theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jun 17, 2009 13:23:51 GMT -5
Iraq War, Health Care Proposal, sure no difference at all there. I thought someone might question this. I'll press you on it. Why the sarcasm? Both have huge costs (probably more on health care). Both will directly affect the lives of people (in the long term, health care will affect more lives - it will, within a year, certainly affect the lives of more Americans than those who have been wounded in Iraq). Both have people who have proposed small changes and those who propose more significant ones. Both have a president who has a very specific idea of what the solution is and who has an entire staff devoted to managing the media to help him get what he wants. Reforming health care may not be as sexy as the Iraq War, but it has far higher stakes financially and in terms of personal livelihood.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jun 17, 2009 15:03:18 GMT -5
Iraq War, Health Care Proposal, sure no difference at all there. True. If the health care proposal is as ill-conceived as many of it's critics say it is, it could be a lot more expensive and cost a lot more American lives than the Iraq war. The most criticism I'm seeing along these lines is coming from the left, so I'm interested what the alternative conservative plan is. We all agree that the current system isn't working, right? Obama is overwhelmingly an incrementalist when it comes to health care, so what are the exact objections here? Also, if people are interested, should we start a separate health care thread?
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 17, 2009 15:29:20 GMT -5
You can read about Ryan's proposals here: www.house.gov/budget_republicans/americanroadmap_home.shtmlEDIT: Oops. That's Ryan's overall fiscal proposal, not just health care. Still, it's got his ideas for health care included there. I've been reading his proposals on Facebook mostly, so I'm not sure where else they are on the Internets, but I imagine it's not hard to find, either through this site or his main house.gov page.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,465
|
Post by TC on Jun 17, 2009 15:39:55 GMT -5
So, basically the McCain health care proposals on steroids.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 17, 2009 16:02:08 GMT -5
So, basically the McCain health care proposals on steroids. More crucial (at least IMO) than the tax credit option are the reforms to Medicaid and Medicare that he is proposing. Certainly this builds off the McCain-proposed concept of individual choice rather than a government option, but it addresses more completely the scope of health care reform, which McCain did not do, thus making it easy for people to dismiss his plan as "it's not enough to pay for insurance." Ryan's proposal makes sure that is is enough* because of the associated reforms. (* - Understandably, this is according to Ryan. I would be interested to see what a body like the CBO would have to say if they were to consider this. They have virtually called Obama's plan untenable, but I wold like to see their evaluation of this or any other alternative that is out there).
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jun 17, 2009 16:11:17 GMT -5
True. If the health care proposal is as ill-conceived as many of it's critics say it is, it could be a lot more expensive and cost a lot more American lives than the Iraq war. The most criticism I'm seeing along these lines is coming from the left, so I'm interested what the alternative conservative plan is. We all agree that the current system isn't working, right? Obama is overwhelmingly an incrementalist when it comes to health care, so what are the exact objections here? Also, if people are interested, should we start a separate health care thread? See Boz's thread for new proposals from the Republicans. It's also worth mentioning that, Democratic spin accepted, saying "no" is a legitimate response. There are a variety of proposals I've seen, some of which mandate universal coverage, some of which create a government-run health insurer, some of which tax health benefits. These each have significant budget implications for both the US government and individual families. An answer that says "no, we need something, but what you're proposing isn't it" seems acceptable in these cases. Oh, my own personal opinions - do not mandate health insurance and decouple health insurance from jobs (people keep switching employers - it makes no sense to switch jobs and be required to switch your dermatologist, and it also brings health care costs much more in focus for people. What the above does do is screw some people who are essentially uninsurable. For that, "encourage" insurance companies to offer minimum coverage plans that covers emergency hospitalization and basic preventive care. This falls down significantly when it comes to mental health (which doesn't really qualify as preventive care and whose many people aren't insurable due to their conditions). It's not a perfect solution, but it a) removes bloat from plans that cover numerous items, b) increases choice among those who are covered (no longer do you get the choice of three company plans), c) brings the self-employed into the same situation as everyone else (increasingly important as more people go through this route), d) makes health insurance for those who don't get health insurance through work, on at least basic plans, cheaper, e) increases competition as health insurers deal directly with the American people, and f), along with a), forces people to consider the costs of items (think you're going to ask your doctor about Levitra if the generic is 1/10th the cost)?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,465
|
Post by TC on Jun 18, 2009 0:52:35 GMT -5
Oh, my own personal opinions - do not mandate health insurance and decouple health insurance from jobs (people keep switching employers - it makes no sense to switch jobs and be required to switch your dermatologist, and it also brings health care costs much more in focus for people. And it probably increases the cost of my health care because if I'm no longer covered by my big company plan, I'm approaching the insurers as an individual with very little bargaining power. Being covered by a company = strength in numbers and economies of scale. For that reason, if I don't run a business, I'm going to want to say "no, we need something but not what you are proposing" because losing my employer-sponsored healthcare is going to raise what I have to pay and is going to increase my chances of being turned down.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jun 18, 2009 8:18:21 GMT -5
Per Drudge this morning, ABC is refusing to accept paid ads from opposing viewpoints during the Obama infomercial.
A (nything) B (ut) C (redible).
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Jun 18, 2009 9:19:07 GMT -5
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 18, 2009 15:08:12 GMT -5
Alternative plan proposed by Daschle, Baker and Dole, reported by.... ....wait for it..... abcnews.comSo, you know, at least the Web site's not in the tank! ;D ;D Here's more information on their plan.
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Jun 18, 2009 15:41:18 GMT -5
Per Drudge this morning, ABC is refusing to accept paid ads from opposing viewpoints during the Obama infomercial. A (nything) B (ut) C (redible). Interestingly enough, this was Drudge's main headline at one point and is no longer even on the front page. I guess failed attempts at making a complete non-story into something significant die pretty hard.
|
|
sead43
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_green.png)
Posts: 796
|
Post by sead43 on Jun 23, 2009 11:00:07 GMT -5
Per Drudge this morning, ABC is refusing to accept paid ads from opposing viewpoints during the Obama infomercial. A (nything) B (ut) C (redible). Interestingly enough, this was Drudge's main headline at one point and is no longer even on the front page. I guess failed attempts at making a complete non-story into something significant die pretty hard. maybe not so fast...CPR says ABC did air two "advocacy ads" in recent months: www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0609/cpr_vs_abc_6fb0dd1c-6759-4ae0-a69d-253dc1bcc155.html
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jun 23, 2009 14:32:33 GMT -5
I think there should be tiers of premiums/benefits* based on lifestyle choice and need basis. For example, I really don't think my premiums should pay for ED research and prescriptions. Maybe when I'm 50, but not now.
Put another way, I want to be rewarded, not penalized, for being a young, strong, healthy individual who exercizes, eats right, and subsidizes the old, weak, and sick.
*no, I don't count my "basic" and "standard" options as tiers. The benefits are really not that different unless I get impaled with rebar and need to spend some time in hospital.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jun 24, 2009 13:33:25 GMT -5
What ABC really meant to say was "we have a longstanding prohibition on advocacy ads unless we agree with the position taken. However, in our new role as communications wing of the Obama White House, we can not consider any contrary view, lest we offend Great Leader."
Now back to your regular liberal programming.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 24, 2009 13:50:35 GMT -5
What ABC really meant to say was "we have a longstanding prohibition on advocacy ads unless we agree with the position taken. However, in our new role as communications wing of the Obama White House, we can not consider any contrary view, lest we offend Great Leader." Now back to your regular liberal programming. So, is HuffPo going to ask all the questions at this "town hall?"
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jun 24, 2009 21:25:18 GMT -5
No offense but this town hall blows.
It's couched as "free market" vs "public option."
That's the least of my worries.
This is classic government-business collusion of A 401k degree.
Here's my worry. "Public option" passes with progressive co-pays. It's politically awesome. Richies pay more and fund the system, right?
Uh no. What actually happense is companies re-organize the lower income wage workers to the public option and keep the high-earning office types on the private insurance. The government charges on income and the private sector on risk. Ooopsie, income is inversely correlated to health risk. So it's big profits to health insurance based on advantageous selection. The government gets the lower end which is more expensive and less lucrative. No biggie since the government needn't be profitable. But who pays for the shortfall? Right. There's the ouch.
Single payer or nothing folks. This public option nonsense is 401k and 529 all over again. Good politics and good profits...but bad economics.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,465
|
Post by TC on Jun 24, 2009 22:04:31 GMT -5
GIGA, what makes single-payer even remotely politically feasible? I mean, I get the need to drag along all the healthy people into the same plan as the sick to make it economically feasible, but it just seems an inherently unpopular concept given that everyone would vote their own interests. The rich and the healthy do not want to be in the same plan as the sick and the poor, they don't want to have to fund the sick and the poor, and massive commercial corporations would also fight it tooth and nail. And now that the baby boomers are headed for Medicare, what do they care?
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jun 24, 2009 22:26:24 GMT -5
GIGA, what makes single-payer even remotely politically feasible? I mean, I get the need to drag along all the healthy people into the same plan as the sick to make it economically feasible, but it just seems an inherently unpopular concept given that everyone would vote their own interests. The rich and the healthy do not want to be in the same plan as the sick and the poor, they don't want to have to fund the sick and the poor, and massive commercial corporations would also fight it tooth and nail. And now that the baby boomers are headed for Medicare, what do they care? Agreed. You'd have to a bold leader capable of sweeping change to do that and we know nobody who's president ever purported to be that ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) But seriously, that's no excuse for doing a mushy middle-of-the-road solution that's just bad economics. Sure, it's good politically but isn't that the problem with it? It makes people feel good about a solution that bankrupts the government and gives windfall profits to private companies. The end result is a bifurcated system. Sorry, that's worse than even what we have. And single payer might be feasible. I'm fairly certain you could buy out the majority of the health insurance market for the cost of one Citigroup with backstops. So yeah, you could do it. You'd have to spend a lot to buy out the private sector but I believe we've done that with two industries already, why not the one that might actually be a social benefit?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,465
|
Post by TC on Jun 24, 2009 22:29:58 GMT -5
Agreed. You'd have to a bold leader capable of sweeping change to do that and we know nobody who's president ever purported to be that ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) It doesn't matter if you have a bold leader capable of sweeping change or not if you have a Senate that doesn't want to change anything.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jun 24, 2009 22:40:57 GMT -5
Agreed. You'd have to a bold leader capable of sweeping change to do that and we know nobody who's president ever purported to be that ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) It doesn't matter if you have a bold leader capable of sweeping change or not if you have a Senate that doesn't want to change anything. Listen I know. But don't sell a bad solution to make it seem like you're doing something good. If you can't do it, you can't do it. Cool, health insurance companies have too much cash in the game. We get it. But don't do the classic politically savvy/business-friendly solution. Just let it go. Or start with 100% federal for children or matching state funding for children's insurance. You can do something without falling into a terrible idea. This isn't it.
|
|