You're now on the archive server. Commenting has been disabled.
Rep. Paul Ryan Gives Barack Obama A Lesson On How To Avoid Smoke And Mirrors, Double Counting And Ponzi Schemes "That Would Make Bernie Madoff Proud"
Rep. Paul Ryan slams Obama's healthcare reform in one of the most concise critiques of the proposed plan. Furthermore, he observes some of the critical flaws in the Obama plan, which contrary to the President's frequent appearances on TV discussing the "lies" promulgated about his proposal (and even misguidedly allowing citizens to temporarily rat each other out in witch hunts straight out of the Stazi or Sekuritate playbook), is in fact itself full of - inconsistencies, for lack of a better word.
Quoting Ryan:
Mr. President, you said health care reform is budget reform. You're right. We
agree with that. Medicare, right now, has a $38 trillion unfunded liability.
That's $38 trillion in empty promises to my parents' generation, our generation,
our kids' generation. Medicaid's growing at 21 percent each year. It's
suffocating states' budgets. It's adding trillions in obligations that we have
no means to pay for it... If you take a look at the CBO analysis, analysis from your chief actuary...this bill does not control costs. This bill does not reduce deficits. Instead,
this bill adds a new health care entitlement at a time when we have no idea how
to pay for the entitlements we already have. What has been placed in front of [the CBO] is a
bill that is full of gimmicks and smoke-and-mirrors. Now, what do I mean when I
say that? Well, first off, the bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a
trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars,
to pay for six years of spending. Now, what's the true 10-year cost of this bill in 10 years? That's $2.3
trillion. It does couple of other things. It takes $52 billion in higher Social
Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that's really reserved for
Social Security. So either we're double-counting them or we don't intend on
paying those Social Security benefits. It takes $72 billion and claims money from the CLASS Act. That's the
long-term care insurance program. It takes the money from premiums that are
designed for that benefit and instead counts them as offsets. The Senate Budget Committee chairman said that this is a Ponzi scheme that
would make Bernie Madoff proud... You can't say that you're using this money to either extend Medicare
solvency and also offset the cost of this new program. That's double
counting.
All this and much more below.
Full Ryan transcript from the WaPo:
BOEHNER: Mr. President -- Mr. President, Mr. Ryan is going to open this conversation on behalf of us.
RYAN: Thank you.
Look, we agree on the problem here. And the problem is health inflation is driving us off of a fiscal cliff.
Mr. President, you said health care reform is budget reform. You're
right. We agree with that. Medicare, right now, has a $38 trillion
unfunded liability. That's $38 trillion in empty promises to my
parents' generation, our generation, our kids' generation. Medicaid's
growing at 21 percent each year. It's suffocating states' budgets. It's
adding trillions in obligations that we have no means to pay for it.
Now, you're right to frame the debate on cost and health inflation.
And in September, when you spoke to us in the well of the House, you
basically said -- and I totally agree with this -- I will not sign a
plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future.
Since the Congressional Budget Office can't score your bill, because
it doesn't have sufficient detail, but it tracks very similar to the
Senate bill, I want to unpack the Senate score a little bit.
And if you take a look at the CBO analysis, analysis from your chief
actuary, I think it's very revealing. This bill does not control costs.
This bill does not reduce deficits. Instead, this bill adds a new
health care entitlement at a time when we have no idea how to pay for
the entitlements we already have.
Now, let me go through why I say that. The majority leader said the
bill scores as reducing the deficit $131 billion over the next 10
years. First, a little bit about CBO. I work with them every single day
-- very good people, great professionals. They do their jobs well. But
their job is to score what is placed in front of them. And what has
been placed in front of them is a bill that is full of gimmicks and
smoke-and-mirrors. Now, what do I mean when I say that?
Well, first off, the bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half
a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a
trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending.
Now, what's the true 10-year cost of this bill in 10 years? That's $2.3 trillion.
It does couple of other things. It takes $52 billion in higher
Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that's
really reserved for Social Security. So either we're double-counting
them or we don't intend on paying those Social Security benefits.
It takes $72 billion and claims money from the CLASS Act. That's the
long-term care insurance program. It takes the money from premiums that
are designed for that benefit and instead counts them as offsets.
The Senate Budget Committee chairman said that this is a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.
Now, when you take a look at the Medicare cuts, what this bill
essentially does -- it treats Medicare like a piggy bank. It raids a
half a trillion dollars out of Medicare, not to shore up Medicare
solvency, but to spend on this new government program.
Now, when you take a look at what this does, is, according to the
chief actuary of Medicare, he's saying as much as 20 percent of
Medicare's providers will either go out of business or will have to
stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries. Millions of seniors who are on --
who have chosen Medicare Advantage will lose the coverage that they now
enjoy.
You can't say that you're using this money to either extend Medicare
solvency and also offset the cost of this new program. That's double
counting.
And so when you take a look at all of this; when you strip out the
double-counting and what I would call these gimmicks, the full 10- year
cost of the bill has a $460 billion deficit. The second 10-year cost of
this bill has a $1.4 trillion deficit.
And I think, probably, the most cynical gimmick in this bill is
something that we all probably agree on. We don't think we should cut doctors 21 percent next year. We've stopped those cuts from occurring
every year for the last seven years.
We all call this, here in Washington, the doc fix. Well, the doc
fix, according to your numbers, costs $371 billion. It was in the first
iteration of all of these bills, but because it was a big price tag and
it made the score look bad, made it look like a deficit, that bill was
-- that provision was taken out, and it's been going on in stand-alone
legislation. But ignoring these costs does not remove them from the
backs of taxpayers. Hiding spending does not reduce spending. And so
when you take a look at all of this, it just doesn't add up.
And so let's just -- I'll finish with the cost curve. Are we bending the cost curve down or are we bending the cost curve up?
Well, if you look at your own chief actuary at Medicare, we're
bending it up. He's claiming that we're going up $222 billion, adding
more to the unsustainable fiscal situation we have.
And so, when you take a look at this, it's really deeper than the
deficits or the budget gimmicks or the actuarial analysis. There really
is a difference between us.
And we've been talking about how much we agree on different issues,
but there really is a difference between us. And it's basically this.
We don't think the government should be in control of all of this. We
want people to be in control. And that, at the end of the day, is the
big difference.
Now, we've offered lots of ideas all last year, all this year.
Because we agree the status quo is unsustainable. It's got to get
fixed. It's bankrupting families. It's bankrupting our government. It's
hurting families with pre-existing conditions. We all want to fix this.
But we don't think that this is the answer to the solution. And all of the analysis we get proves that point.
Now, I'll just simply say this. And I respectfully disagree with the
vice president about what the American people are or are not saying or
whether we're qualified to speak on their behalf. So...
(LAUGHTER)
... we are all representatives of the American people. We all do
town hall meetings. We all talk to our constituents. And I've got to
tell you, the American people are engaged. And if you think they want a
government takeover of health care, I would respectfully submit you're
not listening to them.
So what we simply want to do is start over, work on a clean- sheeted
paper, move through these issues, step by step, and fix them, and bring
down health care costs and not raise them. And that's basically the
point.
h/t Nihilarian
»
- 20083 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
Good heads up work by Rep. Ryan ... now if only facts were what counts.
Obama's biggest problem with his "healthcare" bill is that truth isn't on his side. The vast majority of it doesn't pass the common sense test.
Obama has a rough time when his bad policies need to be explained to people who aren't in-party, simpletons.
Whereas the GOP's only proferred solution is corruption. The sole alternative they've offered is essentially deregulating health insurance. How'd that work out with WallSt, or the airlines?
There is no law against selling insurance across state lines as it is - in fact, many isurance companies already do it. The GOP is lying to your face.
Obama's as corrupt as the GOP. But don't try to sell the line that the GOP cares about Americans.
You stupid commie! Yes, you can buy across state lines, but only from companies licensed by the state. What is meant by being allowed to buy across state lines is being able to avoid various mandates by individual states. It's the mandates that drive the cost of insurance. So you made a distinction without a difference, the stupid commie that you are, trying to avoid anything that smacks of the free market.
As for Wall Street, it would be perfectly fine not to regulate financial institutions if we didn't have FDIC. It would also be great not to have Fannie, and Freddie, and all the "lend to the poor and disadvantaged" laws on the books. So when you start out with regulation, you have to have more to avoid theft. If you don't have FDIC, why do I care if all of these financial institutions disappear from the face of the earth? There is no fucking need to bail anyone out unless you already obligated the tax payers in the first place.
It's stupid idiots like you who can't keep regulated and unregulated topics straight that point at the result of regulation and confused it with the cause.
It seems you rushed through the article and did not read the last sentence. I'll quote it here to save you the trouble of scrolling back:
"So what we simply want to do is start over, work on a clean- sheeted paper, move through these issues, step by step, and fix them, and bring down health care costs and not raise them. And that's basically the point."
Try thinking before you post.
Ryan presents no alternative. Start over? That's a diversionary tactic. Where's he been the last 16 years, that he has no ideas to bring to the table? Think he's just too dumb? Of course not. He does have an agenda. He wants to end state control of health insurance policies.
Ryan's argument that we should "allow selling of insurcnae policies across state lines" is disingenuous from the start. Why? Because you can already sell policies across state lines. No prohibition against that whatsover - in fact, many if not most companies already do sell policies in states other than their home office.
Problem is that you have to conform to the regulations of that state. You can't deny coverage for horseshit reasons, you can't stall paying forever by endless circular paperwork, and you have to cover a basic set of medical conditions. And THAT'S what bothers the big insurance companies. Again, there's absolutely nothing preventing sales across state lines now. So when Ryan and his ilk say they want to "sell across state lines to get Americans a better deal", he's lying from the moment he opens his mouth.
Prove it. In NC its absolutely untrue. Where are your facts?
Oh fuck me. The Republicans got us into this massive debt, and now they are concerned with deficits....The grand ol' party who allowed outsourcing, tax cuts for the wealthy, TARP, bailouts, 8 years of war, bloating the size of Government, unbridled healthcare premium increases etc.---yeah, they're gonna school Obama on fiscal responsibility???
I call bullshit. Pure partisan politics. Ruin the Nation, then fight any attempts to repair it tooth and nail.
NAFTA was Clinton, the immigration Act of 1965 was Ted Kennedy. Blame those responsible.
Clinton: budget surplus, way lower unemployment, fewer federal employees, less crime.
Bush: huge budget deficit, higher unemployment, huge increase in number of federal employees, more crime.
The facts suck, don't they?
You are fooling yourself if you think either of these two corrupted parties are attempting to "fix" this nation for you and me.
A pox on both the Republicans and Democrats.
so true. They're both criminal organizations
+1000
People that still believe in the two-party system are utter morons. For those that call themselves "Democrats" or "Republicans", let me say this... A lot of us consider you to be among the most gullible of suckers.
Real saps. Just pigeons ripe to be taken.
A lot of us consider you totally useless for any real problem-solving. You offer some cynical claptrap and no real solutions. "Republicans" offer $100 billion deficits and "Democrats" offer $1 trillion deficits. "Republicans" create new $1 trillion unfunded liabilities, and "Democrats"
offer new $10 trillion unfunded liabilities plus government control over 1/6th of the economy. No difference at all.
This is the two party system
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChahP31qh9k
or even better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWKsR0gugww
Trust me. Look at all the snide condescending comments towards party drones here. I think it's fairly safe to say that a lot of us think that you and your counterparty are the enemy.
Now on to your rant....
Typical inane bullshit. If this isn't pot-kettle. So what are you offering here? Same partisan, cliched thinking, "lesser of two evil" horseshit.
Let me get this straight "Republicans are driving the national bus towards the cliff at a much slower speed. Vote Republican".
Typical two-party circle jerk thinking. Here's a solution for you. Don't vote two-party. Since both parties are fucking up the nation, try either NOT voting, or vote third party.
Yes, don't vote. You heard me. If you don't like even the 3rd party candidates then don't vote. But for God's sake. STOP GIVING CREDENCE TO THIS TWO CRIME FAMILY SYSTEM BY ADDING YOUR VOTE TO THE COUNT.
When you do that, you add a "tick", a vote count to the total of your beloved Republicraps. That total count is then used as justification, a claim of public support for their horseshit.
You'd think by now that you'd have "figured it out". You haven't. The sole difference between the two parties is merely the disposition of the pillage.
Put some true third-party members in CONgress. Sure, not enough to fillibuster, duh!, but enough members to raise holy hell where they can't be ignored and where they rouse the public.
Ohh, you can't even put up a decent strawman. They both suck, they're both damaging to the econony and the constitution (nice one on Patriot Act, ubersturmfuhrer).
Less sucky" is not a campaign to be proud of. And you say I don't offer any real solutions. ROFLMAO.
Come back when you've got an original and useful idea, groupie. Thanks.
BTW. Graeme, Leech, Bliley was the ultimate bi-partisan cornholing of the middle class, was it not?
OK, fuck you.
The bulk of our debt is in entitlement programs which were designed by the Left.
As a member of Generation X, I say fuck what those assholes in the 1960's came up with, I'd like to be able to spend my money in the way I choose, not to subsidize the health care Ponzi scheme that the Left decided to LIE about the cost for to get it passed.
Look at the original cost estimates for Medicare, compare them to the actuals, then get back to us on who got us into this massive debt. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars are a rounding error compared to the Left's massive entitlement programs.
Half-educated self-righteous clowns like you who think they know everything have been the downfall of this country.
as if the right had no opportunity in the last 50 years to reform "what those assholes in the 1960's came up with"...come on now are you serious?...both left and right have raped this country for decades and now we and our children must pay..i think you resemble your last comment more than you know...
Eh, the left raped it, the right just held it down, or, at best, thought about leaving the scene to get help, but didn't actually do anything.
Think that all you want. Says more about your lack of knowledge than about me. I'm not a GOP partisan, but the fiscal conservatives of the GOP have been right about the last 50 years. That their message fell on deaf ears isn't their fault. Cato the Elder had to say "Carthage must be destroyed" for many years before the Romans took the hint. Was that his fault, or the fault of the rest of the Romans?
Who are these fiscal conservatives?
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Yo, did you know that one of the features of American government is that Congress controls the pursestrings? I mean, being so smart and all, you probably knew that, right?
Reagan increased the debt to fund military spending to defeat the Soviet Union (although the Dems were in charge of Congress then, so really they increased the debt in accordance with Reagan's stated policy goals). That was a good use of debt. The first Bush was President during a recession, so it's no surprise that Congress, which was also then run by the Left, increased debt to deal with the effects of that fact. Clinton inherited a peace dividend and could decrease military spending, allowing the debt to remain flat. Also, Clinton presided over a divided government, and the GOP in Congress did a decent job of not passing debt-increasing budgets. The second Bush had a recession and two wars to fight, so it's not surprising that the deficit went up. Notice also, that the line really starts ramping at the end of Bush's second term, when the Dems controlled Congress again.
Also, fiscal conservatism is more of a perspective on fiscal matters and is not always going to be a political winner. That's just a basic truth. Again, the message that debt would come back to bite the country in the ass has always been out there and it's primarily promulgated by those who identify with the conservative side of the political spectrum. That it was not a winning electoral strategy doesn't change the fact that they were right. Conflating the two things is unhelpful in understanding the potential solutions to the current fiscal situation.
Yes, I did know that Bullshit, Inc. And BTW, we did not defeat the Russians, they defeated themselves through shitty political philosophy and corruption. Sort of like the US is doing right now. The second Bush chose to fight two wars through lying to the American public and the UN and Barry is choosing to continue the warmongering effort. Notice the seamless foreign policy baton handoff?
Republicans are not fiscally conservative, period. If you are arguing that the Democrats are worse than the republicans. Great, you win, terrific. A race to the bottom. History shows there is little difference between the two.
Total revisionist history BS, Mr. BS!
Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of the USSR. As anyone who actually lived through Reagan remembers, Reagan dropped taxes to stimulate the economy. His "supply side economics" theory was that, if you dropped taxes, the rich (implied assumption: "rich" = "smart and productive") would invest more, building a stronger economy. His own budget director, David Stockman, called this "trickle-down economics" and later came out with a book saying it was a huge mistake. George Bush, senior, called it "voodoo economics". Reagan cutting taxes on the rich had nothing to do with foreign policy, and everything to do with helping out his campaign donors. It was the beginning of the real corruption of America.
The GOP had a majority in both sides of Congress 1994-2006, has had 9 of the last 15 presidential terms, and has appointed the majority of the Supreme Court and the Federal judiciary. In what sense it today's America the Democrats's fault? What are you smoking?
Now that is just silly. Reagan dropped taxes because we were in a Volcker caused recession in a successful attempt to stem inflation (after the LBJ "guns and butter" spending). Supply side economics simply says there is a curve, the Laffer curve, in tax collections. At 0% you get zero income and at 100% you get zero income. All Laffer said is that at some point there is a peak to the curve. We can argue where that peak is, but certainly, we cannot argue that tax collections react linearly to increases in the tax rate. Keynes claimed government should stimulate demand by spending. Why would that be significantly different than stimulating demand by give people more money to spend?
Now, the second thing Reagan did was significantly increase defense spending. The argument, which you never bother to address, is that Russia could not keep up with the increased spending and began to implode. Unless you are prepared to argue Russia would have imploded anyway, the Reagan gets the credit.
Before you question what others are smoking you would do well to look at yourself.
Obviously, I would argue that Russia was imploding anyway.
Just as we are, now, from insane defense spending. We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined. Are you saying we're really doing it, because we're afraid of a bunch of goat herders in a cave, halfway around the world?
Supply-side econ is a smokescreen for simply lowering the top rate, for the big campaign donors. The wealth gap has skyrocketed in the US, with fewer and fewer of the Bill Gates's and Henry Fords - folks who earned it - and more and more of the Blankfeins and Dimons - people who stole it by corruption.
What the 'right' doesn't seem to recognize is that they've won. The stuff they've been yelling about for years - lower taxes, less regulation, the need to not be "soft on defense" - has been adopted by nearly every politician out there now, both Republicans and Democrats. Can't get elected otherwise.
We spend more on "defense" than the rest of the world combined.
Corporate taxes come to less than 4% of the federal budge4t now - check a piechart, plenty of them online.
People complain that Washington is broken, dysfunctional, and can't get anything done. Reasonable for an American to feel that way. But let me suggest to you that Washington remains, in fact, quite responsive and agile...as long as you're an investment house, big insurance company, big oil company, or a defense contractor. The mechanism of government still works fine - it's just that it's constituency is big business, not individual Americans.
All that yelling for less taxes, less regulation, bigger military and police force - who did you think that was for anyway?
Those "goat herders in a cave" just happen to be the ONLY force that has ever reached and waged war, with US casualties, since the British - 230 years ago.
SO in answer to your question,
YES, we need to be finding these "goat herders" and making sure they can never do this again.
Ever hear of the War of 1812? Just curious if they cover that on Glenn Beck...
Burned the capitol and sent "president" Madison skittering off on horseback.
Those "goat herders in a cave" just happen to be the ONLY force that has ever reached and waged war, with US casualties, since the British - 230 years ago.
SO in answer to your question,
YES, we need to be finding these "goat herders" and making sure they can never do this again.
You answer the reason that the Soviet Union failed in your first paragraph: 100% tax collections you get zero income. Reagan gets no credit.
How exactly does one end vote buying money laundering schemes, promulgated by the other side, and still get elected without resorting to the very same practices?
Hmmm. Mr. smart guy?
What vote buying scheme are you writing about? The one where the Supreme Court voted for Bush?
I agree. Question is; How do we expect one party to combat rampant vote buying by the other party? By taking away the things with which votes were bought?
I hope the American public wakes up to this foul play. Nothing is free.
"both left and right have raped this country for decades and now we and our children must pay.."
Don't kid yourselves. There are no ways to pay for this. Period.
So, what will happen? The USA will become a 3rd-world country. Like to see America's future? Then look at Russia: a totalitarian society with lots of starving people and their oligarchy living in a haven.
Darwinism is not just "evolution of species'.
I agree with both of you. The Democrats dug us the biggest hole but the GOP has contributed their fair share. But despite the fact that Rep Ryan is a member of the GOP, he still makes a good point.
Gimme a fucking break. Both dems and reps suck. Republicans want to spend and not tax and inflate the dollar into oblivion. Democrats are just more honest about it and say they want to take your hard earned money from you and spend. Republicans are not fiscally conservative and never have been. I don't give a shit what they say. Look at the numbers.
Both parties are bloodthirsty, lobbyist compromised, integrity lacking fuck offs save about 1% which isn't enough to diddly shit.
I just gave you the fucking numbers. Entitlements designed by the Left and about which they lied to get them passed make up nearly all of the fucking debt. For you to sit back and bitch and moan about the "regular" debt (the amount subject to the debt ceiling) of about $14 trillion, while ignoring the $50-60 trillion consisting of entitlement programs shows that you aren't "looking at the numbers", you're spewing some rhetorical "a pox on both their houses" crap to make yourself look sophisticated, I presume. Even if you attribute every single dollar of the $14 trillion to the GOP, that still means the Left's entitlement programs are nearly 80% of the total.
Yes, the right, in an ideal world, would have rolled back those entitlement programs or laid bare their true costs by raising taxes to levels sufficient to fund them. That they didn't makes them an accessory to the crime, but the true criminals are those who pushed for those programs in the first place. Their ideological heirs are now pushing to extend those programs and the right is finally saying "enough is enough". Remember, this isn't the old "Rockefeller Republican" party any more, who would just go along to get along with the Left's every whim.
Yeh, the poor helpless republicans have been a victim to all of these votes and had absolutely zero to do with any of these programs passing. Their hands have been tied. You are also looking at future money spent, while I am looking at historical numbers. This country will economically implode before that money gets spent.
Also, let's not forget about the devaluation of the dollar and the price of gold tripling under republican leadership prior to the economic crisis.
And 20% is still a shit load of money btw, even using your numbers.
Where and when has the right even legitamitley tried to reform those god awful left ideas? answer the question.. they've have had 50 years.....the truth is neither of them gave a shit and only pretend to give a shit now cuz the sheeple are starting to awaken from their amerikan propaganda lame stream media coma that has been propagated by both the left and right for years and years.
Since the 40's, the Republicans (including a lot of Republicans in Name Only - RINO) have had both houses of Congress and hte Presidency - how many years: mainly from 2001-2007 (George Bush). However, any time they tried to even reduce the growth in many of hte programs, the airwaves were full of add - remember for the LSM (Lamestream Media - old time main stream media - NYT, WaPo, etc) a reduction from a project growth in hte last budget from say 6% to 5% was an actual cut in the program. Reagan had the same problem. The RINO Gov in CA tried to rein in the state democrats and the unions soundly defeated all four propositions.
Most of the repub in DC should be hung along with all of the demos but some are seeing the light. Mcshame would have been only marginally better.
i have been thinking this over for the last couple hours and saying this doesn't apply to me. but i became a widow at a very young age. social security was available to me and my daughter, but i didn't take it because i thought it would make me look poor. my mom said i was crazy.
Chris Rock on "Real Tim With Bill Maher" last night, comparing the Republicans' opposition to the health care reform to buying a first class ticket on an airplane and sitting next to someone who got a free upgrade from coach. "Republicans are like, 'How the hell you gonna sit next to me and you didn't buy the seat?'"
yes you are crazy - even if you took it and donated all of it to charity at least you would have a hand in where it went. You really think any money left alone isn't sucked away by any old government whim?
The entitlement programs would be fully funded if the baby boomers had had more children (tax payers). It is their failure to reproduce in sufficient numbers that has brought us to this point.
Amen brother. Amen.
I treat self-professed Democans and Republicrats like 3rd class citizens. I mean like real shit. Those idiots can't seem to drop their Kool Aide addiction and both the nation's wealth and it's heritage are being plundered as a result.
So you do not believe blacks should have a right to vote, or eat in your "educated" (read, "daddy has money") presence. Seniors should be left to fend for themselves as their health care costs skyrocket as they age (read, sick and broke)? We shouldn't provide health care for our veterans? All fought for and won by those "half-educated self-righteous clowns" you speak of.
That any thinking person (not brainwashed by the billions spent by the health care industry to instill fear and "buy off" shills like Paul Ryan and the rest of the GOP) could object to a single payer, universal system. The US is the ONLY "have" nation in the world without some form of this system... all with measurably better results, at less than half the cost (in most cases).
This entire process is a mess. Why... because it is clearly impossible to fight the health care lobby on the obvious, just, answer (a single payer, universal system). TPTB will not allow it... it is you and those of the "let them eat cake" philosophy that drink the Kool-aid, block any real progress, and have and will continue to be responsible for the "downfall of this country."
How? Explain the fucking mechanism by which NOT having every man, woman and child provided with a health care entitlement will be the downfall of the country? Don't feed me fucking sob stories about individuals who have a tough time paying for their health care. "Policy by anecdote" is beyond moronic, yet, if you look at what the Left uses to justify its policies, it's all they've got.
Seems to me that the Left's policies lead inevitably to debt default and a currency crisis, the early stages of which we are seeing now. That you want to double down on those policies isn't surprising.
Who the fuck said anything about any of these issues? Of course blacks should be allowed to vote. Seniors, if they had the money they paid in to the Medicare ponzi scheme, would have sufficient funds to pay for most of their own health care in old age and of course veterans fall into a special category and deserve health care coverage, not simply by virtue of having been born, but because they "paid" for it with their service.
Fuck you with your disingenous strawman horseshit argument.
BS Inc... kinda says it all, doesn't it.
Let's just keep it simple... you believe the level of health care a person gets should be based on wealth, and social status... I believe all people deserve the same level of care regardless of social standing, and the rest of the developed word agrees with me.
The "disingenous (sic) strawman (sic) horseshit argument" is the one against single payer, universal health care... and just for the record, I am a financially secure, retired aerospace executive.
So who pays for all this health care? Where does all this money come from?
He must be really, really financially secure, cuz he just volunteered.
So who pays for all this health care? Where does all this money come from?
Good questions PL!
Instead of paying the insurance giants, you pay a single payer (yes the evil government) who pays the bill. ONLY your doctor decides what care you get, based on need, not plan coverage or social standing.
How is cost reduced?
There are models all over the world... they work, provide better results, cover everyone, and have significant cost savings. The health care industry does a very good job (at great expense) of disinformation intended to hide these simple facts and create a climate of fear of change (a natural human reaction) in the general population.
So we pay the Government, which looks to me like any other monopolistic corporation except that they have a big ass police force and military....Ok I am still with ya, sounds warm and fuzzy. Then those guys provide me with a Doctor who they pay based on what they think he is worth...yea nothing could possibly go wrong here. And he got his job because not because he was top in his class but because he fit, oops she, damn...it fit some combination of slots that some group of bureaucrats led by Hollywood's style mavens decided were important. Like this month we need more gender neutral, gay, red headed Africans or some such. Education and scoring high on tests is such a bourgeois concept gosh I want to be the first in line for some fucking reject from reform school does brain surgery on someone important because no one with the sort of intelligence and dedication required to become a doctor wants to do it...yea hurry the fuck up with that sort of system!
And gosh what do we do with all those unhealthy motherfuckers who keep driving up healthcare costs? I say fuck em...premature babies, fuckem, old people fuckem...you both cost our Dear Government too much fucking money...die quietly.
Outstanding!
PL, "now, there you go again!"
In a single payer system the government replaces the "provider," it does not hire or select doctors. Hospitals are run by a board of directors and are "not for profit," and fee schedules are developed by professionals in the field (not the government).
So good to know the billions poured into the "status quo" position by the health care industry is not going to waste.
+1,000,000
You must be living in a drug induced emphoria. Name one country that only the doctor and not the governemnt of agency determine the level of treatment. Not generalities, but a specific place. Name me one country that does not have limits.
Canada (contrary to the disinformation fed to you by the industry), England, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Australia, France... shall I go on.
Treatment decisions are made by the doctor, and only the doctor. Are there limits, of course there are, but only within the technical capability of the facility in question. The horror stories you hear about (from the right) are completely fabricated... waits are for "selective" treatment only (and they keep costs in control).
Another Kool-aid for TexasAggie please.
Why don't you just go move to one of those countries?
Ok.
If Canada, England and the others you named were doing this appropriately, then why the 6 mo lag time between the request for a CAT scan and the scheduling for an appointment. If the government had authorized more CAT scans (Government control again, don't you just love that), waiting 6 months for cancer follow-up. Why did one of Canada's provincial governors go to miami for heart surgery recently if Canada didn't ration heart care. Again, if you believe those countries don't control doctors, move there.
I dare you to document your "six months" CAT claim, for any cancer-related condition. Try 24 hours.
Aggie, please lay off the Kool-aid... NOTHING in your reply is true, but you get an A+ for touching most of the "talking points" (Aetna thanks you).
The Premier needed a procedure not available in his small east coast province... he "elected" to have it done in Florida and spend his recovery time in the sun (it was available for free in almost every other province)... great propaganda for the status quo side though... you seem to have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker!
There are no waits for cancer follow-up... complete fabrication.
Look, there are many faults in single payer systems... but not one person dies for lack of coverage... against 45,0000 deaths a year in the US... how on earth can you defend this fact and still sleep at night?
As a Canadian living in Waterloo, I would disagree with your assessment of Canada as a model for the US to follow. This is an upscale city with a high per capita income, strong tech companies, and 2 major universities, 2 colleges, etc etc ….which you would think would ideally position us to either have access to quality health care, or the ability to kick someone’s ass to get quality health care. Unfortunately, this is not the case. There are a metric tone of stories I could tell you about month long wait times for dr’s, having to get referrals from specialist to specialist (again, increasing the wait times by months for a particular issue), 2-4 months for an MRI, 2 months for a bone scan, 6 months for ACL repair (twice after the first dr screwed up), waiting in the ER room for 10 hours after the wife broke her arm skating drunk. None of this is news to us Canadians, it is accepted as part of the system, so only the most offensive stories get press. So good luck with adopting our model bitches…I actually hope you do so we can get some of our good doctors back.
As a clinican who's practiced in both the US and Canada, let me say there's not a spit bit of difference in getting any necessary procedure approved. The main difference, and it's eye-popping, is how much I get paid for them.
Now I did say "necessary". Anything even remotely health-threatening falls in that category. But stuff that's elective, like an artificial knee implant, tends to take 6 months in some parts of Canada, while getting done pretty much the next day here. Wanna guess why? Hint: the hospital makes 10-20K on the procedure, in the US.
The most just system I can think of is a system where people pay their own way. Didn't your mom teach you the story of the Ant and the Grasshopper? Or did she teach it to you wrong? Perhaps in your version of the story a bunch of Grasshoppers get together and hire a bunch of IRS agents to steal half of the Ant's food?
So when your house catches fire you hire a fireman, if you are shot and mugged you hire a cop?
You may want to think it over a bit more... try it without the Kool-aid this time, if you don't mind a bit of friendly advice :-)
When my house is broken into, I expect my private alarm service to notify the cops. And I am by no means 'rich'.
Police are a proper function of government (although I believe it could be reasonably argued that private security might work better). And I could be wrong, but I believe fire departments are not federally funded nor mandated. Plenty of areas of the country use volunteer fire departments.
Health care is not a proper function of government. It's not part of our country's founding principles, and it has no rational relationship to liberty and individual rights. Any application of federal taxpayer money to health care is by definition infringing on someone's rights. Even our emergency safety net, Medicare, is failing financially (and not only that, it contributes mightily to the rising health care costs everyone seems to ascribe to the "free market").
My friendly advice: figure out why forcing people to pay for things against their will, is doomed to failure.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, and we thank you more than you will ever know... you sir, are a true America hero!
Sincerely,
UnitedHealth Group, WellPoint, Aetna, Humana, Cigna, Health Net, Coventry Health Care, Amerigroup, Universal American, Centene.
I get the feeling you are one of the people Obama pays to spew his socialist vision of America.
You do understand the "socialist" label is used to play on the racist (perhaps a bit unfair... lets just call it "how the hell did we let a black guy in the White House Buba") tendencies of "too many" in America, don't you?
"I get the feeling you are one of the people Obama pays to spew his socialist vision of America."
Do you have a point, or even understand the terms you use? "Socialism" means virtually all property belongs to the government. Obama, on the other hand, turning things over to the banks and big companies, perhaps even faster than Bush. The big companies love brain-washed righties.
No the government loves folks who believe that freedom/anarchy is not the opposite of the two extremes in Government control. Socialism means control...ownership is another one of those bourgeois concepts that socialists like to trot out to fool people while they busy themselves ruining whatever economy.
Socialists don't give a damn who owns it as long as they control it.
Remember, the US Supreme Court has stated that you don't have a right for the police to prevent a crime. If you want to prevent someone from breaking and entering your home while you are home, invest in S&W or other appropriate firearm manufacturer.
If you believe this then let them knock on your door and demand your money to pay. Don't volunteer mine. Oh...and before you start talking about right-wing, hard-hearted bastards find out what their chartiy donations are and compare them to yours. IMHO the many left-wingers simply take refuge that they are "do-gooders" by voting left cause they "help" the poor. What a load...
It's an imperfect world. I'm for people having individual rights and the ability to volunteer charity to make it better. I'm NOT for a scheming, corrupt, vote buying government taking my money and doing "charity" work with about 30% efficacy.
If you want to give away your money to pay for someone else's healthcare, you can do so already. But, instead, you want to give away my money to pay for someone else's healthcare. Why are you entitled to spend *my* money?
Healthcare providers are spending "your money" every day on Executive pay and obscene bonuses, profit to shareholders (with the very rich getting most of it), an inefficient administrative approach (how much is spent evaluating and fighting to deny coverage), lobbying cost, Congressional pay off cost... shall I go on.
You sir are falling in line just as planned... more Kool-aid please!
Have you ever drank a coke, bought a movie ticket or purchased a car? What do you think the profits are spent on? Those dollars also go to new products, better products, R&D, etc. For healthcare, where do you think the MAJORITY of tech and innovation occur?...Canada?, China?, Sweden?, UK? What a joke. The profit motive is what makes this country work and what it was founded on to an extent.
Your arguements are based on the wrong paradigm or mindset. They make no sense. The problems with healthcare right now are the consumer is separated from the provider (Dr) by at least one iterations. Also, government is overinvolved and lawyers take a little chunk, too.
Those dollars also go to new products, better products, R&D, etc.
Good point... I recently read Aetna is spending millions on innovative coverage denial policies... they say it's "state of the art" stuff... can't wait to see it in action.
Your arguements (sic) are based on the wrong paradigm or mindset. They make no sense. The problems with healthcare right now are the consumer is separated from the provider (Dr) by at least one iterations. Also, government is overinvolved and lawyers take a little chunk, too.
I simply wouldn't know where to start... so will pass on this one.
Why are most African Americans socialist?
Pavlov's dog. They've been conditioned by always getting handouts when they complain. The behavior is always rewarded successfully by liberals bearing gifts. They have few influences to break free of the cycle, and many influences, like Obama, to stay within. Now in America you can complain for a living.
Do I believe this, or am I just trying to get the Podesta and Plouffe trolls in a lather? Hmmm.
African Americans tend to believe in a European style social welfare state because we are not free market ideologues and we realize that certain things like basic public education, the military, public roads, public safety, and healthcare work best when profit-maximizing financial corporations are not in charge, whereas many other areas of the economy like food, technology, retail, etc. work best when run by private enterprise.
The whole "socialist" thing is hilarious. Most of you Randites would be destitute if you didn't have help from the government in various areas of your life - home loans, military backgrounds, student loan assistance, etc. You smug little morons should try out a nation with no government like Afghanistan - I'm sure you would LOVE it there.
Hey. I have some mortgage backed securities, derived from the Las Vegas residential market, that I just know have a 3000% upside.
You interested?
*Waiting for the "mark" to take the bait*
BS Inc. ....Right on ..right on...right on! You are beyond your years in wisdom Mr. Gen X!
I agree. Thats why I like Glenn Beck. He tells the truth. We need massive cuts in entitlement spending, not new entitlement programs, otherwise our country is history. No politician will tell you this. They are rightly afraid of the populace rising up and disastrous consequences.
Glen Beck tells the truth? Are you kidding me? You mean the winner of "Misinformer of the Year", Glenn Beck?
http://www.indecisionforever.com/2009/08/14/jon-stewart-owns-glenn-beck-...
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/glenn-beck/
The left bankrupts us with entitlements (Medicare part D anyone? LOL). The right bankrupts us with needless and endless war and an unsustainable, and unnecessary Military-Security-Industrial Complex.
I mean who really believes that "they hate our freedoms"? Who really believes that we have to police the world against bad guys? We've been taking down regions the past 60 years for merely our own economic gains. It's called plunder. And you want to know why everyone hates our guts? For example, do you really think that the hub-bub in Central America all these years was about Communism? Really? (Google United Fruit Company).
Plunder is not a sustainable economic model. Not to mention that stuff like that usually draws the wrath of God.
I believe Ike warned us about that many moons ago. We didn't believe him. Now we're spending the better part of a trillion dollars a year fighting a religion (actually we're plundering energy and posturing for dominance in Eurasia....freeing the shit out of the Afghans and Iraqis is merely the pretense for the stupid).
The Military-Security-Industrial Complex is NOT a drop in the bucket. Truth be told, it's MORE expensive than entitlements. But they're both epic fails.
it is bullshit but you cant put the blame squarely on republicans....throughout history both left and right have had their fair share of fiscal black hole ideas
It's OK to be an angry partisan Hammer but shouldn't you be on some left wing blog preaching to the choir?
Who gives a shit. This "health care debate" is deliberately meant to be a huge emotional distraction from the real issue. Raise your hand if you know why this is a fact:
Bobby in the back row of class:
"Um, is it because the USA is financially insolvent, and we're so fucked that we can't even take a bus back to fucked?"
A+ for you Bobby!
It doesnt matter. This debate is like arguing over how to fix a dinghy on the Titanic.
i agree with Cindy
FWIW, earlier today, while wondering why Obama was so obsessively focused on health care.........I got the answer: other than the Olympics, "Free Willie" whales, Haiti, and, now, Chile - minor distractions which will shortly move off the screen - what can keep the fact that we are living in an economic catastrophic period off of the screen?
Yep, Obamacare!
"Bread" is the trillions borrowed and spent by the govt and "circuses" is the health-care and Scott Brown, Tiger Woods and the other stuff mentioned in the first paragraph (and more).
And now I see the rage and emotions on this comment thread arguing, like an earlier poster noted, "he said, she saids."
I don't know how this situation ends, but I'm making certain that my college frosh son and high school soph daughter know that they are "living in interesting times."
Cindy, I agree!
There is one specific reason why health care is so important: SEIU. Yes, all of this Kabuki theater is being done to make sure that nurses can be unionized under the control of the government, the government that will be able to withhold payments to hospitals for arbitrary reasons and thus threaten them into submission. Yes, it's that simple.
It's worse. The Democans and Republicrats are arguing over what music the band should play as the ship's crew (the aristocracy) are grabbing all of the lifeboats via plunder.
+-+
+1000 Cindy.
I get so f'ing pissed off at these clowns that still read off of the playscript that they were raised on. It's as if they were mere repeaters for Sean Hannity and Mary McGory.
You filthy liar! "The Republicans got us into THIS massive debt"??? The nation is being repaired by 1.5 trillion deficits? Have you no shame? You like what you see simply because it's doing being done by the dreaded Republicans?
And what are you going to do? Not allow outsourcing? ZBy your favorite dictatorial methods or something? Commie bastard! Make the country attractive to do business in and you won't have so much outsourcing.
You're a tool.
TARP: Go check the vote. Republicans mostly voted no. Only a bunch of Democrats and Hank Paulson (a Democrat) got it through on the second try.
Bailouts: Hank Paulson (a Democrat working for a lame duck Republican president) and Turbo Tax Tim (a Democrat working for the current Socialist, err Democrat president) were the driving force behind the AIG, Fannie, Freddie, Bear Stearns, GM, Chrysler, GMAC, and on and on. GM & Chrysler were essentially stolen from creditors by Team Obama and given to the unions.
I challenge you are anyone else to answer this one question about ObamaCare: How do you call an Enron-esque accounting trick of collecting 10 years of taxes to pay 6 years of benefits "fiscally responsible" and "balanced"?
Dude, did you even bother to look up Hank Paulson?
Hammer59, you are berift of intelligence. CONGRESS got us into this massive debt mess. Do a study on which party controlled Congress for what years and you will learn the truth about the massive debt. THE MASSIVE DEBT WAS CREATED TO OFFSET THE MASSIVE WEALTH STOLEN BY DEMOCRATIC CONGRESSES IN THE FORM OF EXCESSIVE TAXATION. Of course it didn't work. It never can. But, it enabled many to retain political and economic power. Now we are in a death spiral caused by Democrats in Congress with big media as a major co-conspirator and a morally bankrupt education system that wouldn't teach Americans to recognize the scam being perpetrated on them.
oBOMBa... pwned! The Cult of Barry Sorento is on the decline as i see many bumper stickers now saying this is the change the USA can not afford. One photo i saw saw was a work trust that had written on it boldly "You DO NOT see Obama stickers on cars going TO WORK."
Well played!
**********************
NATIONAL STRIKE
APRIL 15 to APRIL 18TH
TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW
POST THIS ON EVERY DISCUSSION BOARD
www.taxfree15.com
**********************
that's a great website, thanks for sharing.
Saw another unshowered, twenty something chiseling the Obama 08 bumper sticker off his car today. I think they might be waking up?
Americans Have Had It
A majority of Americans believe that the federal government is "an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens," a new poll suggests.
According to a poll conducted for CNN, 56 percent believe the federal government has grown so large and powerful that it poses a risk to rights and freedoms, while 44 percent disagree.
http://rawstory.com/2010/02/government-threat-rights-freedoms/
HA! Great link.
Very true.
I've had it.
A pox on both their houses!
The US pays about twice as much, for healthcare, as the rest of the G20, and has poorer health status. And yet Rep Ryan wants us to believe we cannot do it less expensively?
So what does the Ryan bring to the table, as an alternative? What's hisal agenda. His party's main suggestion for healthcare reform is to allow selling of policies across state lines.
Sounds good - greater choice of plans, and increased competition - right?
However, what's really going on here is a race to the bottom, in terms of what your health insurance would cover. Companies are going to quickly move to the states with the lowest healthcare standards, and the laxest enforcement of those standards. Want the worst health insurance coverage in the US? Support this idea.
Then when you get coverage for your wife's cancer treatment denied, you can drive on down to Mississippi and give their state insurance commissioner a piece of your mind.
----------------
This is exactly what happened in the credit card industry. In 1980, Bill Janklow, the governor of South Dakota, made a deal with Citibank: If Citibank would move its credit card business to South Dakota, the governor would literally let Citibank write South Dakota's credit card regulations. You can read Janklow's recollections of the pact here.
Citibank wrote an absurdly pro-credit card law, the legislature passed it, and soon all the credit card companies were heading to South Dakota. And that's exactly what would happen with health-care insurance. The industry would put its money into buying the legislature of a small, conservative, economically depressed state. The deal would be simple: Let us write the regulations and we'll bring thousands of jobs and lots of tax dollars to you. Someone will take it. The result will be an uncommonly tiny legislature in an uncommonly small state that answers to an uncommonly conservative electorate that will decide what insurance will look like for the rest of the nation.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/selling_insurance_ac...
"and has poorer health status"
Are you sure about that?
As defined by what exactly?
Infant mortality?
A number of countries report lower infant mortality than the U.S., but it has nothing to do with the source of payment for medical care.
In Japan, which has the best statistics (3.3 die per 1,000 live births), the national system does not cover normal childbirth—or prenatal, postnatal, and postpartum care (Your Health Matters by Gregory Dattilo and David Racer, Alethos Press, 2006).
In the U.S., mortality is only 3.0 per 1,000 for full-term babies weighing at least 5.5 lbs (ibid.). Premature, low-birth-weight babies, who have a much higher risk of early death, have a better chance of survival in the U.S. than anywhere else, because of the excellent medical care they receive here.
The incidence of prematurity and low birth weight is relatively high in the U.S.; one reason is ethnic composition. Black American mothers give birth before 37 weeks twice as often as whites, and 3.8 times as often before 28 weeks (Future of Children, Spring 1995).
Predictors of premature birth include socioeconomic factors such as age under 20, single marital status, being on welfare, and not having graduated high school (Lieberman E, et al. N Engl J Med 1987;317:743-748) ; chronic health problems such as diabetes, hypertension, or clotting disorders; certain infections during pregnancy; use of cigarettes, alcohol, or illicit drugs (CDC); and prior abortions (Rooney B, Calhoun BC, J Am Phys Surg 2003;8:46-49). Increasing Medicaid coverage for pregnant women had no effect on birth outcomes (Ray WA, et al. JAMA 1998;279:314-316).
Many nations do not count very small babies as live births. Hence, they don’t count as deaths either. In France and Belgium, for example, babies born before 26 weeks are automatically considered stillborn, states Bernardine Healy.
In the U.S., all our babies count, even if they make our statistics look worse. The tiny ones we now save could be the first casualties of “reform.”
“[A question] that assumes even greater significance as we contemplate the finances of health care reform [is] how much capital are we willing to invest to save the lives of the most extremely preterm infants?” (Future of Children, op. cit.)
Life expectancy?
International comparisons are tricky because of ethnic diversity in the U.S. While Japanese men in Japan live longer (mean 78.4 years) than the “average” American man (74.8 years), Asian-American men live still longer (80.9 years). (Bureau of the Census, cited by John Goodman)
If we look at illnesses in which aggressive, timely medical care makes a difference, Americans live longer. For example, American women have a 63% chance of living five years or more with cancer, compared with only 56% for Europeans. For men, the figures are 66% for Americans, and 47% for Europeans, writes Betsy McCaughey.
Some European countries with universal coverage have better life expectancies than the U.S. They also have less gang warfare, less racial diversity, fewer traffic deaths, and a different diet. Americans who don’t die from homicide or car crashes outlive people in every Western country (David Gratzer, IBD 7/26/07).
I have no doubt that Ryan is just as big of a douchebag as every other congresscritter out there, however, on any particular issue or idea, one side inevitably gets it right. If you have a rational, congruent belief system, you probably end up agreeing with the Repubs on some issues and Dems on others.
The fact that they're all a bunch of dicks has nothing to do with whether a particular argument is logical or not.
Ryan had Obama for lunch here. Plain and simple.
Here's what's plain and simple: Ryan wants to screw Americans over, to benefit his insurance company campaign donors.
Ryan presents no alternative. Start over? That's a diversionary tactic. Where's he been the last 16 years, that he has no ideas to bring to the table? Think he's just too dumb? Of course not. He does have an agenda. He wants to end state control of health insurance policies.
Ryan's argument that we should "allow selling of insurcnae policies across state lines" is disingenuous from the start. Why? Because you can already sell policies across state lines. No prohibition against that whatsover - in fact, many if not most companies already do sell policies in states other than their home office.
Problem is that you have to conform to the regulations of that state. You can't deny coverage for horseshit reasons, you can't stall paying forever by endless circular paperwork, and you have to cover a basic set of medical conditions. And THAT'S what bothers the big insurance companies. Again, there's absolutely nothing preventing sales across state lines now. So when Ryan and his ilk say they want to "sell across state lines to get Americans a better deal", he's lying from the moment he opens his mouth.
"anonymous" Oh Lord, someone released the Obamabot wind up toys again.
Right-wing comments only, please.
I'm sorry, dear. Is this what bothered you?
Again, there's absolutely nothing preventing sales across state lines now. So when Ryan and his ilk say they want to "sell across state lines to get Americans a better deal", he's lying from the moment he opens his mouth.
You're lying. You're flat out lying.
The Obamabots really are out in force.
Problem for the Obamabots now: Your guy is no longer an unknown commodity....No one is listening anymore. We've all seen him in action. Your drivel convinces no one, and simply wastes your day. Go get some exercise.
I see the question still stands - why is there no GOP alternative, other than deregulating health insurance?
Had a good workout today, but thanks for your concern. Your comments provide with with amusement while I work through a pile of clinical notes.
By the way, am I "sure about" American's poor health status? Are you high? Check our childhood obesity and dibetes epidemic, for example, then get back to us, OK? What a tool...
Please explain to us how Socialized Medicine cures obesity and decreases the incidence of type 2 diabetes?
Oh wait, I know: More "STATE WELLNESS PROGRAMS", right?
Are you advocating this new government program have the ability to regulate what each individual citizen is allowed to put in their mouths? Maybe an implantable RFID "calorie counter" or something like that.
Will we have "FEMA Fat camps" now?
Why is it that statists are perfectly happy with mass starvation and poverty, but a fat kid bothers them?
If anyone is curious as to whether more "wellness" spending will actually save any money, please consider this recent paper. Preventitive programs and wellness programs may be a good thing in certain circumstances, but they clearly increase costs greatly. This is well described in both medical and economic literature.
http://www.annals.org/content/150/7/485.full.pdf
"the potential for prevention to generate
cost savings is often exaggerated. As health economist
Louise Russell documents, “over the past 4 decades,
hundreds of studies have shown that prevention usually
adds to medical spending” (21). Fewer than 20% of
studied preventive options are cost-saving (21, 22). Indeed,
preventive measures that emphasize medical services
(such as annual doctor visits and screening) rather
than behavioral change (exercise and nutrition) can be
costly (23, 24). Moreover, changing behavior is not
easy. For example, producing behavioral changes that
reduce high and increasing obesity rates in the United
States (which some analysts argue are a major cause of
rising health care spending) is surely desirable (25). It is,
however, unclear what public policies could be adopted
that would promptly and reliably reduce obesity rates."
You continue to ignore the question - what would you propose as an alternative?
The GOP's sole alternative is to deregulate health insurance. How's deregulation working out, on WallSt and for airline travel?
"Affordable" health care is not going to solve childhood obesity.
+72
Rusty, your reply was awesome. Nice that you provided links to your facts. We should see more of that here on ZH when discussing complicated and controversial issues.
Thank you sir.
Agreed, great post. This may sound stupid, but I'm not sure that I understand what infant mortality has to do with much of anything. Who the hell has control over what a mother ingests prior to and during her pregnancy. I admit a high rate should set off some serious alarms but I don't get what this really has to do with anything. I'm pro healthy births of course, just sayin'.
I brought up infant mortality because it's an idea constantly trotted out by those that favor socialized medicine. They are always saying that Cuba has lower infant mortality rates than the US, therefore, the Cuban Nationalized Health System is better.
In case anyone's been tempted to accept such nonsense, just take a second and view what the reality of the Cuban Socialized Healthcare and real collectivism is all about.
http://www.paaaps.org/the-news/35-socialized-medicine-/258-a-vision-of-o...
Gotcha, thanks Rusty.
The reply is a crock. Sure, there are lots of numbers and references. But when examined, each statement is bogus.
Rusty starts by admitting that infant mortality is higher in the US. Then he blames it on low birth weight - premature birth - in African-Americans. Guess what some main causes of premature delivery are, that Rusty somehow fortst to mention in his list? Inadequate pre-natal nutrition, inadequate pre-natal care, and pregnancy complications. They has nothing to do, genetically, with skin color, and everything to do with access to healthcare in the African-American community.
Here's Rusty's list of reasons:
Predictors of premature birth include socioeconomic factors such as age under 20, single marital status, being on welfare, and not having graduated high school; chronic health problems such as diabetes, hypertension, or clotting disorders; certain infections during pregnancy; use of cigarettes, alcohol, or illicit drugs (CDC); and prior abortions.
Access to pre- & peri-natal care is not mentioned, nor nutrition and rest for the expectant mother, even though I suspect those causalities are obvious to every parent on this forum. Frankly, Rusty, you should be ashamed to post this crap.
Well, now, what about "Increasing Medicaid coverage for pregnant women had no effect on birth outcomes"? Sounds pretty authoritative, right? Bullshit. Rusty's source found one study, all from within Tennessee, in 1998, that failed to observe a statistical difference. This despite the fact that scores of reviews, and every OB-GYN text, clearly emphasize the role of pre-natal care and Mom's nutrition in avoiding premature birth. Rusty, how can you even post this stuff? Do you have any soul at all?
----------------
Rusty, you said Belgium does not report births before 26 weeks as births, and suggested that something nefarious was going on.
"In the U.S., all our babies count, even if they make our statistics look worse. The tiny ones we now save could be the first casualties of “reform.” "
Rusty, did you know that Belgium has the lowest rate of abortion in the world? 6.8 per 1000 pregnancies. In fact, the rate in western Europe as a whole is one of the lowest in the world - 11 per thousand. Know why that is? Because those people help out unwed mothers (pg 71, "Our Endangered Values: America's Moral Crisis", Jimmy Carter, 2005). Latin America has some of the world's strictest laws criminalizing abortion. Yet their rate is 37 per 1000. Eastern Europe's rate is 90 per 1000. What Latin America and Eastern Europe have in common is a complete lack of support for unwed mothers. Believe abortion is murder, and want to cut down on it? GO GIVE SOME TEEN MOTHER SOME HELP TAKING CARE OF HER BABY. THE POOR THING IS PROBABLY DOG-TIRED. What is wrong with you right-wing quacks, anwyay?
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html
Time to climb down from your ivory tower and actually witness how the welfare baby machines operate. More children = more welfare benefits. Sick or retarded children = SS benefits. The housing projects in my state are packed with newer tricked out cars and open air drug markets. The majority of recipients have more bling than Mr T, and no, not gold, platinum. You're obviously spouting something you were told or read in a liberal rag. Go check it out in person, and don't forget to pack heat.
"Time to climb down from your ivory tower and actually witness how the welfare baby machines operate. More children = more welfare benefits. Sick or retarded children = SS benefits."
OK, Rusty hid it a bit better, but with the jabs at "welfare babies", the "retarded", and "housing projects", I think some of you righties are finally showing your true stripes. Self-centered, scared & brain-washed.
"Ivory tower?" I routinely practice in the north end of Hartford, which has the #2 highest level of poverty in the country. They know me by name at Scott's Jamaican bakery. Have you been in any of the projects you're telling us about here, or is your TV set as close as you get?
What cracks me up about you brain-washed righties is that the GOP - and Obama - are walking all over you. Obama's solution involves massive handouts to big insurance companies, the pharmas, and to practitioners. The GOP can't even be bothered to type up a 2400-page smokescreen - just turn everything over to the insurance companies, and stomping on the states in the bargain. At LEAST everybody gets coverage with Obama's plan - though it's like paying $20 for a 12-oz can of Bud.
I am sick of hearing about having to pay to cure somebody's poverty. I didn't create it, I am not responsible for it and I don't want to pay. You want to pay for it? Give all your money for the cause. As it is, the government is borrowing to cure poverty and will destroy us all. End the madness!
The Lancet study you cite says that 63% of American women WHO GET TREATED make five year survival. You kind of left that part out.
Rusty's source for this pseudo-referenced crap, here, is the National Center for Policy Analysis.
http://www.ncpa.org/
Their current speaker list includes Mitt Romney, and former Fed gov Bob McTeer. You may remember McTeer's "Can't we all just hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and buy an SUV" comment. One of the architects of this mess. I wondered where he'd slithered off to.
If you depend on hte WaPo for anything more that bird cage liner, I have Bridge to sell you - higher rate of return that the Las Vegas MBS. Many countries don't count infants that die in the first year after birth - therefore lower infant mortality. (Europe, Cuba, most others) When doing statistics, please make sure apples to apples and not oranges.
The WashPost ref covers only the South Dakota governors description of how he sold out to the credit card companies. Nothing about infant mortality rates. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Prenatal medical care, particularly with a difficult pregnancy, and the Mom's nutrition, have a strong effect on avoiding premature deliveries. I suspect every parent on this forum understands that, in spite of Rusty's claims to the contrary.
As far as the current right-wing wet dream, that America's poorer healthcare stats are different because other countries cheat and count differently, you're on your own there. The World Health Organization studies this in detail, as does basically the entire field of public health. Keep trying to sell those wooden nickels...
The US pays about twice as much, for healthcare, as the rest of the G20, and has poorer health status. And yet Rep Ryan wants us to believe we cannot do it less expensively?
So what does the Ryan bring to the table, as an alternative? What's hisal agenda. His party's main suggestion for healthcare reform is to allow selling of policies across state lines.
Sounds good - greater choice of plans, and increased competition - right?
However, what's really going on here is a race to the bottom, in terms of what your health insurance would cover. Companies are going to quickly move to the states with the lowest healthcare standards, and the laxest enforcement of those standards. Want the worst health insurance coverage in the US? Support this idea.
Then when you get coverage for your wife's cancer treatment denied, you can drive on down to Mississippi and give their state insurance commissioner a piece of your mind.
----------------
This is exactly what happened in the credit card industry. In 1980, Bill Janklow, the governor of South Dakota, made a deal with Citibank: If Citibank would move its credit card business to South Dakota, the governor would literally let Citibank write South Dakota's credit card regulations. You can read Janklow's recollections of the pact here.
Citibank wrote an absurdly pro-credit card law, the legislature passed it, and soon all the credit card companies were heading to South Dakota. And that's exactly what would happen with health-care insurance. The industry would put its money into buying the legislature of a small, conservative, economically depressed state. The deal would be simple: Let us write the regulations and we'll bring thousands of jobs and lots of tax dollars to you. Someone will take it. The result will be an uncommonly tiny legislature in an uncommonly small state that answers to an uncommonly conservative electorate that will decide what insurance will look like for the rest of the nation.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/selling_insurance_ac...
Open up the market. Let the chips fall where they may. Don't tax me, fucker. Don't take my money, thief. You want steal my money to solve your problem? Fuck you.
You want to fuck up your state, go ahead. The federal govt has no business telling my state what it's insurance regs should be. So fuck you right back.
That a boy Paul! Ryan for President!!!
I see a Presidency in this mans future. He is one of the most intelligent and articulate politicians I have ever heard make an argument. How ironic is it that he is one of the few politicians that does not sound like a babbling incoherent stubborn mess and I agree with him. I could see the President's wheel turning while listening to him and thinking," Shit, this fella is real clever.And he is not even using a teleprompter or speech prepared by 5 Rhodes scholars"
Good work Congressman Ryan. You make us all proud. Sad how common sense has become the minority in America now.
Ryan pretty much made obama his bitch... interesting, nothing he said has been contradicted by the dhims.
And there are many in the repub party who fought the growth of entitlements. The dhims only needed a handful of RINO votes to implement them and continue the reckless spending. There is a huge difference between the heart and soul of the two parties. The Repubs are just in the middle of reclaiming theirs....
What's pretty hystercal, is that left has so very obviously brought out the "Blame Bush Brigade" today.
When the truth isn't on your side, your policy sucks, and you don't what the hell to do next...pretend it's still 2007-2008 and blame Bush! Incoming smoke screeen!
Why don't you all just listen to Ryan's points, forgetting Republican and Democrat. Judge what he says on its merits.
All I am hearing here is politicized pander. I am an Independent, and he makes sense to me.
How old are you all? About 18?
From Topeka, Ks
the problem is that anything that is allowed to attempt to pass through the congress/senate has to be some backward plan pre-sabotaged. So anyone can easily slam it to pieces at the end like Ryan did. Where are these people early on? None of them go after the root causes. And none of them can. How can the most Capitalist country that lets its bankers just loot the public, reign in the skyrocketing costs of doctors, etc who actually do good work? The whole system is broken beyond repair with the barn doors blown open and the animals long gone.
There is no way to bring the costs down in relation to all the bloated amounts other sectors demand, so there is no way to ever pay for any of this. Just keep kicking the can down the road until it gets ran over
It is quite funny we still listen to the clowns at CBO. These same idiots said that the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout would most likely not cost us anything and in the worst case maybe 25B or so. This was when that crook Paulson asked congress to give him authority to bail them out in 2008. How are those calculations looking right about now? As for this Paul Ryan guy he is just another crony capitalism proponent, i.e., bail out the banks at all cost and then good things might happen to the rest of the country. As far as I am concerned anyone who voted for TARP needs to be thrown out, including him.
Obama is worse than Bernie Madoff - he is pillaging the whole goddamn country.
Unfortunately, you are right.
+73
Bernie couldn't believe he got away with the scheme as long as he did. Is time running out for Obama?
Enron had nothing on these ID10Ts. Absolutely nothing, and we put some of them in jail
Enron had nothing on these ID10Ts. At least we had the sense to throw some of them in jail.
I see a Presidency in this mans future. He is one of the most intelligent and articulate politicians I have ever heard make an argument. How ironic is it that he is one of the few politicians that does not sound like a babbling incoherent stubborn mess and I agree with him. I could see the President's wheel turning while listening to him and thinking," Shit, this fella is real clever.And he is not even using a teleprompter or speech prepared by 5 Rhodes scholars"
Good work Congressman Ryan. You make us all proud. Sad how common sense has become the minority in America now.
What's Ryan's real agenda here? His party's sole alternate suggestion for healthcare reform is to allow selling of policies across state lines.
Sounds good - greater choice of plans, and increased competition - right?
However, what's really going on here is a race to the bottom, in terms of what your health insurance would cover. Companies are going to quickly move to the states with the lowest healthcare standards, and the laxest enforcement of those standards. Want the worst health insurance coverage in the US? Support this idea.
Then when you get coverage for your wife's cancer treatment denied, you can drive on down to Mississippi and give their state insurance commissioner a piece of your mind.
----------------
This is exactly what happened in the credit card industry, which is regulated in accordance with (GOP) wishes. In 1980, Bill Janklow, the governor of South Dakota, made a deal with Citibank: If Citibank would move its credit card business to South Dakota, the governor would literally let Citibank write South Dakota's credit card regulations. You can read Janklow's recollections of the pact here.
Citibank wrote an absurdly pro-credit card law, the legislature passed it, and soon all the credit card companies were heading to South Dakota. And that's exactly what would happen with health-care insurance. The industry would put its money into buying the legislature of a small, conservative, economically depressed state. The deal would be simple: Let us write the regulations and we'll bring thousands of jobs and lots of tax dollars to you. Someone will take it. The result will be an uncommonly tiny legislature in an uncommonly small state that answers to an uncommonly conservative electorate that will decide what insurance will look like for the rest of the nation.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/selling_insurance_ac...
Please don't continue to feed the O-bot, folks.
So, I guess I don't know where you're going with that but, I'll ask anyway: what DO you see as alternatives the GOP has offered, other than unregulated health insurance?
Given how GS treated unregulated derivatives, taking our 10X bets on the failure of the MBS's they were selling, what makes you think the big insurance companies are going to be any less "innovative"?
Are you a paid shill?
You keep going on about offering 'alternatives' as if
that were a Good Thing.
Eek! We have to do something! (It's for da children,
don't ya know.)
One of the problems with being a sheep is not
possessing enough wit to understand that the shepherd
is fattening up the herd for a reason....
As long as we continue to frame the debate as either Republican or Democrat, left or right, liberal or conservative, blue or red, we are a silly people worthy of being enslaved.
Wake up folks and get your country back from these corrupt traitors, left and right, before it's too late.
but this country is raised to be capitalists >>> to be better than the next guy to increase oneself >>>> thus a fictional game of political ping pong fits nicely into the common psyche