having a "man-crush" on Keith Olbermann (which I do not). I simply admire Keith (for the previously mentioned reasons) and look forward to his return on Al Gore's Current TV on Monday June 20th 7pm Central time.
After Keith was "fired" I'm sure many on the Right rejoiced. On 1/21/2011 Rusty commented, "Looks like Olbermann Leaned Foward and fell out of the building. Comcast takes over NBC, next day Keithie is gone" (and then he added, "Is fat Ed next?"). Well, now "Keithie" is BACK, so in your face! Not only that, but I heard MSNBC paid him his full salary of 7 million dollars for each of the two years remaining on his contract. If MSNBC had a legitimate reason to "fire" Keith, would they have paid him 14 million to NOT do his show?
Regarding his move to Current TV Mr. Olbermann has said, "I wanted to go to a place where journalistic integrity and analytical honesty would never be compromised by corporate synergy. A place where no one would ever proclaim the ultimate dishonesty: that balancing a lie for every truth was somehow fair. I found that place in Current TV. And even though they told me I'd be in charge, and they gave me a title and an equity stake... I have still been delightfully startled at the free hand I've been given to assemble the finest staff ... in television news".
So, mark your calendars for an event you most surely will not want to miss. You can tape Lawrence O'Donnell's program. The new program will still be called "Countdown with Keith Olbermann". According to Keith the show will "retain it's edge and the pointedness of it's commentary". This sounds like a program that Willis will "love to hate" even more (I suspect he'll be riveted to his set every weeknight at 8pm Eastern time). In the meantime, please enjoy my shrine to Keith Olbermann. Please feel free to share your thoughts regarding this post and my shrine. To return to the shrine in the future please click on the picture of Keith Olbermann on my sidebar.
See Also [1] Keith Olbermann's Special Comment: The Republican Response (a work of satire) by TribeApologist, The Daily Kos 10/8/2009 [2]Health care reform: Saving American lives - An extended special comment by Keith Olbermann, Transcript from the 10/07/2009 airing of "Coundown". [3] Books authored by Keith Olbermann on Amazon.
Video: Senator Al Franken opposed the NBC/Comcast Merger; warns that the merger will lead to higher bills for consumers.
It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place ~ Reagan appointed Florida Federal judge Roger Vision, in his 1/31/2011 ruling declaring the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act unconstitutional.
"A federal judge in Florida ruled Monday that President Barack Obama's entire health care overhaul law is unconstitutional, placing even noncontroversial provisions under a cloud in a broad challenge that seems certain to be resolved only by the Supreme Court"; according to a 1/31/2011 Huffington Post article. The judge's ruling, which included an obvious shout-out to the Tea Party, was characterized by the White House as "a plain case of judicial overreaching".
Four court rulings have thus far been handed down - with two judges upholding the health care legislation and two judges ruling against it. The two ruling in favor of ObamaCare were Democratic appointees, while the two ruling against were Republican appointees. A 2/1/2011 CNN reporter believes the case could head to the Supreme Court "as soon as later this year". How the Supreme Court will rule is "far less predictable than it might seem from the ruling by Judge Vinson".
A 2/4/2011 article from Global Research points out that while "The five Republican-appointed judges certainly embrace the political rhetoric of the ultra-right ... the entire court, including the four Democratic appointees, has been assiduously pro-corporate in their ruling[s]".
How the Supreme Court ultimately decides, I believe, will depend on what the health insurance companies truly desire, and not the what the Tea Party wants. Will the health insurance corporations want to overturn a law that mandates virtually every American purchase their product? Businessweek says "Insurers and other health care companies view the mandate as the law's bedrock - and the source of new profits".
Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) says, in regards to elements of the legislation that he agrees with, "[they] need to be preserved, need to be cuddled, need to be snuggled, need to be promoted and need to be implemented". Because "Frist has a fortune in the millions of dollars, most of it the result of his ownership of stock in Hospital Corporation of America, the for-profit hospital chain founded by his brother and father", my guess would be that the individual mandate is one of the "strong elements" he agrees with.
So, while FreedomWorks CEO Matt Kibbe and Utah's Tea Party Senator Mike Leebelieve ObamaCare will be overturned, I think the Tea Partiers, including those who responded to a recent World Net Daily poll (see below), may end up quite disappointed.
On the other hand, we know that (at least) two Supreme Court justices are sympathetic to the Tea Party. Antonin Scalia met with the House Tea Party caucus on 1/24/2011. Law professor and MSNBC contributor Jonathan Turley observed that the closed-door get-together, "suggests an alliance between the conservative members of the court and the conservative members of Congress".
And then there's Ginny Thomas, wife of SCOTUS justice Clarence Thomas, who "started a nonprofit Tea Party-affiliated lobbying group, Liberty Central [to oppose the] leftist tyranny of President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats". Ginny's group has lobbied against the health care legislation.
Can the House Republicans, which recently voted to repeal the "job killing" health care legislation, count on their activist Supreme Court allies to rule ObamaCare unconstitutional, or will the activists on the Supreme Court back their corporate buddies instead? I can't find anyone who believes with certainty the outcome will be one over the other. What do you think?
I was asked if I could be tough, because I was going to be telling doctors that they couldn't do things and that I would be expected to keep a 10% denial rate. ...we were told that the medical reviewer that had the highest denial rate was going to receive a bonus at Christmas ~ physician Linda Peeno, in a 6/21/2007 interview with Democracy Now's Amy Goodman, recounting her experienes working as a medical reviewer for Humana in the 1990s.
An email I received yesterday from the astroturf Teabagger billionaire-funded FreedomWorks says, "This is our moment. The House of Representatives will be voting next week on a FULL REPEAL of the 2,000 page, job-killing ObamaCare law. Send your letter to Congress to show your support! This is a huge chance for the Tea Party movement to start reversing the Democrats' big government agenda which threatens to bankrupt America". According to FreedomWorks the House will debate and vote on the bill on Wednesday January 12th.
I clicked the link and was shown a sample letter which FreedomWorks wanted me to sign my name to and forward to my members of Congress. The sample letter, which FreedomWorks said I could make edits to, read as follows...
FreedomWorks Sample Letter: As a constituent, I urge you to vote Yes on H.R. 2, the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law" Act. Voters spoke loud and clear on Nov. 2nd: No government takeover of health care. This is an unparalleled opportunity to show Americans that this Congress means business and will stick to the promises made on the campaign trail, however difficult they may be.
We need to fully repeal ObamaCare because it will kill jobs, bankrupt the government, drive up everyone's health insurance costs, put bureaucrats in charge of our health care, and ruin the world's best health care system. Our government can't afford the $2.6 trillion price tag - and our families can't afford the taxes and sky-high insurance premiums that come with this massive bill.
Congress needs to focus sensible reforms like tax credit vouchers for the uninsured, and reforms to the individual market. These are reforms that are affordable, and don't grow the size of government. With 60% of Americans in opposition to ObamaCare, the time to repeal is now. Please vote Yes on H.R. 2.
Edited letter I forwarded to my Congresspersons: As a constituent, I urge you to vote NO on H.R. 2, the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law" Act. This bill is a complete joke, and put forward for political reasons only - which is made clear by the name of the act. The health care legislation passed in the last session will not kill jobs, is not a "government takeover" of the health care industry, and will save money (according to the nonpartisan CBO). The majority of Americans either are in favor of this bill or think it didn't go far (wasn't progressive) enough. A single-payer system would qualify as a "government takeover", but that option was never on the table, even though it would have been the most cost effective.
In the last election people identifying with the Tea Party turned out and voted. Many Obama voters, disgusted by Republican obstructionism in the last session of Congress, stayed home. Republicans are gravely mistake if they believe, and conduct themselves as if, they were given a mandate. A vote to repeal the health care legislation will be a vote against the wishes of the majority of Americans. As a constituent, I urge you to take a stand against obstructionism and work with your fellow congresspersons and the White House to get our economy back on track and not waste time voting on ridiculous legislation that has no chance of becoming law.
Finally, if you are truly interested in lowering the cost of health care please support legislation that opens up Medicare to any member of the public (regardless of age) that wishes to buy into it. The Democratic health care legislation does not need to be repealed to further bring down costs.
Sign the Petition: If you wish to sign the FreedomWorks petition click here. Fee free to use my letter in any way you see fit (by attaching your name to it or by modifying it).
Freedom of enterprise was from the beginning not altogether a blessing. As the liberty to work or to starve, it spelled toil, insecurity, and fear for the vast majority of the population. If the individual were no longer compelled to prove himself on the market, as a free economic subject, the disappearance of this freedom would be one of the greatest achievements of civilization ~ Herbert Marcuse, a German-Jewish philosopher, political theorist and sociologist. Celebrated as the "Father of the New Left".
Instead of creating yet another monstrous government bureaucracy, what about mandating that health insurance be provided by nonprofits? I mentioned the idea at the end of my 10/19/2009 post. Oddly enough, a couple of bloggers I thought were conservative seemed to think this was a good idea.
This is decidedly not a good idea Conservatives! If you don't understand why, well... maybe you're not as Conservative as you thought you were.
It should be obvious that not for profit health insurance companies would eliminate the profit incentive! Paying health care insurance CEOs tens of millions of dollars ensures you get the cream of the crop (talent wise). So what if people have to die in order for those CEOs to make their millions? Those who die are lazy good-for-nothings (or, if they are children, then their parents are). They don't deserve to live - that is, if the reason they died is because they couldn't afford insurance.
If they died because they had insurance but the insurance cartel refused to pay... I don't know what the rational is. I'm going to guess denial. That could never happen, because in the world of the "free market" contracts must be honored. If you signed a contract agreeing to arbitration when you're gang raped? The contract must be honored. Why involve the authorities? What the hell do we even need "authorities" for? Privatize the police. Those who have contracts with the private police companies will get protection. Those who do not pay (for whatever reason) have only themselves to blame. The free market provides for those who provide for themselves.
If an insurance company does deny coverage? The contract will address this type of situation. It must be because the "sick" individual is trying to cheat the insurance company. The scammer failed to disclose that he had a "pre-existing condition". Or the type of treatment the sickey is seeking is "experimental". The insurance cartel death panel "profit protection" panel will set you straight on that. "Experimental" treatments are not covered. Cheaters with pre-existing conditions are not covered.
If you're a right-wing Christian Conservative you should acknowledge the fact that a pre-existing condition is a sign from God that you don't deserve medical care. If God favors you he'll provide a sign by making damn sure you are not cursed with one, or provide you with enough money to pay for treatment out of your own pocket. Prosperity theology "implies both that people who are favored by God will be materially successful, and also that materially successful people are successful because God favored them".
Does this not dovetail nicely with the idea that the Bible can be used to justify homophobia? It can be used to justify greed as well. Certainly this is proof that Jesus believes in the free market. If you're a sickey whose treatment has been denied, or whose insurance policy has cancelled - or worse yet, if you can't afford to purchase insurance - you must acknowledge that the free market has spoken. You must acknowledge that the free market has decided that you should die. Sacrificed for the profit of others - those who have been blessed by God.
Free markets equal free people, after all. People who are free to die, that is. Those who live by the market must also die by the market. That's the way Jesus would want it.
.........................
I don't believe that converting the current insurance cartels into non-profits is within the realm of possibility. I support opening Medicare to whoever wishes to buy into it. And providing subsidies to those who can't afford the to pay the Medicare rates by increasing the premiums on those who can afford to buy in by a nominal amount, and raising taxes on individuals making more than $250,000. Such a plan could easily be deficit neutral. And it could be passed with 51 votes through budget reconciliation.
If that makes me a socialist, then so be it. I find the Republican plan, "Don't get sick, but if you do - die quickly", morally reprehensible. As someone who considers himself a progressive Christian, I don't see how conservatism and Christianity are compatible.
Business is looking at the Democrats and Republicans and saying, how can we make them one party? ... How can we create that? Well, we pay off everybody... What we're seeing in the United States is ... a takeover of the federal government by business ~ Thom Hartmann, on his radio program (10/19/2009).
The Democratic plan is to mandate coverage while putting in place zero regulations ensuring prices don't spiral out of control. Millions of new customers and hundreds of millions in subsidies sounded good to the health insurance cartels, and for a while it looked like they were on board. Then the Finance Committee scaled back the penalities for not buying and the health insurers got scared. Sure, their profits would still soar under the Baucus plan, but was this the MOST they could get?
They are already doing quite well gouging the American public on their own. Plus, if they can't deny coverage for pre-existing conditions anymore what will stop people from going without coverage, paying the fine, signing up for coverage when they needed it, and then dropping it when they no longer did? That is the argument I've heard. It may work for a lot of medical issues, although I doubt someone without insurance can wait for the paperwork to be processed if he has a "pre-existing" broken leg. It is a flaw nonetheless.
Clearly a threat was in order. So a report was commissioned a report to warn the Democrats by how much they'd jack up rates if they didn't get what they wanted. Which I'd assume would be the best aspects of the Democratic plan - which is all good except for the flaw I already mentioned, plus the best aspects of the Republican plan.
What is the Republican plan to raise the health insurance cartel's profits you may ask? Do they even have one? Business as usual is the answer you may have already guessed, but that is not all there is to it. There are two other methods I hear mentioned frequently that could boost profits. Not as much as if coverage were mandated, but mandates aren't consistent with the Republican Party's "individualist" image. Plus they certainly can't - even if their goal of boosting the health insurer's profits is the same - cooperate with Democrats.
Buying health insurance across state lines will increase competition and drive down prices. Or, more accurately, that's how they're selling deregulation this time around. Contrary to the Republican claim that deregulation will lead to lower prices and better service as companies compete to win our business, all it really does is allow participants to "come to an understanding" regarding a minimum amount of gouging. With deregulation also comes consolidation, which makes this all the easier.
This is known as a "race to the bottom", meaning that whichever state regulates the health insurers the LEAST will become their new base of operations. Which is why all the credit card companies are located in Deleware. And, don't forget that it was the deregulation of the banks that precipitated the sub prime mortgage crisis that crashed our economy. Do the Republicans really want to go down this road again? I don't know. But talking about it can't hurt. It gives the impression that they have good ideas - the Democrats just aren't listening.
The second "cost lowering" talking point Republicans continually push is tort reform, or limiting settlement in personal injury cases (this includes medical malpractice). According to trial lawyers tort reform is "a movement to tilt the playing field in the courts towards the defense so that big companies are more insulated from lawsuits by individual consumers". It makes sense that Republicans would want to protect their (real) constituents - corporations and the wealthy - by limiting the little guy's ability to sue. Call the lawsuits "frivolous" and mention the woman who sued McDonald's because she spilled hot coffee in her lap and you've got a sound argument.
Except that personal injury lawsuits only make up a small percentage of cases filed in a given year - 10 percent or less, according to Stephanie Mencimer, author of "Blocking the Courthouse Door: How the Republican Party and its Corporate Allies are Taking Away Your Right to Sue".
Medical bills, insurance companies who refuse to pay, living the rest of your life as a disabled person - these things cost a LOT of money. Not going for as large a dollar amount as you can get really wouldn't be wise, especially since many of these settlements are later reduced. These cases should be decided on an individual basis - juries shouldn't be straight-jacketed by arbitrary caps.
The 2009 CBO analysis reports that, even if "stringent" tort reform were adopted, total national health care spending would be reduced by a mere 0.5 percent.
In my opinion the potential harm that could come from limiting an individual's right to seek legal redress is not worth the savings. There are much more effective ways of saving money, such as allowing anyone to buy into Medicare or mandating that private health insurance companies operate on a not-for-profit basis (as they do in Switzerland).
The Bill it (the Senate) sends to the President may as well be called "The Insurance Industry Profit Protection and Enhancement Act" ~ Wendell Potter, Former Vice President of corporate communications at CIGNA, testifying before Congress on 9/11/2009
First Representative Wilson called the President a liar, and now, Senator Max Baucus, after listening to the President's instructionrequest plea for the inclusion of a limited public-option in the health insurance reform legislation, submits a bill that says, in effect, "fu*k you" to Barack Obama - and to the American people.
Keith Olbermann and Wendell Potter discuss the health insurance reform bill - an excerpt from the September 16, 2009 broadcast of Countdown: (edited for brevity and clarity)
Keith: Good Evening from New York. If it were up to Senator Max Baucus, middle class families would be forced, literally forced to pay far more on healthcare than they already do right now. 13 percent of what they make could be deducted directly from their paychecks and mainlined to insurance companies. A so-called "Max tax", that would be handed over to the very industry that has given the chairman of the finance committee three million dollars in campaign donations. And that thirteen percent payroll deduction does not count co-pays and deductibles. See a doctor for any reason, or get sick, and you can expect to pay nearly $12,000 a year more.
Our 5th story in the countdown - only three million dollars to chairman Baucus? In exchange for a bill, in which the health insurance industry is guaranteed to make billions upon billions? We know what you are Senator Baucus, we're now arguing about the price.
Mr. Baucus today releasing his version of the healthcare reform bill that would give coverage to 30 million Americans who currently do not have any, first by extending Medicaid, the state federal insurance program for the poor, next by providing government subsidies to modest income families and individuals to help them buy over the counter coverage. Only those who make less than 300 percent of the poverty level would fall into either of those categories.
That means any individual making more than $32,500, or any family of four making more than $66,150 is on their own, subject to the "Max tax" of 13 percent. For a family making $66,150 that is $700 a month they'd have to pay. If the family does not buy insurance they would be fined nearly half that amount.
Some other nuggets in the Baucus bill - private insurers would be allowed to charge older individuals up to 5 times as much for coverage. You heard that right, 5 times. Forget about pulling the plug on Grandma, Max Baucus wants to help the insurance industry steal her purse. Also in the bill, anyone with pre-existing conditions would go into a high-risk pool. But the provision says they would need to be uninsured for 6 months before they could even gain access to that pool. Exactly what you want for those who are already sick.
For more on what's in the Baucus bill lets turn to a veteran of the insurance industry, Wendell Potter, former communications director at CIGNA, now senior fellow at the Center for Media and Democracy. Much thanks again for your time tonight sir.
WP: Thank you very much.
Keith: We anticipated the Baucus bill would be bad, it would be difficult to swallow - but a bill that actually makes healthcare more expensive for the middle class, and essentially taxes them off the start, 13 percent. And then starts talking about what you're actually paying to see a doctor. How could it possibly be this stunningly awful?
WP: You know, I can't imagine. I read the framework of the bill before this was actually released. That was bad enough, but to see what it really looks like... I got an email from a medical director I used to work with that said that Karen Ignagni must have been doing a jiggity-jig when she saw this. Karen is the head of the trade group for the health insurance companies. It really is just an absolute gift to the health insurance industry.
Keith: Was this bill more or less written by the insurance lobby, or did somebody just anticipate their needs and decide to double them?
WP: You know that's a good point. It looked at first like it might have been written by the lobbyists and the lawyers for the health insurance industry, but I don't think they would have been quite this audacious to have expected something like this.
Keith: If your family's income is in the $60,000 range and you don't hand over your 13 percent, the government could fine you $3,800 under Baucus' plan. You get no public option to turn to. You have no leverage to negotiate a lower price. Is this not exactly the opposite of the premise of the choices that President Obama discussed just last week, let alone in the entire buildup to this?
WP: Oh absolutely the opposite. And the President said during his address to the joint session of Congress that he wanted to make sure that no family would go bankrupt or lose their homes because of high medical expenses. This would guarantee that more and more of us would be in that boat. It's just absolutely ludicrous to think that this would be something that the President would sign.
Keith: You could go bankrupt without seeing the doctor. $13,000 subtracted from an income in the $60,000 range is often make or break for a family with that kind of an income in this kind of America.
WP: Right, it is. Another thing to keep in mind is that people who really can't afford those premiums will get subsidies from taxpayer dollars that will go straight to the insurance companies as well. So they win, win, win and we lose, lose, lose.
My Commentary: This bill is nothing more than a shameless shakedown by Max Baucus and the so-called "bipartisan six" on behalf of their corporate donors. Or, rather, an attempted shakedown. It was mentioned on Countdown that the Senate Democratic leadership is not happy, and that this bill is essentially DOA. And yet, according to the Washington Post, "the legislative dance is just starting". Senator "pull the plug on grandma" promises to "keep working until we get it right". I suppose that means he thinks that the bill isn't generous enough to the Healthcare Insurers?!
