Universal Health Care Poll

[hblask 1]

They just have to want the product despite how detrimental it is to them, either because they don't know or they are otherwise compelled to use your product. Meth dealers have this kind of industry, but you could do it in health care as long as the customer feels like they are getting better. Of course it does work better if you kill your customer slowly. And, if you can do it without totally ruining their lives so that they can keep making money to pay you, like tobacco does.

Meth is an... um, interesting.... example to use to demonstrate free markets. Far as I know there is no rule of law and property rights in that industry.Cigarettes are obviously a better example. It seems like a poor tradeoff to me to choose the rush of nicotine over years of good health, but I guess each person needs to set their priorities in their own way. It seems like one of the worst choices people routinely make in the US. Still, it's not like the harm is a secret, so I assume the choice is one that smokers have at least thought about, and decided the additional risk is worth it. If that is the case, can we really say the cigarette companies are making their customers worse off? In my own case, for example, my love of cheese (I grew up in WI, give me a break) is killing me, and I know it. I tried eating healthy for a while, which meant almost no cheese, or when I did, it was that disgusting fake low-calorie cheese. Eventually, I made a conscious choice that a few extra years without cheese was worse than a few less with it. Are the cheese companies harming me? Or helping me? A similar argument could be made about cigarettes, it's just that more people think the choice is obviously bad in that case.Notice: in both cases, accurate information being readily available is key. I am not opposed to laws that help us get information that is useful for making informed decisions.

[Jeepster80125 0]

Cane, do you realize that you're advocating both against corporate profits (they make too much/any profit is bad for an insurance company) and your potential fix (universal coverage) lets the insurance companies continue to get larger (more profits). DUCY?

[CaneBrain 95]

And it's not as if there isn't any bureaucracy in the current system. An HMO is a huge bureaucracy (bureaucracy doesn't only have to be run by the government, you know). The argument that Cane was trying to make (if I may be so bold as to presume) is that he'd much rather deal with a government bureaucracy than that of an HMO, whose goal is to deny coverage to patients as much as is legally possible.

of course it was. Don't worry no one pays attention to a naked cowboy outside times square.

[CaneBrain 95]

Cane, do you realize that you're advocating both against corporate profits (they make too much/any profit is bad for an insurance company) and your potential fix (universal coverage) lets the insurance companies continue to get larger (more profits). DUCY?

No I do not. The plan I am advocating is not universal coverage. It is universal catastophic coverage funded by the Federal Government coupled with making the citizenry responsible for all day to day care. If anything, it will make insurance companies obsolete (just like Obama care only I am not pretending it won't). This will accomplish goals both sides want to accomplish. For the Democrats, it will guarantee that everyone receives care when they are really in danger and that no one will go bankrupt from health care (the biggest problem with today's health care). For the conservatives, it will mean applying an actual free market system to all other health care transactions (which should help bring down unnecessary testing and other waste). Also, by standardizing ICU's with one set of paperwork we can cut down on clerical errors and other snafus.....plus have a uniform system for trying to keep hospitals clean and staph free.I think it is a good plan and it gives the government something to do that is manageable. I am not for universal coverage. Having an insurance company pay for routine checkups or blood work makes no sense. Your car insurance does not cover oil changes or a broken window. The way we think of health insurance is flawed and I think this idea is a good compromise. If that means I hate corporations and capitalism, so be it. But I dont think that is what it means.Henry, life is too short for low calorie cheese. That stuff tastes awful.

[hblask 1]

I think it is a good plan and it gives the government something to do that is manageable. I am not for universal coverage. Having an insurance company pay for routine checkups or blood work makes no sense. Your car insurance does not cover oil changes or a broken window. The way we think of health insurance is flawed and I think this idea is a good compromise.

I think you are describing the least terrible way the government could be involved in health care. I think the plan suffers from a huge problem though: that we are not run by benevolent dictators who would implement it sensibly. Even if we started with your plan, the lobbyists with the briefcases full of cash would start showing up, and next thing you know it would be covering monthly hearing screenings or some ridiculous thing like that. Having a plan that would work in the ideal world is one thing, having a plan that works in the real world is another. In a perfect world filled with benevolent, selfless, intelligent politicians, I think a plan like the one you are suggesting would be quite palatable. In the real world, we have Pelosi, and Reid, and Dodd, and hidden slush funds that the rest of us could retire on.So start with a plan that focuses people's innate self-interest into good things for us.

[CaneBrain 95]

I think you are describing the least terrible way the government could be involved in health care. I think the plan suffers from a huge problem though: that we are not run by benevolent dictators who would implement it sensibly. Even if we started with your plan, the lobbyists with the briefcases full of cash would start showing up, and next thing you know it would be covering monthly hearing screenings or some ridiculous thing like that. Having a plan that would work in the ideal world is one thing, having a plan that works in the real world is another. In a perfect world filled with benevolent, selfless, intelligent politicians, I think a plan like the one you are suggesting would be quite palatable. In the real world, we have Pelosi, and Reid, and Dodd, and hidden slush funds that the rest of us could retire on.So start with a plan that focuses people's innate self-interest into good things for us.

What do I look like.....some sort of answer man? This is what I have....and it is better than both the current situation and what is currently being debated in Congress. I mean maybe the answer is that to do this plan (or any plan?) we first have to outlaw lobbyists or set term limits on congressman.....something, anything to reduce the incentive of people in congress to look out for #1.

[hblask 1]

What do I look like.....some sort of answer man? This is what I have....and it is better than both the current situation and what is currently being debated in Congress. I mean maybe the answer is that to do this plan (or any plan?) we first have to outlaw lobbyists or set term limits on congressman.....something, anything to reduce the incentive of people in congress to look out for #1.

You know, if you can figure out a way to do that first, many of my objections to a lot of programs would go away. I mean, I'd still have theoretical objections, but at least from a practical point of view they'd make more sense.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

You know, if you can figure out a way to do that first, many of my objections to a lot of programs would go away. I mean, I'd still have theoretical objections, but at least from a practical point of view they'd make more sense.

I think having a 1-time, 6 year term for senators isn't a bad idea, and maybe 4 years for congressmen. A lot of the corruption comes from being entrenched and isolated in Washington for so long, and beings surrounded by people who are more entrenched in Washington. Also, to go with this, one would probably want to eliminate a lot of the old-fashioned parliamentary "rules" of our legislature so incoming members wouldn't need to learn so many "tricks."Doing this would eliminate career politicians, and it would also encourage Congress to get things done (since people are only there for a few years, they want that time to be productive).

[85suited 0]

I think having a 1-time, 6 year term for senators isn't a bad idea, and maybe 4 years for congressmen. A lot of the corruption comes from being entrenched and isolated in Washington for so long, and beings surrounded by people who are more entrenched in Washington. Also, to go with this, one would probably want to eliminate a lot of the old-fashioned parliamentary "rules" of our legislature so incoming members wouldn't need to learn so many "tricks."Doing this would eliminate career politicians, and it would also encourage Congress to get things done (since people are only there for a few years, they want that time to be productive).

Wow- almost something we agree on..I would give 2-6 yr senate terms and 6 - 2 yr house terms... 12 years total of public service. Also if you serve 6 years in house - you can only serve 1 senate term

[Balloon guy 158]

Wow- almost something we agree on..I would give 2-6 yr senate terms and 6 - 2 yr house terms... 12 years total of public service. Also if you serve 6 years in house - you can only serve 1 senate term

We already have term limits, every election.I don't like the idea of making rules based on the inability of the people to vote for the best representative.It reeks of democrat attitude about people not being able to live their own life so the government must come in and manage it for them.Instead we should make a two week hunting season on all elected politicians, we can thin the weak out of the herd the old fashion way.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

We already have term limits, every election.I don't like the idea of making rules based on the inability of the people to vote for the best representative.

It's naive to think that people vote for the best representative. Do you see the 99% retention rate in the house as a sign of the quality of legislators we have, or as a sign that the system is self promoting and stagnant?

[Balloon guy 158]

It's naive to think that people vote for the best representative. Do you see the 99% retention rate in the house as a sign of the quality of legislators we have, or as a sign that the system is self promoting and stagnant?

Or a sign that the founding father created a system that allows for it's internal collapse should it no longer be tenable?"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury."

[hblask 1]

I think having a 1-time, 6 year term for senators isn't a bad idea, and maybe 4 years for congressmen. A lot of the corruption comes from being entrenched and isolated in Washington for so long, and beings surrounded by people who are more entrenched in Washington. Also, to go with this, one would probably want to eliminate a lot of the old-fashioned parliamentary "rules" of our legislature so incoming members wouldn't need to learn so many "tricks."Doing this would eliminate career politicians, and it would also encourage Congress to get things done (since people are only there for a few years, they want that time to be productive).

Combine that with this rule: one year before each election, 12 people will be chosen randomly from the list of registered voters. These are the only people eligible to run for office. The pay for the office will be set at a level so that at least 5 of them agree to run, whether that is a million or 5 million per year. Once they are done, they may not run for any public office except POTUS. The president must be selected from one of the people chosen this way who has completed their term.I'm only half kidding.

[vbnautilus 48]

Combine that with this rule: one year before each election, 12 people will be chosen randomly from the list of registered voters. These are the only people eligible to run for office. The pay for the office will be set at a level so that at least 5 of them agree to run, whether that is a million or 5 million per year. Once they are done, they may not run for any public office except POTUS. The president must be selected from one of the people chosen this way who has completed their term.I'm only half kidding.

I guess you've never done jury duty.

[hblask 1]

I guess you've never done jury duty.

Are you thinking that we would get twelve people WORSE than Pelosi? That seems highly unlikely.

[El Guapo 8]

Are you thinking that we would get twelve people WORSE than Pelosi? That is impossible.

[Jeepster80125 0]

FEHBP Plan Is No ‘Moderate Compromise’Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has announced that he has reached a super secret compromise on how to deal with the so-called public option for health reform. While Reid said the agreement was too important to actually tell anyone what is in it, most of the details have been leaked to the press.Rather than set-up a completely government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurance, Congress would establish a program similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP), which currently covers government workers, including Members of Congress. The FEHBP offers a variety of private insurance plans under a program managed by the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Each year OPM uses the Federal procurement process to solicit bids from insurance companies to be one of the plans offered. Premiums can vary, but participating plans operate under stringent rules. As a model, the FEHBP is apparently acceptable to moderate Democrats because the insurance plans are private rather than government entities, while liberals like it because it is government regulated and managed.In addition, the compromise plan would expand Medicare, allowing workers ages 55 to 65 to “buy in” to the program, and may also expand Medicaid.A few reasons to believe this is yet another truly bad idea: 1. In choosing the FEHBP for a model, Democrats have actually chosen an insurance plan whose costs are rising faster than average. FEHBP premiums are expected to rise 7.9 percent this year and 8.8 percent in 2010. By comparison, the Congressional Budget Office predicts that on average, premiums will increase by 5.5 to 6.2 percent annually over the next few years. In fact, FEHBP premiums are rising so fast that nearly 100,000 federal employees have opted out of the program. 2. FEHBP members are also finding their choices cut back. Next year, 32 insurance plans will either drop out of the program or reduce their participation. Some 61,000 workers will lose their current coverage. 3. But former OPM director Linda Springer doubts that the agency has the “capacity, the staff, or the mission,” to be able to manage the new program. Taking on management of the new program could overburden OPM. “Ultimate, it would break the system.” 4. Medicare is currently $50-100 trillion in debt, depending on which accounting measure you use. Allowing younger workers to join the program is the equivalent of crowding a few more passengers onto the Titanic. 5. At the same time, Medicare under reimburses physicians, especially in rural areas. Expanding Medicare enrollment will both threaten the continued viability of rural hospitals and other providers, and also result in increased cost-shifting, driving up premiums for private insurance. 6. Medicaid is equally a budget-buster. The program now costs more than $330 billion per year, a cost that grew at a rate of roughly 10.7 percent annually. The program spends money by the bushel, yet under-reimburses providers even worse than Medicare. 7. Ultimately this so-called compromise would expand government health care programs and further squeeze private insurance, resulting in increased costs and higher insurance premiums, and provide a lower-quality of care.No wonder Senator Reid wants to keep it a secret.Cane, do you see why it seems pretty obvious that dems aren't interested in say, lowering costs or anything like that with turds like this? This is absurd. It's similar to obama coming out against HSAs and consumer driven healthcare. It's just so completely against what anyone with a working knowledge of our industry and it's problems would say or do to fix those problems. Totally absurd. Not picking on you Cane but you've been the most vocal proponent of obamacare in this thread.

[vbnautilus 48]

Are you thinking that we would get twelve people WORSE than Pelosi? That seems highly unlikely.

I guess you've never done jury duty.

[hblask 1]

FEHBP Plan Is No 'Moderate Compromise'

And the article didn't even cover the worst part of it -- it's just a back door route to full socialization.Step 1, get people to sign up for a federal program that theoretically competes on a level playing fieldStep 2, when that fails, change the rules to make it more favorableStep 3, wait for more private insurance companies to go out of businessStep 4, claim the free market failedStep 5, take over the rest of the insurance industry, eliminating all choice and bringing on Canadian-style rationing.Is anyone naive enough to believe this is not the real goal of this?

[hblask 1]

I guess you've never done jury duty.

Seriously, I'd rather have a Jerry-Springer-loving trailer-living high school dropout as speaker of the house than Pelosi. I've probably only met a couple people in my life that I would prefer Pelosi over.Anyway, we'd only need one good person out of the 12 or so names drawn. Start offering a couple million a year and people stop finding excuses to get out of service. From there, we get to pick one that can form coherent thoughts -- putting them ahead of 98% of congress.The biggest problem with politicians is the selection process. To reach national level politics you've had to sell your soul eight or ten times. Anything that would eliminate that self-selection process would be a major improvement, even if it meant an occasional racist hillbilly KKK member or, worse yet, if our luck is really bad, Pelosi herself.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

You should really read more balanced articles. Most of those points are pretty bad. You're clearly not expanding your perspective by nursing on that drivel.

2. FEHBP members are also finding their choices cut back. Next year, 32 insurance plans will either drop out of the program or reduce their participation. Some 61,000 workers will lose their current coverage.

The compromise says that insurance companies must participate or the government will make its' own collectives. So, even if insurance companies drop out, people will be able to opt into a government plan. They won't lose their coverage.

3. But former OPM director Linda Springer doubts that the agency has the “capacity, the staff, or the mission,” to be able to manage the new program. Taking on management of the new program could overburden OPM. “Ultimate, it would break the system.”

Clearly if the plan passses with this resolution, the OPM will hire more people to staff their new tasks. This is a really dumb reason.

4. Medicare is currently $50-100 trillion in debt, depending on which accounting measure you use. Allowing younger workers to join the program is the equivalent of crowding a few more passengers onto the Titanic.

If Medicare is going broke, doesn't it help medicare to have younger people buying into it and paying full premiums? The answer is clearly yes, but that isn't as snappy as using a Titanic analogy. Clearly the person didn't even think when he made this point.

7. Ultimately this so-called compromise would expand government health care programs and further squeeze private insurance, resulting in increased costs and higher insurance premiums, and provide a lower-quality of care.

I don't understand this point at all. More competition will "squeeze" private insurance into raising rates and providing less care? Why? Wouldn't it do the opposite...?For the record, no one yet knows all the details and the OMB hasn't priced the new plan yet, so it's difficult to criticize it yet. But it's easy to point out bad criticisms.

[hblask 1]

The compromise says that insurance companies must participate or the government will make its' own collectives. So, even if insurance companies drop out, people will be able to opt into a government plan. They won't lose their coverage.

Which is then a de facto government takeover of medical care, something the American public is opposed to. And it exposes the lie that the point of this is to "increase competition". Clearly, it is not.

If Medicare is going broke, doesn't it help medicare to have younger people buying into it and paying full premiums? The answer is clearly yes, but that isn't as snappy as using a Titanic analogy. Clearly the person didn't even think when he made this point.

That's not how Medicare works, it's not traditional insurance. It loses money on each participant, and more participants means more losses.

I don't understand this point at all. More competition will "squeeze" private insurance into raising rates and providing less care? Why? Wouldn't it do the opposite...?

The main reason is because it'd be like saying "The referees are going to play against the players. They still get to make all the calls and can change the rules any time they want. This will increase competition."This whole business about needing govt run care to increase competition is ridiculous. There are already thousands of companies in the health care industry. Are we really supposed to believe that the increase of <0.1% is going to change the industry? How could that possibly happen? And the only answer is the paragraph above this one: by changing the rules to favor politically favored plans. And once that happens, now do you have more competition, or less?

[strategy 4]

.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Jon Stewart does an excellent job of dismantling Obama here at 3:30:http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-12-2009/pr

That was pretty funny, though I'm not sure what it has to do with the topic at hand. (And, I think the Fed-ex/USPS analogy is a good one).

[Jeepster80125 0]

You should really read more balanced articles. Most of those points are pretty bad. You're clearly not expanding your perspective by nursing on that drivel.

I don't need to say anything that Henry hasn't, except to say that this was the first/only article I noticed yesterday during work. You're a smart guy, but you're completely wrong about medicare.