|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 28, 2009 11:02:39 GMT -8
Perhaps I should not use the term Obamacare since it's not the President but the Congress who is writing the bills dealing with health care insurance. In any event, a lot is in the proposals being worked on now that many, many citizens are unaware of and may not be crazy about when they do become aware. Read on . . . online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574434933462691154.htmlAzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 28, 2009 12:14:30 GMT -8
Not only that, there are numerous proposals out there in both the House and the Senate and we never know who is taking about what is in which bill. This can of worms was what Obama wanted acted upon in two weeks. Now just how dumb would it have been for Congress to enact some bill in this climate?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Oct 1, 2009 17:58:35 GMT -8
Not only that, there are numerous proposals out there in both the House and the Senate and we never know who is taking about what is in which bill. This can of worms was what Obama wanted acted upon in two weeks. Now just how dumb would it have been for Congress to enact some bill in this climate? Ah yes, the answer to everything; "in this climate". That's the argument we see about UT articles on the Aztecs - it's not that the article is wrong, it's just that the argument is ill-timed. Tell me something, Pooh. Are you really unaware that the Baucus bill hands the insurance companies everything they want while doing nothing to lower health care costs. It just results in a massive transfer of taxpayer bucks to the insurance companies. I'm sorry, but this is not a partisan issue, no matter how much you'd like to make it one. The Baucus bill shows nothing more than the absolute power the insurance companies hold over Congress. Are you aware of the flood control insurance act (not sure of the exact title, so I didn't capitalize it)? As I understand, it was passed or renewed last year. The insurance companies claimed that they could not engage in flood insurance because it would wipe them out. So American taxpayers are footing the bill for an act that requires certain people living in flood prone areas to have insurance that is backed by the Feds. The private insurance companies sell the policies but have no liability if a given population is flooded. And in exchange for doing nothing more than selling the policies, they get a billion bucks a year, almost half of the 2.3 billion a year paid in premiums. See, this is the problem I have with you and others on the right. You engage in the politics of cynicism that sees the Republicans as doing nothing wrong (or at least nothing you'd vilify them for) while always being ready to vilify the Democrats. Pooh, it's as much "Socialism" as any health care plan, but that didn't stop every Republican on the Senate Finance Committee from voting for it. The problem we have is that while both parties are bought off, the Republicans proclaim "Socialism" when it suits their purposes, but ignores "Socialism" when it helps out their contributors. And God only knows our Congress engages in a lot of corporate Socialism. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 1, 2009 19:47:16 GMT -8
Bob, your complaints about insurance company influence over Congress are music to my ears. As a libertarian, I carry no water for companies big or small. All companies act in what they perceive as their own best interests.
Sometimes everything works out in such a way that society as a whole is better off or at least not worse off. Other times industry is able to get what it wants by utilizing its resources to influence the politicians with the result that gobs of money are wasted. That is gobs of TAXPAYER money! Like John Murtha's virtually unused airport. (At least the Bridge to Nowhere was never actually built!)
Libertarians believe that the fewer things that come under the control of government the better. That is because once they have control, or at any rate regulatory responsibility in a given economic field, those politicians are susceptible to bribes or near-bribes. Working for the government does not make one altruistic and idealistic. In fact, there are forces at work which tend to corrupt bureaucrats as much or more than those who work for private companies.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that many on the Left, mostly very good, sincere folks, seem incapable of understanding that just because the government is involved there won't be chicanery working for special interests at the expense of the "little" people.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 2, 2009 8:33:08 GMT -8
Not only that, there are numerous proposals out there in both the House and the Senate and we never know who is taking about what is in which bill. This can of worms was what Obama wanted acted upon in two weeks. Now just how dumb would it have been for Congress to enact some bill in this climate? Ah yes, the answer to everything; "in this climate". That's the argument we see about UT articles on the Aztecs - it's not that the article is wrong, it's just that the argument is ill-timed. Tell me something, Pooh. Are you really unaware that the Baucus bill hands the insurance companies everything they want while doing nothing to lower health care costs. It just results in a massive transfer of taxpayer bucks to the insurance companies. I'm sorry, but this is not a partisan issue, no matter how much you'd like to make it one. The Baucus bill shows nothing more than the absolute power the insurance companies hold over Congress. Are you aware of the flood control insurance act (not sure of the exact title, so I didn't capitalize it)? As I understand, it was passed or renewed last year. The insurance companies claimed that they could not engage in flood insurance because it would wipe them out. So American taxpayers are footing the bill for an act that requires certain people living in flood prone areas to have insurance that is backed by the Feds. The private insurance companies sell the policies but have no liability if a given population is flooded. And in exchange for doing nothing more than selling the policies, they get a billion bucks a year, almost half of the 2.3 billion a year paid in premiums. See, this is the problem I have with you and others on the right. You engage in the politics of cynicism that sees the Republicans as doing nothing wrong (or at least nothing you'd vilify them for) while always being ready to vilify the Democrats. Pooh, it's as much "Socialism" as any health care plan, but that didn't stop every Republican on the Senate Finance Committee from voting for it. The problem we have is that while both parties are bought off, the Republicans proclaim "Socialism" when it suits their purposes, but ignores "Socialism" when it helps out their contributors. And God only knows our Congress engages in a lot of corporate Socialism. =Bob I agree with what you offer as a diversion to the question. Just how dumb would it have been to act on what was proposed? Better question than that would be which Congressman or Senator knew what was in any proposal. I have no love for Insurance companies and think that Congress should level the playing field. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Oct 2, 2009 16:31:42 GMT -8
Bob, your complaints about insurance company influence over Congress are music to my ears. As a libertarian, I carry no water for companies big or small. All companies act in what they perceive as their own best interests. Sometimes everything works out in such a way that society as a whole is better off or at least not worse off. Other times industry is able to get what it wants by utilizing its resources to influence the politicians with the result that gobs of money are wasted. That is gobs of TAXPAYER money! Like John Murtha's virtually unused airport. (At least the Bridge to Nowhere was never actually built!) Libertarians believe that the fewer things that come under the control of government the better. That is because once they have control, or at any rate regulatory responsibility in a given economic field, those politicians are susceptible to bribes or near-bribes. Working for the government does not make one altruistic and idealistic. In fact, there are forces at work which tend to corrupt bureaucrats as much or more than those who work for private companies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that many on the Left, mostly very good, sincere folks, seem incapable of understanding that just because the government is involved there won't be chicanery working for special interests at the expense of the "little" people. AzWm The only thing I would disagree with you on is this; I see the problem laying with politicians, not government (and the two are separate). There are a certain number of regulators who identify more with who they are regulating rather than identifying with the citizenry, but, at least in my experience, there are more who take the term "public servant" quite seriously. How that is dealt with in a free society is the real question and I don't have an answer. Personally, I thought Wyden-Bennett was a decent compromise, but Baucus didn't allow a vote on it even though it was nothing more than giving people the same options the Senators and Congressmen enjoy (for the paltry sum of just over 500 bucks a month). Personally, I think a good start would be Justice looking into anti-trust with United Health Care and Wellpoint. Those companies has its fingers in everything, including Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Aetna, Delta Dental, Pacific Care, student insurance, vision insurance and, of course, the Lewin Group, owned by United, whose studies the bought off elected officials consistently cite, but who has stated that United suppresses studies that are not liked by United. Quite frankly, I consider myself lucky to live in a state that has Kaiser. When I had to go into the hospital in late Nov. '07, I was a month away from getting back on Kaiser (and it was my own damn fault that I didn't do it on a private basis during the interim after I lost Cobra for missing a payment), but when I did get back on Kaiser, I let them know what had occurred and there was never any question of pre-existing conditions. I got personal physician and physical therapy care for 10 bucks a visit immediately. I have no doubt that were I living in Alabama, as an example, where Blue Shield and Blue Cross cover something like 96 percent of those with health insurance, I'd have been told to take a long walk off a short pier. We don't see it so much here because there are a fair number of choices, but in many states, there is a near or real monopoly on health care. That's what Wyden-Bennett tried to kill and Baucus told them to stuff it. Believe me; my scorn on this does not extend to only Republicans. But if people like Baucus are able to keep getting elected because they are "socially conservative", those who are reelecting them are voting against their basic interests and doing so for incredibly stupid reasons. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Oct 2, 2009 16:44:00 GMT -8
Ah yes, the answer to everything; "in this climate". That's the argument we see about UT articles on the Aztecs - it's not that the article is wrong, it's just that the argument is ill-timed. Tell me something, Pooh. Are you really unaware that the Baucus bill hands the insurance companies everything they want while doing nothing to lower health care costs. It just results in a massive transfer of taxpayer bucks to the insurance companies. I'm sorry, but this is not a partisan issue, no matter how much you'd like to make it one. The Baucus bill shows nothing more than the absolute power the insurance companies hold over Congress. Are you aware of the flood control insurance act (not sure of the exact title, so I didn't capitalize it)? As I understand, it was passed or renewed last year. The insurance companies claimed that they could not engage in flood insurance because it would wipe them out. So American taxpayers are footing the bill for an act that requires certain people living in flood prone areas to have insurance that is backed by the Feds. The private insurance companies sell the policies but have no liability if a given population is flooded. And in exchange for doing nothing more than selling the policies, they get a billion bucks a year, almost half of the 2.3 billion a year paid in premiums. See, this is the problem I have with you and others on the right. You engage in the politics of cynicism that sees the Republicans as doing nothing wrong (or at least nothing you'd vilify them for) while always being ready to vilify the Democrats. Pooh, it's as much "Socialism" as any health care plan, but that didn't stop every Republican on the Senate Finance Committee from voting for it. The problem we have is that while both parties are bought off, the Republicans proclaim "Socialism" when it suits their purposes, but ignores "Socialism" when it helps out their contributors. And God only knows our Congress engages in a lot of corporate Socialism. =Bob I agree with what you offer as a diversion to the question. Just how dumb would it have been to act on what was proposed? Better question than that would be which Congressman or Senator knew what was in any proposal. I have no love for Insurance companies and think that Congress should level the playing field. A good elected official knows what he or she is voting for and there are good elected officials. The real question is why there are so many stupid citizens who vote against their own interests because this or that elected official proclaims himself or herself to be for the 2nd Amendment or against abortion or tough on illegals while being totally bought off by corporations (it also works the same way for so-called "liberals"). I'm sorry, but I don't see it as being a "diversion". It's a simple fact that a well-educated populace sees through the ideology and unfortunately, we do not have a well educated public, at least in terms of civics. Call me naive, but I am a great and firm believer in the American system of government beyond any other system and I do think that there are politicians who take the term, "public servant" seriously. Unfortunately, power attracts corruptible people and we have far too many of them in Congress and far too many of the public who are willing to hear only what they want to hear. And all too often, what they want to hear is simple-minded ideology based upon their fears rather than their hopes and dreams. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 3, 2009 5:19:37 GMT -8
I agree with what you offer as a diversion to the question. Just how dumb would it have been to act on what was proposed? Better question than that would be which Congressman or Senator knew what was in any proposal. I have no love for Insurance companies and think that Congress should level the playing field. A good elected official knows what he or she is voting for and there are good elected officials. The real question is why there are so many stupid citizens who vote against their own interests because this or that elected official proclaims himself or herself to be for the 2nd Amendment or against abortion or tough on illegals while being totally bought off by corporations (it also works the same way for so-called "liberals"). I'm sorry, but I don't see it as being a "diversion". It's a simple fact that a well-educated populace sees through the ideology and unfortunately, we do not have a well educated public, at least in terms of civics. Call me naive, but I am a great and firm believer in the American system of government beyond any other system and I do think that there are politicians who take the term, "public servant" seriously. Unfortunately, power attracts corruptible people and we have far too many of them in Congress and far too many of the public who are willing to hear only what they want to hear. And all too often, what they want to hear is simple-minded ideology based upon their fears rather than their hopes and dreams. =Bob I mostly agree with what you say including that you are naive in the belief that beyond being a great system that the vast majority of Congressmen are not crooked as a dogs hind leg. Part of what you describe about the Insurance Companies could be fixed without mortally hurting the public or those insurance companies by making state lines invisible. Limiting lawsuit awards to mostly actual damages and looking at how the malpractice insurance program works would help with making this issue more understandable. Now that it appears the any public option is dead barring any behind the back tricks we can go about trying to get a sensible bill passed. Now you still have not made a comment on Obama trying to get Congress to act on the issue in the blind. |
|
