Rush Limbaugh (sorry Rush Haters but he's right on this one) made a jaw dropping point on his radio show today. About half to three quarters of the $787,000,000,000 (that's seven hundred eighty seven billion dollars) stimulus package money is yet unspent. That is enough money to give every incumbent Democrat Representative and Senator at least $1,000,000,000 (that's one billion dollars) to promote their reelection. Just toe the Obama line on health care, cap and trade, pro union card check, civil trials for non-combatants etc. and reap the benefits for your district or state and accolades from grateful constituents. No clearer example of this exists than what has been called the "Second Louisiana Purchase". Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) secured a $300,000,000 commitment from Obama via Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi in exchange for her "yes" vote on healthcare. Now there are no signed letters, no e-mails, no video tape showing an exchange of money for her vote but we all know the walks like, talks like a duck analogy.
Every incumbant, Republican or Democrat, that runs on how much pork he or she brought home should be sent home. When elections are lost on this issue, we may start to get our fiscal house in order.
Cross posted on clearfogblog
Seems to me these are unrelated.
Put the bill to the house and senate tomorrow and go to the morning shows. They can then suggest that all that money be put directly to unemployment extensions, business hiring incentives and infrastructure replacement like the hundreds of bridges beyond their functional lives... or dozens of other valid uses.
Since the public now understands the stimulus was all pork, the public will openly support killing it's largely unspent pork projects.
Posted by: Cecil on December 1, 2009 01:56 PMAs required by law, the non-partisan CBO released estimates today showing that the stimulus had a significant help to our economy: CBO estimates that in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States, and real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) was 1.2 percent to 3.2 percent higher, than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA.
Do you even know what the spending to LA is, warren? The federal aid sent to LA after Katrina artificially boosted the "average income" in the state such that it qualified for less Medicaid funding. Yet, because of Katrina there is a tremendously a large demand for Medicaid help in the state. I'm not going to lose sleep over this aid.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 1, 2009 02:00 PMOnly fools believe the CBO is unaffected by politics or partisanship, and only fools believe that the stimulus has had any lasting effect. And it is extremely hard to see how any temporary effect it may have had is worth the amount spent.
CBO estimates that in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States, and real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) was 1.2 percent to 3.2 percent higher, than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA.
And the CBO's projections are accurate how often? Rarely.
But let's assume it's true. Let's say 1.6m more people were employed. At what cost per job? It's not worth it: the looming inflation, the increased debt, the increased taxes that will result. It's not worth it, at all. Not even close.
And I note how you don't mention the fact that the CBO essentially said that the stimulus bill did not prevent another Great Depression, as Obama claimed it would.
The Congressional Budget Office's Nov 2009 Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and
Economic Output as of September 2009
For those interested in analysis a little deeper than RL is capable of.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 1, 2009 02:40 PMThe CBO is non-partisan. If "fools" rely on non-partisan studies, what do geniuses like yourselves do? Oh, guess. Guess because you're not supportive of Obama. Guess because you want to see the GOP win in 2010. Of course no evidence is good enough for you pudge, you don't live in a world that requires evidence. You guess based on your feelings.
And the CBO's projections are accurate how often? Rarely.
Do you have evidence to support this claim?
At what cost per job? It's not worth it: the looming inflation, the increased debt, the increased taxes that will result. It's not worth it, at all. Not even close.
The worries about inflation are a complete joke. That is five years off, if ever -- and the Fed is very aware of the leveraging issue. Right now we're still worried about the downturn and deflation and consumer spending and unemployment.
If we didn't do anything, deficits would have been much worse over the long haul and our economy would be in a much deeper crisis. And that ignores the personal suffering.
And I note how you don't mention the fact that the CBO essentially said that the stimulus bill did not prevent another Great Depression, as Obama claimed it would.
That is not what the CBO said. What are you talking about?
Posted by: John Jensen on December 1, 2009 02:44 PMSee? You can't argue with them, because no matter what disaster they foist upon us, they'll just claim that the disaster would have been worse without the disaster.
It's brilliant!
Remember, Nancy Pelosi told us that 500 million Americans (like Gore, the interior of the earth is millions of degrees!) lose their jobs every month.
They really don't think anybody will question their numbers, because as Brian Williams assures us, they are "better than average people".
Posted by: Gary on December 1, 2009 03:20 PM"And the CBO's projections are accurate how often? Rarely."
Really? You aren't just pulling that out of your proverbial ass are you pudge?
Because the accuracy of the CBO's Economic Forecasting Record is publicly available to every idiot with a computer, an internet connection and remedial typing skills.
I'm not obviously not as knowledgeable as you apparently are in analyzing this data, so would you be so kind as to point out the bias and inaccuracies of the CBO forecasts to us from the published and reviewed forecasting record?
thanks,
"Economic output and employment in the spring and summer of 2009 were lower than CBO had projected at the beginning of the year."
Let's see a show of hands of who thinks that was money well spent. Anybody?
Posted by: Gary on December 1, 2009 03:27 PMHey, we have lost of money, don't we? You and I don't need it. It isn't ours.
Posted by: Gary on December 1, 2009 03:31 PMBut that number matters not to the faithful. Because no matter what the number is, they'll just say that w/o Stimulus, 700,000 jobs would have been lost.
The CBO released an extensive report that you dismiss out of hand. Can you explain why you dismiss this report?
I am not being "faithful." I have evidence and data on my side.
See? You can't argue with them, because no matter what disaster they foist upon us, they'll just claim that the disaster would have been worse without the disaster.
Oh grow up. An extended economic recession has a significant impact on federal tax revenues. Since we cannot cut safety-net spending in a recession, it is in the government's interest to shorten or dampen the recession.
Would you be making these arguments if there were tax cuts that had just as big of an effect on the deficit? Probably not. And then you'd claim that the tax cuts led to more revenue, too.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 1, 2009 04:23 PMGary says it's bad. The GOP says it's bad. Nothing can change that. Why even bother doing research of the economy? Gary's already made up his mind. And just like a big boy, when his mind's make up -- well, that's the truth!
Posted by: John Jensen on December 1, 2009 04:53 PMThere have been bogus numbers thrown around about the number of jobs it has created on www.recovery.org. The natural instinct is to discount the credibility when no reliable answers are provided as the White House has done. A more effective use of the remaining 75% of the Porkulus money ought to be considered, but the partisan White House and Congress would never have that.
Meanwhile, the public is pissed off at this general waste of money and the fact it has been put to relatively poor use. The Democrats would improve their chances in 2010 if they would consider reapportioning the remaining funds to more crucial uses and there are a butthold of them !
Posted by: KDS on December 1, 2009 06:08 PMSo where are the praises, guys, for the economic miracle of tens of millions of jobs that George W. Bush created or saved with deficits of just a few hundred billion dollars, versus the trillions of dollars Obama has spent to save a few hundred thousand?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 1, 2009 06:53 PMNothing like leftist revisionist history, eh?
Posted by: Hinton on December 1, 2009 07:41 PMI want to get one of those phony-baloney jobs in one of those fictitious congressional districts.
Excuse me if we don't just open wide and believe every piece of information the government feeds us. Hell, even the CBO said today that their statement was based on what may be very dubious data.
Hmmm... sounds familiar. Where else has bad data been created to support a position that turned out to be bogus? It's right on the tip of my tongue.
You're a liar. I did not imply anything about "non-partisan studies," and you know it, and yet you lied and implied I did.
MikeBS: Really? You aren't just pulling that out of your proverbial ass are you pudge?
Not at all.
Because the accuracy of the CBO's Economic Forecasting Record is publicly available to every idiot with a computer, an internet connection and remedial typing skills.
Exactly.
would you be so kind as to point out the bias and inaccuracies of the CBO forecasts to us from the published and reviewed forecasting record?
Not for you, no.
You are so full of s__t.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 2, 2009 05:20 AMEven if all this debt has benefit (and i'd sure as hell hope dumping that kind of cash into the economy would) one still winds up with a longer term debt that just makes the trouble worse a few years down the line.
Three things that our left wing trolls are not talking about that belong in this conversation are:
1) Reports of jobs created in districts that don't exist. (A recent press report about job reports from a non-existent district in Arizona comes to mind.)
2) Jobs reported as saved that weren't. (Plenty of news reports on this too.)
3) Misuse and abuse of the funds. (I saw a number that said up to $98,000,000,000 was in this category.)
Some deficit spending in a bad economy doesn't bother me as long as it's well spent. But this hasn't been well spent as the news reports on tracking show.
Past that, any assertion by John, Demo, etc. that the use of money has nothing to do with politics is just flat silly and pretty beneath at least John. Everything in DC is based on politics and if you don't understand that, you really don't belong in a forum such as this.
"The American people have an anger about the growth of the deficit because they're not getting anything for it."
She and I are good buds.
CBO:
"Recipients report that about 640,000 jobs were created or retained with ARRA funding through September 2009. Such reports, however, do not provide a comprehensive estimate of the law's impact on employment in the United States. That impact may be higher or lower than the reported number for several reasons (in addition to any issues about the quality of the data in the reports). First, it is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package."
"impossible". "issues about the quality of the data".
And we all know how good the data is, don't we?
50 pairs of boots made for the army = 50 jobs?
Anything else is obedient faith.
Posted by: Gary on December 2, 2009 06:42 AMNo, it's not that money has nothing to do with politics. In fact, it has everything to do with politics, and that doesn't change regardless of who is in office. The relevant question is whether the stimulus money was unfairly allocated between the states, or used for direct partisan goals, as Warren (incorrectly) states.
Do you have proof of that?
Posted by: demo kid on December 2, 2009 08:05 AMhttp://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=76&sid=247551#comments
The CBO is non-partisan by law. You dismissed their study. You are flatly ignoring evidence.
If you're going to continue with your cryptic responses that say almost nothing and have no evidence backing the little you do say, pudge, go away. Talking to you is like talking to still air.
johnny, Past that, any assertion by John, Demo, etc. that the use of money has nothing to do with politics is just flat silly and pretty beneath at least John.
The stimulus had politics involved, of course. What doesn't have partisan politics is the CBO, by law. And they wrote: CBO estimates that in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States, and real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) was 1.2 percent to 3.2 percent higher, than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA.
Gary, "impossible". "issues about the quality of the data".
Gary, you're reading the section talking about the White House data. That is different from the CBO data. That is why the estimates are different. The CBO's own estimates are: CBO estimates that in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States, and real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) was 1.2 percent to 3.2 percent higher, than would have been the case in the absence of ARRA.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 2, 2009 09:33 AMThe most obvious evidence of massive spending on a that was politically based is the domestic auto bailout - specifically GM.
This was actually the "autoworker unions bailout" because that's who benefited. The stockholders and dealerships for these companies got raped in the process as did the taxpayers.
(Amazing how the dealers that got to continue to carry these calls made no sense until you started taking a look at the dealerships in terms of who they contributed money too. But I digress.)
The simple fact is that the cost of GM bailout alone amounts to something like $12,000 per car that the company expects to sell over the next 20 years. Add on the "cash for clunkers" fiasco (estimated to have cost about $25,000 tax dollars per domestic car sold) and I gotta ask who benefitted that isn't a card carrying union member?
You know and I know that the Unions are heavy, heavy dem contributors and this was a pretty unabashed political payoff for their past support.
We've let hundreds of other manufacturing industries die in this country, so the whole "preserving jobs" thing is a a great political cover but doesn't answer the question "Why choose to save a total trainwreck company like GM?"
Past that, another simple example is the money we going to Hollywood studios (another dem money bag) that amounts to spending of more than $1 million per job created. (Source: LA Weekly - hardly a right wing mouthpiece.) What the hell are we spending money on Hollywood studios for?
And as a related example - though admittedly not specifically bailout related - $300 million to buy off Landreau for her vote on healthcare? That's naked politics and the dollars involved are more than you, I and everyone else on this board will pay into taxes in our lifetimes.
I readily acknowledge that this kind of activity went on in other administrations - republican and democrat - but this is on a much more massive scale.
I would have preferred more union concessions, but in the end that becomes GM's choice with how they want to deal with their unions. GM was able to get out of significant cost obligations by trading shares to unions. It was not a "political payoff" by democrats, it as a "bankruptcy payoff" by GM so they could restructure.
And as a related example - though admittedly not specifically bailout related - $300 million to buy off Landreau for her vote on healthcare? That's naked politics and the dollars involved are more than you, I and everyone else on this board will pay into taxes in our lifetimes.
First of all, the US Senate is not the administration. They are separate branches of the government.
And do you know what that money is for? Here's what I wrote earlier in the thread: The federal aid sent to LA after Katrina artificially boosted the "average income" in the state such that it qualified for less Medicaid funding. Yet, because of Katrina there is a tremendously a large demand for Medicaid help in the state. I'm not going to lose sleep over this aid.
Senators grandstand for amendment to help their constituents all the time. At least this one seems to actually help some folks rather than some bridge to nowhere or the other rampant pork spending that the GOP Congress funded.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 2, 2009 10:26 AMThe CBO is non-partisan by law. You dismissed their study. You are flatly ignoring evidence.
On its face, sure... However, as the CBO reported back with the House Bill, and again with the Senate Bill, the Congress heavily restricted what the CBO could consider as "acceptable" areas of costs and revenues to consider.
In other words, the Congress - an explicitly political arm - can define just what facts the CBO can use for their purposes. Meaning the conclusions of the CBO are inherently political.
But you don't want to admit that, do you John?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 2, 2009 10:49 AMNow, you still have fallen far short of proving what you need to prove: a partisan allocation of funding to curry favor so specific government officials can be reelected.
In terms of the rest of it, the Landrieu affair isn't related to stimulus spending, no matter how many times you start blabbering. But I'm fascinated with how you think that this increase in Louisiana healthcare spending is, in and of itself, unethical or immoral. Will it go towards increases in gold-plated pacemakers? Boob implants? What offends you about it, aside from the fact that it was done with political arm-twisting?
Posted by: demo kid on December 2, 2009 11:09 AMWhich Big Three are you referring to?
What are you talking about? We are talking about the stimulus. And this analysis is not of the bills, but the effects of the bills.
In other words, the Congress - an explicitly political arm - can define just what facts the CBO can use for their purposes. Meaning the conclusions of the CBO are inherently political.
Not true. The CBO was to study the effects of the stimulus on the economy. It did so. It is a non-partisan organization. Do you have any evidence their estimates are wrong?
Posted by: John Jensen on December 2, 2009 12:01 PMOur tax dollars to prop up the unions and their corrupt pension funds was where a lot of this money went. The rest went to delaying reforms that need to happen if we're ever going to get manufacturing healthy back here in the states.
Saying that bowing to the unions was GM managements decision was like saying the woman consented and enjoyed it because she didn't fight back while the rapist held a knife to her neck.
Instead of solving the real problems at GM - high union salaries, benefits and demands that make them uncompetitive. Keeping the GM lines rolling delays the inevitable.
This is just more robbing from our grandchildren to delay the crashing reality that unions can't demand anything and everything without repercussions in the marketplace.
You Seattle liberals keep selling yourselves on the utopian idea that unions can take what they want and that U.S. companies will still be competitive.
Right now the production lines are moving to South Carolina at Boeing. The next jump will be to China or India.
Posted by: johnny on December 2, 2009 12:18 PMOur tax dollars to prop up the unions and their corrupt pension funds was where a lot of this money went. The rest went to delaying reforms that need to happen if we're ever going to get manufacturing healthy back here in the states.
Saying that bowing to the unions was GM managements decision was like saying the woman consented and enjoyed it because she didn't fight back while the rapist held a knife to her neck.
Instead of solving the real problems at GM - high union salaries, benefits and demands that make them uncompetitive. Keeping the GM lines rolling delays the inevitable.
This is just more robbing from our grandchildren to delay the crashing reality that unions can't demand anything and everything without repercussions in the marketplace.
You Seattle liberals keep selling yourselves on the utopian idea that unions can take what they want and that U.S. companies will still be competitive.
Right now the production lines are moving to South Carolina at Boeing. The next jump will be to China or India.
Posted by: johnny on December 2, 2009 12:18 PMI am find with strong concessions by unions. I do think GM is at a competitive disadvantage compared to other unions contracts even in America, like Toyota. But it is ridiculous to point to one problem and say that you've found the entire issue. And the type of language you're using -- "corrupt pension funds," really? -- is a bit over-the-topic. The same unions operate plants for Toyota without being the devil incarnate.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 2, 2009 12:44 PMAh... the gold old days. What was it, last year?
What is typical pudge is your routine smarta$$ juvenile responses to legitimate questions of your unsupported opinions.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 2, 2009 12:58 PMhttp://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/02/obama-takes-heat-from-democrats-over-jobs/
Did they get the CBO memo?
When the goverment bails that same pension plan out with our federal tax dollars, it gets personal. The 90% of us who don't work for unions (and even most that do) couldn't get a deal like that because we don't contribute huge chunks of cash to either party in the way the unions do to democrats.
You may not remember the history, but when the GM pension fund suddenly went from black to deep blood red, it was because pension fund was raided to keep GM afloat and pay off union workers at a very high rate to take early retirement. (I think this was in 2006 or 07). That wasn't comp for a few CEO's and CFOs, it was very big exit packages to union workers who probably would have gotten a few months pay and a pink slip at most companies.
(Which isn't a wonderful thing, I admit. It's just how the real world works. We both know they would have gotten even less if the company had been allowed to go bankrupt which is where the union drove it in the first place.)
And, yes, Management was also culpable in the whole mega-fraud in that they helped enact this mess, which is why I called GM an odd place for the government to finally get involved in rescuing manufacturing jobs above. Its pretty plain that this bailout wouldn't even be considered if the unions didn't have a stranglehold on the Democratic party.
As for the unions themselves being corrupt, they've driven the largest manufacturers in the country offshore and out of business through what amounts to extortion. (Or perhaps it would be better said that it was a monopoly on labor.)
In the same way our esteemed crooks in congress know they are stealing money from our kids and destroying the future of our country, these union members knew they were milking the golden goose to death. They just didn't care.
Past that, we could sight individual cases of union intimidation, payoffs, featherbedding, etc. but when we're talking 100's of billions of dollars in tax dollars being flushed down the toilet on this deal, why waste time with the chump change.
Uh... isn't that what the "shovel ready" jobs were supposed to be?
I know how to get people back to work. Stop scaring the hell out of employers. They can't plan for the future with all of the BS hanging over their heads from DC.
Posted by: Gary on December 2, 2009 03:28 PMWhen the Congress can restrict what data or scenarios the CBO can consider in its analysis, it is de-facto partisan and political. That you cannot see that basic fact speaks volumes of your willful blindness.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 2, 2009 03:53 PMThe CBO is also made up of humans. Therefore, by your logic, I am dismissing all human studies.
You are flatly ignoring evidence.
False. Stop lying. Dismissing and ignoring are, obviously, not remotely the same thing.
You're a liar. You said I didn't talk about government, and you exclude from your quote the part where I mentioned government.
All I've said is that pudge doesn't think there is anything inherently wrong with him killing someone just because pudge believes he deserves to die
You're a liar. You said I wasn't talking about government, even though I explicitly did.
pudge wants to obfuscate his obviously sociopathic statement
Again, you call Jefferson a sociopath. Tut, tut.
... by talking about other stuff such as the role of government
You're a liar. The point of my original statement, quite clearly, WAS the role of government in relation to individuals.
he'll make up stuff, falsely attribute it to me or you, and then attempt to engage us in arguing about it
You're a liar.
His simple statement, quoted several times, is clear and tells you everything you need to know about him.
You're a liar: you clipped out of that "simple statement" the part of my statement that you say doesn't exist.
pudge is a guy who likes to argue but he rarely does so honestly
Yawn. You only say that because you always lose.
And he's a sociopathic liar.
Considering I've proven over and over how you've lied, and you've not presented a single instance of me lying, this accusation is ... comical.
Jensen: The problem with pudge's stupid statement has a lot to do with his own hubris
You're a liar. My comment absolutely and unequivocally implies that EVERYONE has the same rights I do. How can that be considered hubris? Unless you mean that I have hubris not for myself in particular, but for humans in general, which would be an odd way to use the word in this context. And it'd be wrong, too.
he errs when he takes his own beliefs and convictions to mean the equivalent of due process and a trial by peers.
You're a liar. I never did that.
There is something inherently wrong with pudge's scenario
Only in the sense that I, myself, explicitly enumerated. So you're not actually disagreeing with me there.
-
demo kid, which "Big Three'? If you are including Ford Motor Company, you should not. They did not take a bailout, and their people stayed employed, and the company has since kicked the other "Big Two's" ass.
So, yes, we had a choice, and the one that didn't get "propped up" won.
GM can't even keep a CEO. Is their next one gonna need a senate confirmation?
Cap-and-Trade is deader than hell. If hell is dead, Cap-and-Trade is even more dead.
Obama is gonna go to Copenhagen and come back with jack squat. It would be better if he didn't go at all. It'd be like the Olympics all over again.
Posted by: Gary on December 3, 2009 08:20 AMI disagree. Not so fast - it is still breathing. As long as the Administration (along with the lamestream media) ignores it like there is no problem, it has legs. Complacency here would be a big mistake ! The science czar has fingerprints on a few of the emails found and the climate czar is a bonafide "global warming alarmist". The odds are it will be debated in the Senate next year. This can change of course, but the truth needs to be driven home by outrage from the people to the Government-Media complex.
Posted by: KDS on December 3, 2009 08:40 AMI worry more about the EPA deciding to take matters into its own hands.
There are more of them, unsurprisingly. Locally we could build light rail to S 200th street (south of the airport) since design is almost complete. All we'd need is an infusion of cash that would come now, instead of a few years from now (i.e., "front-loaded" so deficit nuetral). You probably aren't in favor of light rail expansion, but this was already voted on and approved, so it's going to be built. We might as well build it now while construction is cheaper and folks need work.
Dan, When the Congress can restrict what data or scenarios the CBO can consider in its analysis, it is de-facto partisan and political.
Prove that this stimulus study is "restricted." You can't, because it isn't in any meaningful way. The data disagrees with your views, so you attack the source.
Gary, I think the chances of Congress debating Cap-and-Trade 6 months before the election is a long shot at best. Especially after climategate and with the economy the way it is.
You're probably right, but...
I worry more about the EPA deciding to take matters into its own hands.
So does the Senate. The threat of broad EPA action may force Congress to have some alternative. Keep in mind, the EPA has no choice here. They were forced to regulate CO2 by the Supreme Court and the Clean Air Act.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 3, 2009 09:37 AMSmall business'.
Another half-assed, but transparent effort orchestrated for the lamestream media to fall all over themselves for a faux story.
Posted by: KDS on December 3, 2009 10:31 AMKinda like Obama did today.
CBO found that premiums in the individual market will rise by 10% to 13% more than if Congress did nothing. Family policies under the status quo are projected to cost $13,100 on average, but under ObamaCare will jump to $15,200. Obamacare will INCREASE the spending rate for health care. You're a liar, you're a true believer.
Obama blames employers for unemployment, saying they're not doing their part to solve the unemployment issue.
Here's the fact: small business DRIVES jobs creation, 40 hires for every 1 hire in "big business". If the President was serious about getting unemployment solved he'd do the following:
1. Eliminate the health care push. It's an unknown cost, unknown scope, and will add costs and time demands to small business. If it's not defined then small business doesn't know what the impact will be, so small business will be cautious until they know.
2. Eliminate taxation for small businesses. Make the first $250,000 in profits for any LLC or Corporation of fewer than 25 employees tax-exempt. Period. You pay no income taxes on it.
3. Eliminate capital gains taxes on savings/interest for any small business with 25 or fewer employees. Right now you are penalized for saving money year-over-year to make bigger purchases. Eliminate this disincentive to savings. Reward business for building reserves of cash and capital.
4. Eliminate import duties and tariffs for small small business with 25 or fewer employees. Import duties raise less than $60 billion a year, half of that is paid by small businesses. Eliminate that tax.
It's pretty simple, you encourage small businesses to grow by letting them keep more of their profits, and to eliminate uncertainty and doubt about future costs/regulations. Then sit back and watch the businesses explode.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 3, 2009 11:18 AMFirst of all, the individual market is tiny. The vast majority of us are in the group and small business markets which the CBO says will see a decrease in premiums.
Second, your reading of the data is a bit off. If people stuck with the same quality of plans they had today, their prices would fall: Premiums for the same policy in the individual market fall by 14 to 20 percent. But people will have help to buy more comprehensive plans than otherwise, so they will. In other words, people will be getting better insurance and usually paying less or the same for it.
I'll quote a Washington Post opinion writer:
First, the bottom line of the report is simple: The CBO says premiums will go down for the vast majority of Americans, and that the same insurance policy will cost less under reform.
The confusion comes in the CBO's analysis of the individual market, which serves about a tenth of the population. CBO expects prices in the individual market to rise by 10 or 12 percent, an expectation driven entirely by predictions that individuals will purchase policies that are much more comprehensive, and thus somewhat more expensive, then the insurance they can afford now. Then the CBO turns to look at the impact of the subsidies, which will cut premium costs by a bit over 50 percent for a bit over 50 percent of the market.
But as the CBO explains on page five, part of the increase in the type of insurance being purchased is the result of "people's decisions to purchase more extensive coverage in response to the structure of subsidies." In other words, the change is driven by the subsidies, not offset by them.
To see this more clearly, imagine that the University of Florida decided to give incoming students who receive financial aid an $800 credit to purchase a laptop computer. You'd expect that the average computer purchased by students on financial aid would become a bit more expensive. But that wouldn't be because computers had become more expensive. It would be because people now had money to buy better computers.
So too for health-care reform. Premiums for the same policy in the individual market fall by 14 to 20 percent. But people in the individual market, who are largely low-income, will now have the opportunity to purchase better policies that cover more expenses and provide more security. That's a good thing. It's one of the reasons for health-care reform, in fact. And it is not analogous to health-care insurance becoming more expensive, any more than the fact that I could buy a nicer car after getting a better job suggests that cars are becoming more expensive.
You're a liar, you're a true believer.
I can't be both, Dan.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 3, 2009 11:32 AMI was promised not a single penny increase in insurance, and now that even your sainted CBO says I'm going to pay more, you say "well, you're part of too small of a market to concern Congress".
Wel, John, screw you too...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 3, 2009 12:50 PMIt's brilliant. Everybody gets shafted and we all come down. That's how communism works. That's how they equalize everybody, by making everybody equally miserable. The Left can't tolerate happy, successful individuals.
Posted by: Gary on December 3, 2009 01:11 PMThe vast majority of Americans will see unquestionably, un-nauced smaller premiums according to the CBO. When you say that the CBO claims "premiums are going up" when 90% of us are clearly not in that category, you deserve to be corrected.
Stop acting so victimized. I never said the individual market was unimportant, just that it was tiny which is completely true. I am a huge fan of the individual market vastly, vastly expanding through exchanges and future legislation so don't take my use of proper adjectives as some sort of personal insult.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 3, 2009 01:35 PMThe statement you quote makes no sense; the costs will fall only because I will supposedly "choose" a different plan. Hey, we can cut premiums by 90% for everyone if they "choose" the right plan.
Face it - you want everyone to buy what you want them to buy. You hate the free market. You hate freedom.
Say what you want, but your actions and justifications speak louder than your words.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 3, 2009 01:42 PMWinston Churchill said it best:
“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
John and his ilk prefer the miseries over inequalities. Truly a sign of a black heart...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 3, 2009 01:45 PMWhat are you talking about?
1. If everyone kept the same quality plan they had today, their payments will be cheaper after Obama's reforms, according to the CBO: CBO and JCT estimate that the elements of the legislation that would change the price of providing a given amount of coverage for a given population would, on net, reduce the average premium per person for nongroup coverage in 2016 by about 7 percent to 10 percent relative to the amount under current law. And that doesn't include subsidies, which would bring the price down further.
2. Since we are offering subsidies to half of the individual market, those people will get better insurance coverage for the same or less as they pay today.
The net impact is that most people will get better insurance for less money. This is the CBO data. Argue with them, not me.
For those who won't receive subsidies, like you, the changes will be undramatic, if any: Among nongroup enrollees who would not receive new subsidies, the average actuarial value of their coverage would not differ as sharply from the average for the nongroup market under current law. Some would choose to enroll in a “young invincibles” plan to be offered under the proposal; that plan would have relatively high deductibles and a relatively low actuarial value (estimated to be less than 50 percent), and the premium would be correspondingly low. (That plan would generally not be attractive to individuals who could receive premium subsidies for more extensive coverage.) Moreover, if they wanted to, current policyholders in the nongroup market would be allowed to keep their policy with no changes, and the premiums for those policies would probably not differ substantially from current-law levels.
Face it - you want everyone to buy what you want them to buy. You hate the free market. You hate freedom.
Grow up, Dan, and cut the stupid personal attacks. I wish everyone could buy their own insurance. The employer-based system is terrible.
Look, this is increasingly pathetic. I'm citing data and quoting experts. You're calling me a liar and saying I hate freedom. I want to fix health care in this country, Dan. Chill out.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 3, 2009 01:58 PMThe question of the impact of the health reform bill came up this AM when I was listening in on an investors quarterly conference call with one of the big manufacturing conglomerates.
The CEO's answer was that in the event this happened they would see it as an "opportunity to streamline their business and free up financial resources they currently have tied" to their privately managed insurance. (i.e. they would cancel their private insurance and force about 13,000 U.S. employees into the government plan.)
A follow up question was on the subject of why the corporation would consider this if there were penalties for companies that don't offer company insurance.
His answer was that if the penalties for not offering company insurance didn't increase significantly over the amounts currently being discussed in congress, the small trade off would be well worth paying the cost and would actually look pretty good from a balance sheet standpoint versus reflecting the kind money they were currently spending to administrate their program.
At least one Wall St. analyst piped in this seemed like the take most diversified companies had on the the subject.
I'll be the very first to admit I don't understand all of this, but it sounds to me like a ton of big companies that currently self-insure would simply stop doing so given the chance.
If you took the personnel load of even a handful of the big companies like Emerson, Franklin, Danaher, Stanley, etc. I can't imagine that might not significantly alter CBO figures,
(These "what-ifs" might be already acknowledged in the CBO plan, but I doubt it. Experience says that Washington DC types almost never anticipate what happens in the real world.)
Posted by: johnny on December 3, 2009 03:11 PMThat is impossible. The public option lives on the health insurance exchange, which is only open to those in small businesses and individuals. No one can be forced onto the public option, people can just buy into it.
You are confusing the public option with the insurance exchange. Dozens of private insurance companies can live on this exchange. Finally, the small penalties for not providing insurance for your employees are non-existent today so why exactly would health care reform change this scenario? It would only make it costlier for companies.
(These "what-ifs" might be already acknowledged in the CBO plan, but I doubt it. Experience says that Washington DC types almost never anticipate what happens in the real world.)
You're wrong. The CBO has noted that some people will move from employer-provided insurance to individually-purchased insurance, and some employers will drop coverage over time like they to today. In fact, this happens in even greater numbers today because of the skyrocketing costs of health care.
But fundamentally you confused the "government plan" with the exchange which is mostly private insurance companies. How can you seriously claim to understand this reform if you don't even get the most basic aspects of it?
Posted by: John Jensen on December 3, 2009 04:32 PMI wish everyone could buy their own insurance.
And so you support legislation which will eliminate that ability. See John, you're completely disingenuous. The "attacks" you complain about are actually facts about you. You don't care for freedom, you don't want everyone to buy their own insurance. You want control.
Well, screw you. Your facts are worthless as you know, since the CBO was limited in what it could evaluate AND the final bill is not even close to being finished thus anything said now is irrelevant for what will come out.
And you dismiss the "small fraction" of us individual buyers as not enough to worry about, not enough to protect our freedom.
Tyranny of the majority is what you want, John. And you're a lying hypocrite because you deny what you really are.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 3, 2009 04:59 PMNo. I can't. Because Congress is setting prices for every insurance company in the nation. Neither I not the insurance company can even negotiate this
anymore.
This bill strengths and expands the individual insurance market. You're totally wrong.
You don't care for freedom, you don't want everyone to buy their own insurance.
Grow up, Dan. You are lying about my views. I would prefer a system where individuals chose their own insurance, not employers.
Well, screw you.
Grow up, Dan.
Your facts are worthless as you know, since the CBO was limited in what it could evaluate AND the final bill is not even close to being finished thus anything said now is irrelevant for what will come out.
You haven't named one way the CBO was limited, because it wasn't.
The final bill will have a CBO score, as well, and I'm free to have another opinion on that bill. I'm debating the Senate bill because that is the only one under consideration right now. You're arguing that we shouldn't discuss the data and the bill in front of the US Senate.
Thanks, Dan, but I'll go ahead and use facts and cite sources. You can continue getting angry and hurling insults my way.
And you dismiss the "small fraction" of us individual buyers as not enough to worry about, not enough to protect our freedom.
You're lying. I've never dismissed the individual market, I just said that the typical person is not in the individual market which is a fact. This fact seems to irritate you. That's mostly because you have difficult arguing logically and instead resort to relying on your angry and bitter emotions. For example:
And you're a lying hypocrite because you deny what you really are.
Grow up, Dan.
Gary, John, may I buy insurance that isn't required to provide mammograms with no co-pay? No. I can't. Because Congress is setting prices for every insurance company in the nation. Neither I not the insurance company can even negotiate this anymore.
You mean, the amendment which would allow doctors to determine whether mammograms are medically necessary and would require insurance companies to cover the procedure if needed? Why do you think insurance companies should deny mammograms against doctor recommendations? Why do you think insurance companies should get between the patient and their doctor?
Posted by: John Jensen on December 3, 2009 05:42 PM1. He misstates the CBO's finding, understandably because it is complex stuff.
2. I correct him, citing specific CBO paragraphs and linking to the CBO document.
3. He says the CBO analysis is worthless.
Well then, Dan, why did you cite their report in the first place? And just why do you get so angry and nasty when you talk policy? Can't you control your emotions?
Posted by: John Jensen on December 3, 2009 06:01 PMThat is impossible. The public option lives on the health insurance exchange, which is only open to those in small businesses and individuals. No one can be forced onto the public option, people can just buy into it.
BULLSHIT. You're fined by the IRS, and threatened with jail time if you don't buy insurance. You're FORCED into the government plan (which is what Johnny said, not what you lied about when you twisted his words).
You're a liar John, and you're proven to be one here once again.
And yes, I'm angry because lying scum like you want to take my money, and force me out of my plan, into a plan I do not want to satisfy your beliefs. You want to restrict my freedom of association and my right to pursue happiness because you are an ignorant little puke without an ounce of compassion but a pound of greed and malice.
Bullshit, John. You are filth. Leave.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 3, 2009 09:35 PMGrow up, Dan.
You're fined by the IRS, and threatened with jail time if you don't buy insurance.
Irrelevant, and not true. No one is threatened with jail time for not buying insurance. You're lying.
You're FORCED into the government plan (which is what Johnny said, not what you lied about when you twisted his words).
Not true. The Senate bill does not force people to buy health care through the exchange. They can get insurance outside of the exchange and still fulfill the mandate.
johnny was probably wrong about the bill. He said people would "lose private insurance and be forced onto the government option." It sounds like he's referring to a specific insurance plan. Apparently you've read his mind, but either way he's incorrect.
You're a liar John, and you're proven to be one here once again.
Grow up, Dan.
And yes, I'm angry because lying scum like you want to take my money
Grow up, Dan.
You want to restrict my freedom of association and my right to pursue happiness because you are an ignorant little puke without an ounce of compassion but a pound of greed and malice.
Grow up, Dan.
Bullshit, John. You are filth. Leave.
Grow up, Dan.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 4, 2009 01:55 AMYour lies are stunning. Your post will live as testament to the depths of your lies. You have to buy insurance or you're fined by the IRS. Such fines can result in jailtime - those are hard facts, you even confirmed them (along with your fellow leftists) in earlier threads about how it was just that "tax dodgers" go to jail.
You're a liar John, serially. And you want to restrict my freedom because it offends you. Bill C is right - you leftists truly are evil.
I'm done with you, you are not honest, you are evil.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 4, 2009 03:21 AMI also heard and understood the commentary from the analyst that said other companies in the manufacturing sector would cancel their plans too and push their employees to government sponsored plans to free up cash for acquisitions and other investments.
I don't spend my time around government workings as much as I should, but I deal with them as a businessperson and I have a pretty good sense of when other business people are (for lack of a better word) talking out their ass. If this CEO had been bull of BS, there were about 30 analysts on the phone that would have fried the guy in a heartbeat. That didn't happen.
Frankly John, you're attitude is starting to wear a little thin around here.
I don't know who you think you're convincing with this "I know more than you" vibe, but frankly you can regurgitate passages from a bill, but don't seem to have much of a handle on what the effects of those passages (and the whole bill) will really do once they hit the marketplace.
I sense you're probably either an attorney or perhaps a political operative. (At least that's the take I have after watching you operate in this forum for a while.) I'm not sure who's paying you to hang out here, but I doubt they are getting much bang for the buck.
Posted by: Johnny on December 4, 2009 06:17 AMBesides, he really does not like capitalism. Remember the truth that "Socialism only works until they run out of other's money to spend"
Consider the shitload of new regulations that will make it more expensive on its own. Can anyone name a case where added regulations make something cheaper ? Nope.
OK, JJ - I figure you'll go ahead and attack back or talk down in your own way in an attempt to blow it off. I don't care because I consider the source and am not the one pushing this Orwellian piece of legislation and you have not proven once to me, Dan or Johnny that it is not Orwellian.
Posted by: KDS on December 4, 2009 08:08 AMGrow up, Dan.
Your post will live as testament to the depths of your lies.
Grow up, Dan.
You're a liar John, serially. And you want to restrict my freedom because it offends you. Bill C is right - you leftists truly are evil.
Grow up, Dan.
I'm done with you, you are not honest, you are evil.
Grow up, Dan.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 4, 2009 10:15 AMIf you're not happy with your playmates, I'm sure you'll get a better reception over at Horsey's site, or perhaps Keith Oberman has a blog somewhere with comments. I'm sure they'll treat y you like a god over there.
You were interesting for a while, but lately your posts are no more interesting or informative than Demokids.
Posted by: johnny on December 4, 2009 10:25 AM
I'm sorry that I'm condescending. Any time I post here, I'm attacked as "evil" or a "liar" even though I frankly do more research than 99% of the commenters and most of the bloggers. So it's tough to rid of my bitter tone sometime.
It is a little frustrating to have to correct folks so many times on a bill that have so much hatred toward. I find it odd to hate something that one doesn't understand very well, but I was opposed to some Bush policies I didn't take the time to research so I guess it's fair. What's amazing here is that 80% of the bill is uncontroversial, but even those uncontroversial parts get ripped apart by the right in an effort to sink the bill. That hurts real health reform efforts even if this bill happens to fail. We cannot pretend that Medicare waste can't be cut -- our nation depends on that much.
I also heard and understood the commentary from the analyst that said other companies in the manufacturing sector would cancel their plans too and push their employees to government sponsored plans to free up cash for acquisitions and other investments.
You have to realize that this scenario can happen today without penalty. Tomorrow (after reform), it would happen with penality. If they're going to do this, health reform only helps them tangentially: Now the individual market is better so employees would be less pissed off.
But look, a lot of the GOP wants this: They want employers out of our health care decisions. And you know what? So do I. Individual choice and competititon is going to result in cheaper health care with more options for us. The companies that cut insurance will either have to (1) raise wages to make up for the loss in benefits, or (2) recognize that many of their employees are going to quit the job. When health premiums rise slower, wages go correspondingly up faster. Much of our wage is eaten by health insurance.
If this CEO had been bull of BS, there were about 30 analysts on the phone that would have fried the guy in a heartbeat. That didn't happen.
I'm not saying he was lying, I'm just saying that there isn't a clear reason why this health care bill would cause that outcome. (Or if that outcome is even undesirable)
Frankly John, you're attitude is starting to wear a little thin around here.
If I read myself I'd be annoyed too. Please recongize that I'm posting in a pretty unfriendly venue and am often having to repeat the basics of the bill. I hope you take the time at some point to read up a little on the bill and at least understand what you oppose -- part of a functioning democracy is a well-informed electorate. You're clearly a smart guy so you'd have no problem getting the basics.
I don't know who you think you're convincing with this "I know more than you" vibe, but frankly you can regurgitate passages from a bill, but don't seem to have much of a handle on what the effects of those passages (and the whole bill) will really do once they hit the marketplace.
Johnny, with respect, the fact that I'm citing stuff and actually know many of provisions of the bill makes me a much stronger commentary than folks who scream about "losing freedom" or other vague remarks. My conclusions are from general analysis of the health care system and the CBO -- I'm just interested in health reform. A lot of folks base their opinions on what politcians and pundits on the right are saying and I'm not sure why that is functionally better.
I sense you're probably either an attorney or perhaps a political operative. (At least that's the take I have after watching you operate in this forum for a while.) I'm not sure who's paying you to hang out here, but I doubt they are getting much bang for the buck.
I'm just someone who's interested in national policy and I'm not getting paid to do this. I'm not involved in politics or law -- I'm a computer programmer in the private sector. Just like you, I have political views. I'm probably more interested in policy details than most, but that's just cause I'm a nerd.
-------
KDS, Support your assertions or accusations with evidence of his past postings and he has provided more than enough rope to hang him with. Of course, this would require additional time for research that I don't have the luxury of at this time or tell him why he is a liar and can't have it both ways.
So, you have no evidence that I'm wrong or that I'm a "liar," but if just someone would do the basic research to argue with me then they'd win? Isn't this sort of a lazy accusation?
JJ is out to try and convolute this black and white issue about to accept or reject congress's revamp of Health care and make it gray. When he tells you to grow up, he is not defending being called BS on, he is merely trying to blowing it off.
This issue is hardly black and white. 30 million more people get direct benefit from the bill, which I think everyone thinks is a good outcome even if we disagree on cost. Everyone else gets an end to pre-existing conditions, which most of support. The Medicare reforms should be bipartisan because they are fiscally responsible and future Medicare savings will support in the future.
I'm not telling folks to "grow up" because they don't like the public option or any other political idea, but because they're being unconstructive and calling me a liar who hates freedom. Will you take a moment and read with some of the stuff people write toward me? How would you respond?
Besides, he really does not like capitalism. Remember the truth that "Socialism only works until they run out of other's money to spend"
This is exactly what I'm talking. My arguments have absolutely nothing to do with who I am or whether I like capitalism. My arguments stand on their own merits; the author of those arguments is irrelevant. Granted, since you're too busy to do research you might be taking the easy way out and attack me personally.
I support capitalism, but the free market in health care has failed in some areas. Pre-existing condtions are an example of something the market cannot address on its own. Another aspect is cost: the free market has done almost nothing to contain health care costs, mostly because of consumer price sheltering. You cannot have a free market will people are unexposed to the cost of either ther treatments or their insurance. Truly, this is a far more nuanced debate than whether one favors capitalism or socialism. The fact that most insurers and all providers would be private illustrates that.
Consider the shitload of new regulations that will make it more expensive on its own. Can anyone name a case where added regulations make something cheaper ? Nope.
There are plenty of examples, but one is energy. See: Enron and deregulation of energy in California.
The CBO says that apples-to-apples insurance premiums will fall -- that's actual research, not just sweeping statements. But the secret to good health insurance is not how cheap it is. This is not a value meal, it's a lifeline. The "regulations" such as minimum coverage requirements and cost-sharing are so people don't go without access to necessary treatments, and so pre-existing conditions aren't denied coverage, and so your insurance can't just be canceled. Some of those regulations even most of the GOP supports.
OK, JJ - I figure you'll go ahead and attack back or talk down in your own way in an attempt to blow it off. I don't care because I consider the source and am not the one pushing this Orwellian piece of legislation and you have not proven once to me, Dan or Johnny that it is not Orwellian.
I have disproven many claims here, but I can't disprove a feeling you have. My general point is that if you don't know what's in the bill, you don't know why it won't work, why it'll cost too much, nor why it's Orwellian. I can't argue with vague generalizations like this. If you have a specific point you want to debate, that's much different. But no, it isn't Orwellian. No one is being tortured to support it. There are no giant TV screens being installed in everyone's homes. No cameras on the street. No government clamping down on free speech and other basic freedoms. No documents of abuse are being burned. We aren't waging fakes wars with other nations to drum up support. Chocolate is not being rationed.
There's a requirement to get health insurance, which almost everyone here already has and those who don't will certainly need some day. And if you can't afford it on your own, the government will help you purchase it on a marketplace -- so the government will help you buy private insurance if you want it. And if you don't want insurance for some reason, you can pay a modest tax penalty so when you eventually go use a medical service or join Medicare you'll have paid into the system. The benefit you get from that tax penalty is the ability to join an insurance company at any time without pre-existing conditions being denied treatment.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 4, 2009 10:56 AMJJ - That's ridiculous - you've got to be joking. We don't need to spell these out for you. The merits of your arguments imply that you favor socialism over capitalism in every post you write as a liberal progressive. It's hard to believe you are that deep in denial or just unperceptive. Now, I am not sure you really understand the definition of socialism or collectivist.
"I have disproven many claims here, but I can't disprove a feeling you have. My general point is that if you don't know what's in the bill, you don't know why it won't work, why it'll cost too much, nor why it's Orwellian."
Grow up John, stop being condescending and dissing relevant facts by others that contradict your arguments. You don't really prove many relevant facts. If you proved them, others would move along and you wouldn't feel compelled to defend your positions. I have a very good idea of what this bill is about and I don't like it. As I said, it seems Orwellian and my gut feeling which is usually spot on. Needless to say, I don't buy your nuanced and often naive rationalization and reasoning mainly because I don't want the Government attempting to control 1/6 of our economy and you are indeed naive if you don't see that.
__________________________
To add to this, here is a transcript of an Op-Ed by Carrie Lucas of the Independent Women's Forum, who posts an Op-Ed from Camille Paglia, liberal columnist that I concur with;
I don't always agree with Camile Paglia, but I always find her perspective and writing interesting. But when discussing the House passed health care bill, she hits the nail on the head:
As for the actual content of the House healthcare bill, horrors! Where to begin? That there are serious deficiencies and injustices in the U.S. healthcare system has been obvious for decades. To bring the poor and vulnerable into the fold has been a high ideal and an urgent goal for most Democrats. But this rigid, intrusive and grotesquely expensive bill is a nightmare. Holy Hygeia, why can't my fellow Democrats see that the creation of another huge, inefficient federal bureaucracy would slow and disrupt the delivery of basic healthcare and subject us all to a labyrinthine mass of incompetent, unaccountable petty dictators? Massively expanding the number of healthcare consumers without making due provision for the production of more healthcare providers means that we're hurtling toward a staggering logjam of de facto rationing. Steel yourself for the deafening screams from the careerist professional class of limousine liberals when they get stranded for hours in the jammed, jostling anterooms of doctors' offices. They'll probably try to hire Caribbean nannies as ringers to do the waiting for them.
A second issue souring me on this bill is its failure to include the most common-sense clause to increase competition and drive down prices: portability of health insurance across state lines. What covert business interests is the Democratic leadership protecting by stopping consumers from shopping for policies nationwide? Finally, no healthcare bill is worth the paper it's printed on when the authors ostentatiously exempt themselves from its rules. The solipsistic members of Congress want us peons to be ground up in the communal machine, while they themselves gambol on in the flowering meadow of their own lavish federal health plan. Hypocrites!
And why are we even considering so gargantuan a social experiment when the nation is struggling to emerge from a severe recession? It's as if liberals are starry-eyed dreamers lacking the elementary ability to project or predict the chaotic and destabilizing practical consequences of their utopian fantasies.
Paglia then turns to criticizing the GOP:
Republicans, on the other hand, have basically sat on their asses about healthcare reform for the past 20 years and have shown little interest in crafting legislative solutions to social inequities. The usual GOP floater about private medical savings accounts is a crock -- something that, given the astronomical costs of major medical crises, would be utterly unworkable for families of even average household income.
It's certainly fair game to fault Republicans for failing to be proactive on health care, but her criticism of medical savings accounts seems to be based on a misunderstanding. Medical savings accounts (MSAs) are coupled with high deductible insurance, so in the event of a catastrophic illness or injury, the insurance would kick in and protect a family from financial ruin.
What MSAs do are making you vested in using money wisely. I used to have an MSA and I would actually question doctors about tests they were thinking of running and telling them no if I thought it made no sense. Before people start responding about the problematic incentives that this creates for individuals focused solely on saving money (causing them to forgo preventative care), I believe that my annual check up and some other routine care was covered by the high deductible insurance policy. More importantly, as a patient, I did have an incentive to go to the doctor when I needed to, both because I valued my health and because I didn't want to incur more expenses down the road.
But even if Paglia is mistaken on MSAs, she then goes on to call for inter-state purchase of health insurance. Overall it's a piece well worth reading in its entirety (for some reason, I'm unable to provide the link but it's available on Salon.com).
Posted by: KDS on December 4, 2009 11:26 AMRight, because the debates here are driven by fact and not ridiculous things about how I'm a socialist.
I have a very good idea of what this bill is about and I don't like it.
Then why are you so unable to name specific things in the bill that you are willing to debate?
As I said, it seems Orwellian and my gut feeling which is usually spot on.
A gut feeling is not about facts.
Needless to say, I don't buy your nuanced and often naive rationalization and reasoning mainly because I don't want the Government attempting to control 1/6 of our economy and you are indeed naive if you don't see that.
Regulating the sale of insurance isn't "government control of health care," it's "government regulation of health insurance." Just like energy providers are regulated. Nearly all insurance companies and all care providers will be private. There's no way to fix things like pre-existing conditions without government regulations. The free market does not, and cannot, provide universal coverage. It can't do it.
These items are probably not that important to you, but they are to me. I'd take some modest government intervention and support to accomplish these goals that the private sector cannot. But that doesn't mean the private sector is removed from health care. You take a modest, mostly private solution like the one proposed and link it to Canada's government-run insurance company and link that UK's government-run health care system. They are worlds and worlds apart, though.
The op-ed is somewhat terrible and seems to mostly rely on vague, unsupported claims that any of us will ever interact with the government for any reason for health care. Almost of all us will remain in private insurance and go to private medicine providers. There are no government bureaucrats along any stop of the way.
The argument that we shouldn't strive for universal coverage because the market will grow too quickly is selfish and elitist. We should not deny health care to 30 million Americans because we're worried about a doctor's appointment taking a day longer to schedule. In either case, since the private sector is where the medicine providers live, it will grow to meet the additional demand. We have many years before insurance roles are expected to get bigger -- we can build more hospitals and doctor's offices in the meantime if necessary.
The fact is, though, that 30 million more people having insurance won't mean that a lot more people will end up in the hospital. It'll just mean that they'll be able to pay for it when they do go.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 4, 2009 12:09 PMThanks for the thoughtful response, and I understand to a certain extent you've put yourself in a position where you're swimming upstream, but I think you continue to miss my point on the difference between what a bill says and what a bill will actually do.
You can tell me all you want about how the health bill reads, but when people who have millions of dollars at stake (and the companies that generate that income) tell me what they will do in response to the bill, that tells me what the bill actually says.
If you don't understand the difference, I guess I get that now that I know your background. Programmers live in a world where the systems they program do exaclty what the code says they should, and if it doesn't work out the first time, they can tweak things to make them work correctly. It's not exactly black and white, but it's manageable and pretty clear cut. You find a bug, you fix it.
The real world just doesn't work like that. In the real world, when the fed laws create bugs there's a whole power stucture that works to keep that bug alive so their cronies can exploit it. This kind of back-assward rewards system creates a situation where the Federal goverment has a momentum to it that makes it almost impossible to stop bad ideas and mistakes from being fixed.
Be it the "war on poverty," "war on drugs," "war to end all wars (WWI), or even the Graham/Rudmand (Sp?) act that was intended to limit the influence of special interests in ad campaigns, the fed has proven itself capable time and again of creating systems that make it more profitable to try to solve the problem than actually solving the problem. There's an incredibly strong argument in each of the above cases that the governments "cure" was worse than the disease.
Even the whole credit debacle we're living thru was a government created problem. Those banks would not have made all those loans had the federal goverment not continued to back them and buy them up, and everyone in government knew there was a problem for YEARS and didn't do anything about it. (Why not? Well, take a look at the list of powerful politicians - both GOP and DEM - that earned hundreds of thousands a year as consultants and board members for for Freddy and Fannie.)
I am not a lunatic. I don't think many of us are on this board. (Demo kid possible exception.)
I think there is a lot of agreement that there is a need for some healthcare reform and a place for the federal goverment in healthcare reform.
Where we depart company is that I believe - and think just about everyone else here believes - that there's a thousand places to start that reform that don't require this kind of huge new government involvement.
I won't get into conservative talking points about how tort reform is the answer or tax changes - I actually agree that we should put some handcuffs on the insurance industry to drop coverage, get some control on drug companies, etc. But it sure as hell doesn't take a bill like this to exact those changes and if these small issues were handled in small bites, we would probably get much better outcomes on each of them.
So I guess my end point for you to consider or not consider is this.
If, after watching the coming trainwreck that is social security, the massive deficits of Medicare, and the inefficiency of government at every level you still believe Government is the Answer... Well, good luck with that.
But perhaps you should stop reading bills and start reading the U.S. history books for a little while. I think you'll find that other than building roads and making war, the U.S. government has never proven itself to be good at or especially efficient at much of anything, and even those two activities haven't had a good track record in the U.S. since before JFK was President.
The fact that, as bad as they can be, more than 3x times as many people approve of their insurance company than approve of this congress. There's a reason for that.
Posted by: john on December 4, 2009 12:40 PM"True economic recovery will only come from the private sector"
Uh... hope it happens before you finish killing it.
Posted by: Gary on December 4, 2009 12:57 PMI understand your skepticism, but the current system is simply not working either. If we're going to produce a bill that simply doesn't work then at least we tried to fix some of the major problems. There will be unintended consequences, of course, but the CBO is there specifically to find corner cases that Congress doesn't consider in its deliberations. True, some businesses will drop coverage but others will add it.
But it sure as hell doesn't take a bill like this to exact those changes and if these small issues were handled in small bites, we would probably get much better outcomes on each of them.
The thing is, we won't get those small bites. If this bill fails, nothing will happen at all. The Senate is too ineffective to get a bunch of small chunks. I think it makes sense to have a grand bargain. We trade a bunch of responsible Medicare savings and a smart tax policy on expensive insurance plans in exchange for near-universal coverage and protections on insurance (like pre-existing conditions).
It's a shame we can't get more GOP support. I think one of the Maine Senators will go for the bill in the end. David Brooks, a conservative columnist, has been one of the best voices in this debate. I really hate to say it because I know there are just a great deal of smart Republicans, but the party has not been very constructive at all here. They could get almost anything in exchange for a handful of votes. Imagine of the GOP said, "okay, you get your universal coverage, and we'll make you pay for it through responsible savings and cost controls." I'd be thrilled not just for the politics of it, but because the most sustainable cost controls are going to made with investment from both parties. And we'd get malpractice reform.
But it's clear to me, right now it's this bill or it's nothing.
If, after watching the coming trainwreck that is social security, the massive deficits of Medicare, and the inefficiency of government at every level you still believe Government is the Answer... Well, good luck with that.
The thing is, Social Security and Medicare are deeply popular programs that have kept people from poverty and kept others alive. Both parties support these programs. They aren't displays of just liberal values, they're now American values. (Medicare didn't exactly lead to a socialist nation, either.) Now, they have financial issues (mostly Medicare), but the fiscal picture is not the only picture important to Americans.
If the universal health care becomes the next American value, of course it'll be a challenge to fund it over the next century even if the next few decades it will be paid for according to all estimates. But it's the right thing to do.
I think it comes down to a difference in values. Most on the right want America to focus mainly on being nimble and having an economy that moves freely, and most on the left want America to provide security to its citizens. One is always done at some cost to the other. All of the major domestic battles basically seem to split from this point. With that in mind there is no need to for Dan or anyone else to call me "evil" or a "liar" or a "socialist" for simply having slightly different aspirations from them. But hey, we have a fundamental disagreement and I think we understand each other a bit better.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 4, 2009 01:20 PMNot true. I have done so in the past and have seen a recurring pattern. I haven't in this post because frankly its an exercise in futility. To summarize, my values are different from yours and neither will change each other's mind.
"A gut feeling is not about facts."
Wrong - maybe with you, but I take all of the known facts into consideration in a gut feeling. What is your point ?
"I think it comes down to a difference in values. Most on the right want America to focus mainly on being nimble and having an economy that moves freely, and most on the left want America to provide security to its citizens."
Generally agreed and you paraphrased David Brooks here.
True. I was too lazy to link to his column )and I wanted to sound wiser than I am by pretending they were my own words). But here's his column. The end:
The bottom line is that we face a brutal choice.
Reform would make us a more decent society, but also a less vibrant one. It would ease the anxiety of millions at the cost of future growth. It would heal a wound in the social fabric while piling another expensive and untouchable promise on top of the many such promises we’ve already made. America would be a less youthful, ragged and unforgiving nation, and a more middle-aged, civilized and sedate one.
We all have to decide what we want at this moment in history, vitality or security. We can debate this or that provision, but where we come down will depend on that moral preference. Don’t get stupefied by technical details. This debate is about values.
The beautiful thing about that column is that each of us can read it and both feel our values are affirmed. When I read that, I realized that a lot of anger in this debate is misplaced -- on both sides.
Posted by: John Jensen on December 4, 2009 03:07 PMObama is!
Full speed ahead. He think his presence late in Copenhagen will forge an agreement to control the weather!
ANSWER THE QUESTION COWARD!
Have you ever served in this nation's military?
Demo-Coward answered the question, why can't you John?