• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate committee passes health bill, first to act

Smoke[MaxX] said:
Republicans are anti-capitalists. They're afraid that the government run program will run the private insurance companies out of business. Or didn't you know that the public program was COMPETING with the private ones?
Click to expand...


I actually find myself amazed to watch Republicans argue against competition ...
 
jackalope said:
It was never asserted that the program would pay for itself. It will be paid for through taxes on those making over $250k/yr and cost savings. Just as Obama campaigned on, and just as he was elected to do.
Click to expand...

Even the liberal Brookings Institute disagrees with taxing the rich to pay for this crap.

"It is bad economic policy because, coupled with the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts, it would raise marginal tax rates by 10 percentage points for high-income households. While I object to the general hue and cry that occurs anytime anyone discusses any potential tax increase for the rich, it is nevertheless quite fair to say that a 10 percentage point increase in taxation on the return to labor and capital income is a lot and shouldn’t be the first choice."

"It is poor leadership because it furthers the myth that we can solve our fiscal problems by taxing “other” people or with “gimmick” taxes. It has been said many times already and will be said many times again: we are going to need broad based tax increases and spending cuts to bring the fiscal house into order, and the more politicians continue to act as if we can just foist the financing on a small group (be it rich people or foreign corporations or obese people or people who drink soda, etc.), the worse are our prospects for solving the problems."

Financing Health Care Reform by Soaking the Rich: A Bad Idea All Around - Brookings Institution

jackalope said:
I actually find myself amazed to watch Republicans argue against competition ...
Click to expand...

It's not real competition, since when was McDonald's allowed to tax everyone to pay for their operational costs and then call it competition?

Everyone else is at a clear disadvantage in that scenario except McDonald's.
Replace McDonald's with U.S. government and there you go.
 
jackalope said:
People with Medicare insurance are more satisfied with their coverage than people with employer-based insurance. What is the argument for denying what people like better, costs less, and offers easier and better access to physicians (as reported by the insureds).
Click to expand...

Because we can't afford Medicare as it is.

Everyone brushes over the fact that Medicare is already unsustainable and adding more people to it will only bring the crash on sooner.

"A looming Medicare shortage is seven times the size of the one that Social Security faces and nearly four times the entire federal debt."

Medicare's deficit 7 times Social Security's - Politics- msnbc.com
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Even the liberal Brookings Institute disagrees with taxing the rich to pay for this crap.
Click to expand...

The Brookings Institution is not liberal:

History

On its website the organization traces its origins "to 1916, when a group of leading reformers founded the Institute for Government Research (IGR), the first private organization devoted to analyzing public policy issues at the national level. In 1922 and 1924, one of IGR's backers, Robert Somers Brookings (1850-1932), established two supporting sister organizations: the Institute of Economics and a graduate school bearing his name. In 1927, the three groups merged to form the Brookings Institution, honoring the businessman from St. Louis whose leadership shaped the earlier organizations."

Initially centrist, the Institution took its first step rightwards during the depression, in response to the New Deal. In the 1960s, it was linked to the conservative wing of the Democratic party, backing Keynsian economics. From the mid-70s it cemented a close relationship with the Republican party. Since the 1990s it has taken steps further towards the right in parallel with the increasing influence of right-wing think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation.

SourceWatch​


But, regardless of its leanings, their opinion does nothing to address my statement that Obama campaigned on this idea, he told us he was going to tax those earning over $250k, and he won the largest margin of any first term president in decades (maybe back to the 70s?). The country has already spoken on that issue, we want that happen.


Harry Guerrilla said:
It's not real competition, since when was McDonald's allowed to tax everyone to pay for their operational costs and then call it competition?

Everyone else is at a clear disadvantage in that scenario except McDonald's.
Replace McDonald's with U.S. government and there you go.
Click to expand...


That does not address at all the fact that Medicare is currently more efficient in their administration than private insurers are. That has nothing to do with medical reimbursements, it has to do with administration costs only.



Harry Guerrilla said:
Because we can't afford Medicare as it is.

Everyone brushes over the fact that Medicare is already unsustainable and adding more people to it will only bring the crash on sooner.

"A looming Medicare shortage is seven times the size of the one that Social Security faces and nearly four times the entire federal debt."

Medicare's deficit 7 times Social Security's - Politics- msnbc.com
Click to expand...


Medicare's costs are spiraling, no doubt. Private insurers costs are spiraling more. This MUST be addressed, and MUST be solved. Deciding to go with the more expensive and less efficient option only (private insurers), and ignore that a less expensive and more efficient option (Medicare-style public option) competing head to head with private will force private to become more efficient makes no sense at all.


... The price of Medicare and Medicaid have gone up much more slowly than private insurance.

medicarephigrowth.jpg



medicaidspending-thumb-400x291.jpg



Basic Facts: They're Important
Click to expand...
 
jackalope said:
Medicare's costs are spiraling, no doubt. Private insurers costs are spiraling more. This MUST be addressed, and MUST be solved. Deciding to go with the more expensive and less efficient option only (private insurers), and ignore that a less expensive and more efficient option (Medicare-style public option) competing head to head with private will force private to become more efficient makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...
How is forcing people away from spiraling private insurance costs (meaning no hit to taxpayer) and into spiraling Medicare costs (meaning big hit to taxpayer) "solving" or even "addressing" the problem?

Medicare is not "more efficient"--it merely externalizes costs.

Cost-shifting is not efficiency. Efficiency would entail cost-elimination.
 
I will continue to repeat the following until I am blue in the face:

The government is NOT going to regulate the private insurance sector because it holds too much lobbying power over government. Unless that day comes, UHC needs to be created to provide competition that offsets the corruption. I think the health bill is costly, but the government is far more willing to make tax payers pay more than they are come down on the corporations. It doesn't matter which government you have, Republican or Democrat, they will always back industry and avoid regulaton!
 
Don't Tase Me Bro said:
LOLOL!!!! I love when an ignoramus cites the WHO report.

You don't even know what's in the damn thing nor how they came up with those rankings and here you are repeating it because you heard some pro-Socialist kook reference it.

Very simple question for you. Do you honestly think that people from all over the world come to this country to receive the 37th best health care in the world? Don't strain your brain too hard on that one.
Click to expand...

Yeah, check out how the WHO rates a country's health care (what a PC joke):
WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs).
Click to expand...

1st indicator - overall level of population health - this makes sense if it is done accurately. Judging from the large numbers of those coming to the US for health care, we should rank very high on this one!!!
2nd indicator - why should health inequities skew a country's rating when their overall average health is high?
3rd indicator - All indications are that the US has the most responsive health care for those who chose to work, carry their weight, and pay health premiums.
4th indicator - "distribution of responsiveness" - when you don't sit around waiting for the government to take care of you it's pretty good.
5th indicator - I guess that the US loses points as we don't have all the cost burden paid by the "rich"... Obama and friends is working on that one!
 
Last edited:
Orius said:
I will continue to repeat the following until I am blue in the face:

The government is NOT going to regulate the private insurance sector because it holds too much lobbying power over government. Unless that day comes, UHC needs to be created to provide competition that offsets the corruption. I think the health bill is costly, but the government is far more willing to make tax payers pay more than they are come down on the corporations. It doesn't matter which government you have, Republican or Democrat, they will always back industry and avoid regulaton!
Click to expand...


I agree with this, except I would substitute always for mostly.
 
jackalope said:
I agree with this, except I would substitute always for mostly.
Click to expand...

Don't you realize that those large numbers of lobbyists can be nullified by one misguided 1000 plus page (unread, of course) bill? I will keep repeating that those who believe what you just wrote are NAIVE!
 
celticlord said:
How is forcing people away from spiraling private insurance costs (meaning no hit to taxpayer) and into spiraling Medicare costs (meaning big hit to taxpayer) "solving" or even "addressing" the problem?

Medicare is not "more efficient"--it merely externalizes costs.

Cost-shifting is not efficiency. Efficiency would entail cost-elimination.
Click to expand...


Medicare is more efficient. As for private, they are so fat with bloat it's disgusting. I was watching a story on health insurance last night, and it was pointed out that in the early 90s, the last time we had a national conversation about health care and health insurance, private companies were paying out 95 cents of every premium dollar in claims. Now they are paying out 80 cents of every premium dollar - and those premiums are spiralling out of control. You are paying $20mil executive salaries, salaries of people whose job it is, is to find ways to deny claims, and all kinds of other things that have nothing to do with providing better care to beneficiaries.

Besides, if you're so concerned that a Medicare-style plan won't be more efficient, then you have no reason to worry about competition.
 
rebelbuc said:
Don't you realize that those large numbers of lobbyists can be nullified by one misguided 1000 plus page (unread, of course) bill? I will keep repeating that those who believe what you just wrote are NAIVE!
Click to expand...


Yes they can, but the fear factor is huge. Those lobbyists are convincing people that paying more for a lower quality product is somehow a good thing. And, some people are like, yea, that sounds great !

It's a puzzler.
 
jackalope said:
I actually find myself amazed to watch Republicans argue against competition ...
Click to expand...

The healthcare bill seeks to end all private competition. If not, then why does it deny options to add dependents or change private carriers? It's obviously designed to socialize medicine totally and take the profit motive out of healthcare. The profit motive is what results in breakthroughs that end up curing diseases and saving lives.
 
rebelbuc said:
The healthcare bill seeks to end all private competition. If not, then why does it deny options to add dependents or change private carriers? It's obviously designed to socialize medicine totally and take the profit motive out of healthcare. The profit motive is what results in breakthroughs that end up curing diseases and saving lives.
Click to expand...


No, it does not. That is a myth being propogated by those seeking to protect the fat bloated profits of private insurers. Private insurers do not want more competition. Why would they?
 
jackalope said:
If we have the best health care system in the world, why isn't the rest of the world ditching their systems and trying to emulate us?
Click to expand...
Because it is political suicide to shift reponsibility from any government to its people.

This a very simple, obvious and basic concept.
 
Last edited:
jackalope said:
People with Medicare insurance are more satisfied with their coverage than people with employer-based insurance. What is the argument for denying what people like better, costs less, and offers easier and better access to physicians (as reported by the insureds).
Click to expand...

Nothing the Government does costs less. Nothing that does not involve competition costs less. Nothing that does not involve competition results in efficiency.

Even the most basic economic course will teach people this. This notion that Government can manage ANYTHING efficiently and cost effective requires willful denial beyond the pale.

I am curious if all you Obama admirers would fell the same way about Guvuhmint when Republicans are in charge. Yeah, I didn't think so. :roll:
 
jackalope said:
No, it does not. That is a myth being propogated by those seeking to protect the fat bloated profits of private insurers. Private insurers do not want more competition. Why would they?
Click to expand...

I am curious, what do you think the Insurance companies making these "FAT BLOATED" profits do with them?

I am fascinated when I see people in Western economies railing against the idea of companies actually making money. What has happened to our educational systems where we are now graduating mini-Marxists?
 
Orius said:
I will continue to repeat the following until I am blue in the face:

The government is NOT going to regulate the private insurance sector because it holds too much lobbying power over government. Unless that day comes, UHC needs to be created to provide competition that offsets the corruption. I think the health bill is costly, but the government is far more willing to make tax payers pay more than they are come down on the corporations. It doesn't matter which government you have, Republican or Democrat, they will always back industry and avoid regulaton!
Click to expand...

What a stunningly uninformed statement; do you REALLY think that the issue here is "lobbying power" and that the Government provided healthcare equates to competition?
 
Oftencold said:
Because it is political suicide to shift reponsibility from any government to its people.

This a very simple, obvious and basic concept.
Click to expand...


Actually, it is b/c citizens in other developed countries are more satisfied with their systems than we are, and see that we may significantly more for lesser outcomes. They have made a rational decision that our system is not one to be emulated.
 
Truth Detector said:
Nothing the Government does costs less. Nothing that does not involve competition costs less. Nothing that does not involve competition results in efficiency.

Even the most basic economic course will teach people this. This notion that Government can manage ANYTHING efficiently and cost effective requires willful denial beyond the pale.

I am curious if all you Obama admirers would fell the same way about Guvuhmint when Republicans are in charge. Yeah, I didn't think so. :roll:
Click to expand...


That's just false. Medicare administrative costs are less than private insurance costs. Also, it has already been demonstrated, in other areas, that public-private competition does improve quality, drive down costs, and does not shut out private competition. Both exist side by side:


DeMint’s example of education is instructive, not because it is hard to repeal, but because it’s a prime example of successful public-private competition. Indeed, while state and local governments own and run the public education system — to a much greater extent than either Obama or members of Congress are suggesting with a public health insurance option — private schools are competing against the government and thriving in this country. Further, such competition actually improves outcomes. As the conservative Hoover Institution found, competition between public and private schools “improves achievement for both public and private school students and decreases the amount spent per pupil.”

As Joseph Hacker explains, such public-private competition works well not just in education, but in many other sectors of the U.S. economy:

In many areas of American commerce, private and government programs comfortably co-exist. FHA insured loans and non-FHA loans, Social Security and private pensions, public and private universities–all have long thrived side by side. Each side of the divide has strengths and weaknesses, but in every case the public sector is providing something the private sector cannot: A backup that’s there if and when you need it; a benchmark for private providers; and a backstop to make sure costs don’t spin out of control.​

Igor Volsky recently explained the actual impact of having a competing public plan, writing, “In an environment where private plans are forced to compete with a new efficient public program, inefficient, over-bloated insurers will go out of business, but private plans with good networks of providers or better services will continue attracting new enrollees.” Jonathan Cohn has more on the effects of public-private competition.
Update Igor Volsky has more on the role of private insurers in public-private competition.

DeMint Inadvertently Concedes That Public Health Insurance Option Won’t Take Over The Market ​
 
Truth Detector said:
I am curious, what do you think the Insurance companies making these "FAT BLOATED" profits do with them?

I am fascinated when I see people in Western economies railing against the idea of companies actually making money. What has happened to our educational systems where we are now graduating mini-Marxists?
Click to expand...

Spend them on bloated executive compensation, private jets and other nonsense, and distribute them, as other public companies do with their profits.


I find myself fascinated at corporate defenders thinking capitalism is our form of government. Representative democracy is our form of organizing society; regulated capitalism is how we organize our economic systems. Our gov't is by the people, of the people, and for the people; not by the corporations, of the corporations, and for the corporations. Seems a large segment of our electorate gets confused on occasion.
 
Last edited:
jackalope said:
The Brookings Institution is not liberal:

History

On its website the organization traces its origins "to 1916, when a group of leading reformers founded the Institute for Government Research (IGR), the first private organization devoted to analyzing public policy issues at the national level. In 1922 and 1924, one of IGR's backers, Robert Somers Brookings (1850-1932), established two supporting sister organizations: the Institute of Economics and a graduate school bearing his name. In 1927, the three groups merged to form the Brookings Institution, honoring the businessman from St. Louis whose leadership shaped the earlier organizations."

Initially centrist, the Institution took its first step rightwards during the depression, in response to the New Deal. In the 1960s, it was linked to the conservative wing of the Democratic party, backing Keynsian economics. From the mid-70s it cemented a close relationship with the Republican party. Since the 1990s it has taken steps further towards the right in parallel with the increasing influence of right-wing think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation.​
Click to expand...

Please, Brookings has its roots in modern liberalism. Citing times that they don't support liberal policies does not change that fact. It could be that they don't change their stance while the Democrat party is moving more to the left.

I mean they are rational liberals in the grand scheme of modern liberalism, even though I don't support a lot of what they believe.

jackalope said:
But, regardless of its leanings, their opinion does nothing to address my statement that Obama campaigned on this idea, he told us he was going to tax those earning over $250k, and he won the largest margin of any first term president in decades (maybe back to the 70s?). The country has already spoken on that issue, we want that happen.
Click to expand...

So you are in favor of arbitrary taxes because the majority agrees?
We are not a nation of majority rules, we are a republic.


jackalope said:
That does not address at all the fact that Medicare is currently more efficient in their administration than private insurers are. That has nothing to do with medical reimbursements, it has to do with administration costs only.
Click to expand...

Alright then put Medicare in the market as a privately run company with no tax support. They will be bankrupt in the first year.

The current insurance business is not my preferred model of health care but compared to government control, I'll take it any day



jackalope said:
Medicare's costs are spiraling, no doubt. Private insurers costs are spiraling more. This MUST be addressed, and MUST be solved. Deciding to go with the more expensive and less efficient option only (private insurers), and ignore that a less expensive and more efficient option (Medicare-style public option) competing head to head with private will force private to become more efficient makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...

Private insurers are viable while Medicare is not. Medicare has proven to be a boondoggle from the get go. They only reason a public option will be more cost efficient is because they will deny care. You don't do enough reading about Europe and their government programs.

The house bill is going to set up an HMO style government program. The same type of managed care that is criticized in the private market. They will use methods of denying care from the start of it.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Please, Brookings has its roots in modern liberalism. Citing times that they don't support liberal policies does not change that fact. It could be that they don't change their stance while the Democrat party is moving more to the left.

I mean they are rational liberals in the grand scheme of modern liberalism, even though I don't support a lot of what they believe.



So you are in favor of arbitrary taxes because the majority agrees?
We are not a nation of majority rules, we are a republic.




Alright then put Medicare in the market as a privately run company with no tax support. They will be bankrupt in the first year.

The current insurance business is not my preferred model of health care but compared to government control, I'll take it any day





Private insurers are viable while Medicare is not. Medicare has proven to be a boondoggle from the get go. They only reason a public option will be more cost efficient is because they will deny care. You don't do enough reading about Europe and their government programs.

The house bill is going to set up an HMO style government program. The same type of managed care that is criticized in the private market. They will use methods of denying care from the start of it.
Click to expand...

Brookings is not a liberal think tank, and the position you attributed to them just supports that. They are not arguing a liberal position.

There are actual liberal think tanks, Brookings just isn't one of them. That is not maligning Brookings in any way; it just isn't helpful to mischaracterize them.

We are not a republic, we are a democratic republic, and our system of gov't is representative democracy. Obama campaigned on a platform of reforming health care and insurance, and providing health insurance to the unemployed; he further campaigned on paying for it by taxing those individuals making more than $250k/yr. We knew what he promised when he stood for election, and we voted for him to do it.

Noone campaigned on a platform of privatizing Medicare. That in fact would be silly. There is currently a subsidy in place for private companies providing Medicare coverage - they do it less efficiently and at a higher cost, and we the taxpayers are paying to subsidize that. It makes no sense. Proposing to turn the whole system over to that is economically unsound, a very poor argument.

Currently, Medicare beneficiaries are happier with their coverage than beneficiaries of employer-based private health insurance. It may be your preference to stay the way you are, but you are choosing a method that provides a lower satisfaction and a higher cost. However, that is your right to do, if you like your coverage, keep it. That doesn't mean the rest of us have to choose the way you did, just because you did.
 
So if this is done, why won't they vote until September?

Isn't this just a way to temporarily sway the attention from the fact that they haven't won over the blue dogs in time for the August recess?
 
jackalope said:
Mankiw is this summer arguing for a completely private system, with light regulations. I don't find his stance, opinions, or arguments on health care compelling at all.
Click to expand...

So you refuse to listen to actual facts because you disagree with the political position of a person? Good to know.

jackalope said:
Medicare is more efficient.
Click to expand...

If Medicare is so efficient, why is it an absolute cluster-**** that will collapse under its own weight in the immediate future?

jackalope said:
Brookings is not a liberal think tank, and the position you attributed to them just supports that. They are not arguing a liberal position.

There are actual liberal think tanks, Brookings just isn't one of them. That is not maligning Brookings in any way; it just isn't helpful to mischaracterize them.
Click to expand...

And I'm not maligning Brookings at all, because I genuinely do like it and respect its work, but it's inarguably a liberal-ish think tank.

As a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, Brookings describes itself as independent and non-partisan.[4][14] Brookings is usually described by the media as some shade of liberal.[15] The New York Times has referred to the organization as liberal, liberal-centrist, and centrist.[16][17][18][19][20][21] The Washington Post sometimes describes Brookings as liberal.[22][23][24] The Los Angeles Times describes Brookings as liberal-leaning and centrist.[25][26][27] In 1977, Time Magazine described them as the "nation's pre-eminent liberal think tank."
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom