Obama's Healthcare?? Plan

[Charlyc]

There's a lot here!

As you say, we can't know whether the Dems would've gotten on board with any other Republican effort. Should the Repubs have stuck out their necks anyways?

Definitely should've stuck their necks out and followed their principals. The biggest problem I see for the GOP, both in '08 and today, is that they lacked conviction to do what they say they will do, ie spend less, less taxes for all classes. smaller government. Now that they say that they can fix health care via private enterprise, well it rings hollow to people who follow politics (as amateur analysts :) )

Selling across state lines is very constitutional. :-) Federal regulation prohibiting such practices is also constitutional under our Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

Sorry I expressed it poorly. I meant that the laws banning selling across state lines should be unconstitutional. they don't need a new law to allow it but a supreme court challenge. But you're right that they could limit them with licencing requirement -but then those requirement would also be unconstitutional? Anyway that 's another post.

Fixing Social Security should have been the "moral victory" in the long term as well - and may yet be

if they actually try to do it. If no ones tries then you're on your way to becoming a new Mexico!

We'll see if Obama does try to grow SS. There's a lot of scaremongering out there by right supporters, or so it seems to me. As a minority the democrats played the political game of a minority, as this 'boehner' guy is trying to do but does badly.

Romney had a majority Dem legistalature...Bush didn't at first. That's the difference with MA

(Incidentally, isn't it fun how when Romney was running for Pres the Republicans thought RomneyCare was the best thing since sliced bread and the Dems thought it was a goshawful mess--and now the relative positions both parties on RomneyCare have pretty much flopped?)

Some Republicans did. Others attacked him.....but that's politics. And yes, the truth does win out in the long run, doesn't it. It will also with these stories about the NHS in Britain. They're very one sided, they pick out the current problems but britain is actually a two-tire system, and its a lot better than what people like Foxnews claim.

[Charlyc]

Sadly, I must say that I rather agree with CharleyC

What??? Sadly?? You should be jumping for joy You've seen the light here!

[Charlyc]

That they could have come up with a Reagan-like solution to health care and education is not possible, because the Republican party has by-and-large left Reagan behind

Yes certainly. Although I'm no fan of Reaganomics or Supply-side (voodooism in my book) it was what they believed in but abandoned. The result of abandoning their principals were seen in 08 and is still seen today -and its looking like in 2010 too.

[Charlyc]

what really happens is that the House bill increases the deficit in the first ten years, and reduces the deficit after that because the next ten years of the program aren't projected to cost as much as the first ten years .

Now, that claim itself, sets off my bunk detector. Can you name one universal health care system whose second-decade costs were less than its first-decade costs?

Yes, but I did say 'some' answers and 'from' the lefts viewpoint

Its crazy to think that health costs will fall but then their budget was just as bad in forecasting a drop in the deficit after 4 years I think, from memory.

Now our costs here went up and down over the two decades depending on a) how many took up private cover b) which side was in government at federal and state level. Now they are proposing to pass it all over to the federal government to save some cash avoiding duplication of admin and services but that's going on treasury's numbers, so we'll see what happens a few years from now.

[Just_A_Guy]

Definitely should've stuck their necks out and followed their principals.

Not sure I agree; but ultimately it was a decision of political strategy and that's above my pay grade.

The biggest problem I see for the GOP, both in '08 and today, is that they lacked conviction to do what they say they will do, ie spend less, less taxes for all classes. smaller government.

Fully concur.

Now that they say that they can fix health care via private enterprise, well it rings hollow to people who follow politics (as amateur analysts :) )

They aren't saying they can; they're saying the programs they're proposing could/would. Got to separate the people from the programs.

Sorry I expressed it poorly. I meant that the laws banning selling across state lines should be unconstitutional. they don't need a new law to allow it but a supreme court challenge. But you're right that they could limit them with licencing requirement -but then those requirement would also be unconstitutional? Anyway that 's another post.

There's an old American legal doctrine called the "dormant commerce clause", and the idea is that states can't enact regulation that interferes with interstate commerce. The doctrine has fallen out of vogue over the past few decades--it was seen as a tool of big corporate interests--and it would be satisfyingly ironic if the doctrine were revived in order to breathe life support into an essentially socialist (and I don't mean that as a pejorative in this context) program.

As a minority the democrats played the political game of a minority, as this 'boehner' guy is trying to do but does badly.

Most conservatives aren't happy with the congressional Republican leadership either. Elphaba recently posted a poll that demonstrates that (postulating that health care reform must happen), Democrats trust the Dem leadership on the issue more than Republicans trust the Repub leadership.

Romney had a majority Dem legistalature...Bush didn't at first. That's the difference with MA

But the Democrats in Congress were able to thwart Bush's Social Security reform just as surely as the Democrats in Massachusetts could have thwarted Romney's plan. Romney got around this obstacle by giving the Democrats what they wanted. Bush was unwilling to do so.

Some Republicans did. Others attacked him.....but that's politics. And yes, the truth does win out in the long run, doesn't it. It will also with these stories about the NHS in Britain. They're very one sided, they pick out the current problems but britain is actually a two-tire system, and its a lot better than what people like Foxnews claim.

Yeah; we can shoot anecdotes at each other 'til the cows come home. Frankly, though, the current American system isn't as bad as it's being made out to be either. What irritates me is that we Yanks are basically supposed to restructure our society based on horror stories about American HMOs, but suddenly when we point out that there are horror stories with universal systems as well we're being "jingoistic" and anecdotal evidence suddenly isn't worth beans.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[ozzy]

So I recently did a study for one of my classes relating heavily to this subject. I apologize if I am restating anything that has already been said since I haven't had time to go through all 31 pages of insight. In my study I learned that currently the American government already spends the most money in terms of %GDP (source is OECD statistics), has a 66% overweight factor (cdc.gov), and has the leading cause of death as heart disease (I believe that these are pretty closely related). We also have a relatively low life expectancy (also OECD). Connecting these, I can't see how on earth putting more money into the system with the new health care plan is going to help American's with how healthy we are or how it will make health care more affordable.

This is how I see events transpiring if the health care plan came into affect. 1. Americans would stop worrying about a healthy life style altogether in light of the fact that they can just get free treatment later. 2. Many of our health issues go up, life expectancy goes down, and the government has to pump even more money into the system. 3. Because more is required, taxes go up and we end up paying even more for our health care. 4. Eventually the government runs out of money (hard to believe concerning they bailed out a bunch of companies with money they didn't have anyway), and reduces budgets to hospitals. 5. Hospital wait lists get longer, turn away rates increase, and health care becomes impossible to receive unless you go private anyway. 6. We land our selves in one big, nasty pickle.

[bytor2112]

Although I'm no fan of Reaganomics or Supply-side (voodooism in my book) it was what they believed in but abandoned.

Supply-side economics work very well....providing the government cooperates. That is they must reduce wasteful spending. Cutting taxes stimulate economic growth and allows the economy to expand. John Kennedy recognized this before Reagan.

[Charlyc]

.......Yeah; we can shoot anecdotes at each other 'til the cows come home. Frankly, though, the current American system isn't as bad as it's being made out to be either. What irritates me is that we Yanks are basically supposed to restructure our society based on horror stories about American HMOs, but suddenly when we point out that there are horror stories with universal systems as well we're being "jingoistic" and anecdotal evidence suddenly isn't worth beans.

Moo...... j/k

Its that the HMO horror stories far outweigh the NHS or our Medicare horror stories. I mean here, in Britain, in Germnay, Italy, Japan, China etc if one gets cancer they can get treatment, or if you have a heart attack and no money you can still get a quad bypass if you need it. In the US if you don't have insurance and aren't eligible for a special program, mostly you die, like that Ramsey lady died, without getting any treatment for her ovarian cancer (the little girls mom from Col)

There's a huge difference there. There is also a huge difference off course at the other end of the scale: US cutting edge med is the best in the world, new experiments go on constantly, and if you can pay enough you get probably the best treatment in the world for most things.

[Charlyc]

Supply-side economics work very well....providing the government cooperates. That is they must reduce wasteful spending. Cutting taxes stimulate economic growth and allows the economy to expand. John Kennedy recognized this before Reagan.

You're kidding here right?

I'm mean we have some 3 decades now to go back on and check the numbers. Conclusion is that the resulting expansion of the economy was never large enough to bring in the amount of extra taxes needed to cover that revenue loss. Clinton/Gingrich though almost did manage it by cutting expenditure. I say almost since the underlining deficit didn't end with them. Others like Canada, the conservatives here under Howard and others did it by both cutting taxes and cutting government spending. Growth resulted from the private sector and these governments actually ended public debt. Today, during the financial crisis, they can afford to take out debt to spend away and actually avoid a recession, as we have done so here.

Biggest problem though was that Reagan not only lost that revenue from tax cuts but under his stewardship government expanded. Oh, that expansion also produced some economic growth which in turn brought in more taxes, but still not enough to cover his loss of revenue. The numbers are there for anyone, even freshmen uni kids, to study.

[Just_A_Guy]

Moo...... j/k

Its that the HMO horror stories far outweigh the NHS or our Medicare horror stories. I mean here, in Britain, in Germnay, Italy, Japan, China etc if one gets cancer they can get treatment, or if you have a heart attack and no money you can still get a quad bypass if you need it. In the US if you don't have insurance and aren't eligible for a special program, mostly you die, like that Ramsey lady died, without getting any treatment for her ovarian cancer (the little girls mom from Col)

What's your source on this? My understanding was that the family was quite wealthy, and that her cancer had actually gone into remission sometime before and then come back. I saw nothing from a (cursory) google search hinting that she was inadequately insured.

Basically, life-saving treatment at government expense is obtainable subject to a cat's-cradle of bureaucratic regulations. Which, I surmise, is much as it is in the UK or in Oz.

There's a huge difference there. There is also a huge difference off course at the other end of the scale: US cutting edge med is the best in the world, new experiments go on constantly, and if you can pay enough you get probably the best treatment in the world for most things.

Indeed; and that's the golden goose a lot of conservatives are afraid ObamaCare may kill.

[Just_A_Guy]

The numbers are there for anyone, even freshmen uni kids, to study.

Well . . . to bicker over, anyways.

Incidentally, the claim that unrealistic supply side Reagan Administration revenue projections caused large budget deficits during the 1980s is false. Nonetheless, this false allegation is often used against current tax reform proposals. The official Reagan revenue projections immediately following enactment of ERTA did not assume huge revenue increases, and were actually quite close to the CBO revenue projections. Even the Democrat-controlled CBO projected that deficits would fall after the enactment of the Reagan tax cuts. The real problem was a recession that neither CBO nor OMB could foresee. Even so, individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989.

[Elphaba]

1. Americans would stop worrying about a healthy life style altogether in light of the fact that they can just get free treatment later.

Yes, those millions of lazy Americans who will have the public option will never take care of themselves, becuase they are lazy slobs who can't be bothered to go to the doctor regularly.

Please.

First, the public option is not free. People on the public option pay premiums, just like a person with private insurance does.

Second, there are just as many Americans with private insurance that do not take care of themselves as there are those who will opt for the public option.

Third believe it or not, millions of Americans who opt for the public option will go to the doctor regularly and take as good care of themselves as those millions with private insurance do.

Elphaba

Edited November 1, 2009 by Elphaba
Took out a snarky sentence.

[bytor2112]

You're kidding here right?

I'm mean we have some 3 decades now to go back on and check the numbers. Conclusion is that the resulting expansion of the economy was never large enough to bring in the amount of extra taxes needed to cover that revenue loss. Clinton/Gingrich though almost did manage it by cutting expenditure. I say almost since the underlining deficit didn't end with them. Others like Canada, the conservatives here under Howard and others did it by both cutting taxes and cutting government spending. Growth resulted from the private sector and these governments actually ended public debt. Today, during the financial crisis, they can afford to take out debt to spend away and actually avoid a recession, as we have done so here.

Biggest problem though was that Reagan not only lost that revenue from tax cuts but under his stewardship government expanded. Oh, that expansion also produced some economic growth which in turn brought in more taxes, but still not enough to cover his loss of revenue. The numbers are there for anyone, even freshmen uni kids, to study.

Not sure what a freshman uni kids is but....no, I am not kidding and your post sounds like you agree with my post. (bold section) Supply side works when governments cooperate......ie...reducing wasteful spending. Tax revenues increased under Reagan and yes so did the size of government....(Cold War.)

(Okay...freshman uni kid...uni-= university):cool:

Edited November 1, 2009 by bytor2112

[bytor2112]

Yes, those millions of lazy Americans who will have the public option will never take care of themselves, becuase they are lazy slobs who can't be bothered to go to the doctor regularly.

Please.

First, the public option is not free. People on the public option pay premiums, just like a person with private insurance does.

Second, there are just as many Americans with private insurance that do not take care of themselves as there are those who will opt for the public option.

Third believe it or not, millions of Americans who opt for the public option will go to the doctor regularly and take as good care of themselves as those millions with private insurance do.

Your bigotry again those you assumed would not pay for their health insurance is appalling.

Elphaba

LOL.....Elphaba, every time I read your posts I always imagine you as "Libby" played by Kathleen Bates in the movie Primary Colors. Did you see the movie or read the book? I hope that isn't offensive.......

[Elphaba]

I love Libby! I even have the hat, and I talk just like her.

Libby holding a gun in a guy's crotch:

Mr., you're about to become a Mrs.

:lol:

Elph

[bytor2112]

I love Libby! I even have the hat, and I talk just like her.

Libby holding a gun in a guy's crotch: :lol:

Elph

I knew it!!!!! Seriously! I loved that movie......that's very cool, I feel like I know you.

[ozzy]

Yes, those millions of lazy Americans who will have the public option will never take care of themselves, becuase they are lazy slobs who can't be bothered to go to the doctor regularly.

Please.

First, the public option is not free. People on the public option pay premiums, just like a person with private insurance does.

Second, there are just as many Americans with private insurance that do not take care of themselves as there are those who will opt for the public option.

Third believe it or not, millions of Americans who opt for the public option will go to the doctor regularly and take as good care of themselves as those millions with private insurance do.

Elphaba

My apologies if I have offended you or anyone else. That was not my intention. I will admit that I don't know absolutely everything about the new health care plan. I simply view the statistics and combine what I see with the idea that most people are inclined to take the easy road if possible, myself included.

I do know that based on the goal of the health care plan it would have to be significantly cheaper than the private plans to be attractive. The problem that I see is not whether or not people will visit their doctors, the problem is whether or not they will try to eat healthy, balanced diets and live active lifestyles. I fear that making it so that they can get a simple, quick procedure to help with any health problems will motivate them to eat as they please and act as they please even more than they do now. I could be wrong and I hope so. And hey, just to make certain it doesn't sound like I am trying to remove myself from the equation, I happen to be one of the 66% advancing the overweight statistic. :) I just love my cheese too much.

[Elphaba]

I knew it!!!!! Seriously! I loved that movie......that's very cool, I feel like I know you.

I actually worked on three political campaigns in the day. Two of them were small, local campaigns, so I was involved in strategy, and yes, I had a mouth on me. The third was for a state senator.

I also designed the campaign logos, flyers, yard signs and campaign signs. I actually had one of my designs up on the freeway signs. I thought I had arrived!

Those were great days.

Elph

Edited November 1, 2009 by Elphaba

[Charlyc]

Not sure what a freshman uni kids is but....no, I am not kidding and your post sounds like you agree with my post. (bold section) Supply side works when governments cooperate......ie...reducing wasteful spending. Tax revenues increased under Reagan and yes so did the size of government....(Cold War.)

(Okay...freshman uni kid...uni-= university):cool:

Actually, there is a huge difference between Reaganomics, or supply-side, and government cutting spending & waste.

Point is that the Tax revenue increase under Reagan was never enough, never enough actual real money, to compensate for the tax cuts. That's the central problem with supply side economics. Its currently a discredited macroeconomic theory because of that problem. It could only have worked if it was accompanied by major cuts in government spending, something Reagan didn't do. But there are many places online to explain this since I can't convince you.

[Charlyc]

What's your source on this? My understanding was that the family was quite wealthy, and that her cancer had actually gone into remission sometime before and then come back. I saw nothing from a (cursory) google search hinting that she was inadequately insured.

Basically, life-saving treatment at government expense is obtainable subject to a cat's-cradle of bureaucratic regulations. Which, I surmise, is much as it is in the UK or in Oz.

Indeed; and that's the golden goose a lot of conservatives are afraid ObamaCare may kill.

It was an 1hr long doco on the CI channel, I think done by PBS originally. And they were rather broke by then, living in a smallish house.

Life saving treatment here isn't bureaucratic at all. The doc calls the hospital, or the ambulance takes you there, and you or next of kin sign the order and that's it, you get done. No HMO approvals or claim forms. If its public and not life threatening or urgent then there's usually a waiting list but its still free. Private is a different process as you are usually refunded or there is a gap payment but its done without waiting time.

Cheers, cause 32 pages should be enough to get a message across

[Just_A_Guy]

Life saving treatment here isn't bureaucratic at all. The doc calls the hospital, or the ambulance takes you there, and you or next of kin sign the order and that's it, you get done.

Is that the case with, say, a cancer diagnosis as well? Or are you talking about emergencies where someone dies if they don't get treated in the next five minutes?

If it's the latter - that's pretty much how it is here, too. :)

[bytor2112]

Actually, there is a huge difference between Reaganomics, or supply-side, and government cutting spending & waste.

Point is that the Tax revenue increase under Reagan was never enough, never enough actual real money, to compensate for the tax cuts. That's the central problem with supply side economics. Its currently a discredited macroeconomic theory because of that problem. It could only have worked if it was accompanied by major cuts in government spending, something Reagan didn't do. But there are many places online to explain this since I can't convince you.

Discredited by? Debated about perhaps. Did you live in America during the Reagan years? Never enough real money????? To compensate for tax cuts????? Your kidding right? You are correct in your assertion that it works in conjunction with a reduction in government spending and I wasn't defending Reagan, though I would take his economy over any since.

[Guest]

One problem with public option is it stifles competition. If you're going to introduce a public option, might as well make the entire healthcare system public. You can't have a mish-mash of the two unless you make public option work like welfare - only those who are eligible for welfare are eligible for public healthcare option.

Why do I say that public option stifles competition? That's because the government is not a business that requires it to be profitable. The government can provide as much as they want because they can operate on a loss year after year after year. On the other hand, private companies can only go a few years without profits, otherwise, they'll have to close the doors or get a government bail-out which would then turn them into public options. Heard of this company called GM?

So, a private company can never compete against the government.

[unixknight]

One problem with public option is it stifles competition. If you're going to introduce a public option, might as well make the entire healthcare system public. You can't have a mish-mash of the two unless you make public option work like welfare - only those who are eligible for welfare are eligible for public healthcare option.

Why do I say that public option stifles competition? That's because the government is not a business that requires it to be profitable. The government can provide as much as they want because they can operate on a loss year after year after year. On the other hand, private companies can only go a few years without profits, otherwise, they'll have to close the doors or get a government bail-out which would then turn them into public options. Heard of this company called GM?

So, a private company can never compete against the government.

That, and quite frankly the idea of Government competing with private industry in the first place is a disgrace. Government is supposed to support and defend the private sector.

[Charlyc]

I wasn't defending Reagan, though I would take his economy over any since.

He converted you into the worlds largest debtor -that's largest ever in history. You can't see that?

What you are missing here is the basic arithmetic that makes supply-side voodoo.

It goes something like this: a person gets a $100 tax cut, they spend it all (hence economic expansion) and the government gets about $30 back in new taxes from that $100 spent. The tax shortfall was made up of debt ie the $70. So for it too work Reagan would've needed to cut spending for that missing $70. Simple enough this explanation???

Problem though was that Reagan took out debt to cover that (theoretical here) $70 plus added more debt to actually expand the government, ie a 80's stimulus plan! So then he sold you economic expansion based on both tax cuts AND stimulus money. The man did have the gift of the gab AND he sold you a lemon since you still have to pay back his debt one day (plus both Bush I & II and now Obama's debt!). Really the only GOP man you ought to be remembering today is Gingrich who actually lead a deficit reduction.

Just in case: No I didn't live in US during Reagan years plus I'm too young anyway. Also there's a ton of textbooks and articles to explain why supply side is discredited -supply side as Reagan practiced- so you are free to go and study this anywhere. My comment to you is that A) GOP has never done much good and B) Reagan sold you a lemon.