8.27.2009

Poll: Most Don't Know What "Public Option" Is -- Including Pollsters

A new survey by Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates for the AARP reveals widespread uncertainty about the nature of the "public option" -- a government-run health insurance policy that would be offered along with private policies in the newly-created health insurance exchanges. Just 37 percent of the poll's respondents correctly identified the public option from a list of three choices provided to them:



It is tempting to attribute these results to attempts by conservatives to blur the distinctions of the health care debate. And surely that is part of the story. But it may not be all that much of it. Democrats were more likely than Republicans to correctly identify the public option in this poll, but not by all that wide a margin -- 41 percent versus 34 percent. Meanwhile, 35 percent of Republicans thought the public option refers to "creating a national healthcare system like they have in Great Britain" -- but so did 23 percent of Democrats.

This should serve as something of a reality check for people on both sides of the public option debate. If the respondents had simply chosen randomly among the three options provide to them, 33 percent would have selected the correct definition for the public option. Instead, only 37 percent did (although 23 percent did not bother to guess). This is mostly a debate being had among policy elites and the relatively small fraction of the public that is highly knowledgeable and engaged about health care reform; for most others, the details are lost on them.

This is also why relatively small changes in wording can trigger dramatic shifts in support for the public option, which has been as high as 83 percent in some polls and as low as 35 percent in others depending on who is doing the polling and how they're asking the questions. You don't see those sorts of discrepancies when polling about, say, gay marriage or the death penalty, where the options are a little bit more self-evident.

Unfortunately, some liberal interest groups may be contributing to the confusion as well, with this poll being a prime example. When Penn, Schoen and Berland ask people to identify the public option, they describe it -- correctly -- as offering health insurance at "market rates". However, when they ask people how they feel about the public option, a different concept is introduced:

"Starting a new federal health insurance plan that individuals could purchase if they can’t afford private plans offered to them."
Seventy-nine percent of the poll's respondents -- including 61 percent of Republicans -- say they'd support this proposal. But it seems to be a very different proposal from the "public option" that Penn, Schoen and Berland took so much care to define, or the one that is actually being debated before Congress. Rather than offering health insurance at "market rates", the public option has been transformed in this question into a sort of fallback policy for people who are priced out of the market. Moreover, the term "government" has been replaced by the softer but more ambiguous term "federal".

Also, if you read the fine print, this is an Internet-based poll, which is not something that an esteemed firm like Penn, Schoen and Berland or an esteemed organization like the AARP should be toying with. Telephone polls have their problems, particularly if they do not include respondents with cellphones, but they are a long ways ahead of Internet-based polling. Zogby Interactive, the most prolific (if the least methodologically sound) Internet-based pollster, has missed the outcome of recent elections by an average of 7.6 points when conducting polls online. (Internet-based polling is cheaper to conduct, but as is the case with fine dining in Manhattan, "value" should not be confused for "cost". Any organization commissioning an Internet-based poll is probably wasting its money, because the poll isn't likely to be any good.)

More generally, there seems to be a sort of arm's-race on both sides of the debate to conduct crappy, manipulative polls on health care reform, and the public option in particular. This poll belongs in the 'crap' pile, as do most of the others. Defenders of the public option, however, should have little to fret about: the most neutrally and accurately-worded polls on the public option -- these are the ones from Quinnipiac and Time/SRBI -- suggest that their position is in the majority, with 56-62 percent of the public supporting the public option and 33-36 percent opposed.

194 comments

stevepasek said...

Seems to me this would be a good time for a "push" poll that describes in detail what the public option is, and the system we currently have, in very partisanly Democratic terms. I think a few years ago, McDonald's used this tactic to publicize the fact that they had low-calorie, low-fat menu items -- they somehow stated it as one survey answer option and paid some pollsters to "poll" the public about whether they were aware of it.

Mike said...

They take pains to describe the correct answer, but one of their wrong answers basically just says "what Britain does."

While I don't expect many Americans to correctly understand the current American proposal, I expect hardly any to understand what Britain does.

hosertohoosier said...

Fivethirtyeight really likes this topic, but has missed an obvious explanation. Pollsters are interested in a different question from bloggers. Pollsters are more driven by the exciting horserace question, rather than the largely academic question of whether people would support a public option (if they knew what it was).

What is the point of asking the "perfect question" if no voters are ever presented with "the perfect question" when they discuss health reform with friends, or get information from the newsmedia.

You guys remind me of economists, a little. If you could explain the simple logic behind free trade, virtually nobody would be a protectionist. But it is always in the interests of both sides of a debate to distort the facts (eg. selling free trade on job creation rather than economic growth).

Since the distorted world is the one we live in, isn't it the imperfect questions we should care about?

FYI I think the most instructive question would be something like "based on what you have heard, do you supporta public option".

Geoff said...

i know you lefties love to talk to each other in the echo chamber, but it is time for a reality check.

obama is at 50% approval in all polls....and FALLING.

That is the one and only indicator as to whether the public wants obamacare.

Obama's popularity is about to join Obama's approval on health care policy in general - 40-45% - unless Obama backs off and compromises. Anyone with a brain, including Silver, knows that obama's overall popularity was always much higher than his policies - and now those two are coming together.

that's reality - not your crying about how the moveon.org poll proves you're right.

or that the public doesnt know what the public option is.

the public disapproves of obama on health care policy by a majority. even the WAPO poll with 50% dem/lean dem sample says this.

Face it lefties, you blew your chance for the socialist agenda in July.

Nosimplehiway said...

If my car broke down, and there was white steam pouring from the hood, I wouldn't run a poll of 100 passersby on the sidewalk to see if it was a radiator leak or blown head gasket, and decide how to fix it based on that poll.

In a republic, we, the people, have an important role in setting overall direction and setting priorities for the nation, but our main job is to pick representatives who can sort through the minutae of policy.

Average people (including me, and I wager most people on this board) simply don't have the expertise to intelligently discuss and decide some topics. Sometimes we need our leaders to disregard the polls, talk to experts in the field and then freaking lead.

Besides, healthcare is a moral obligation. What did the polls say about civil rights in 1948?

Paul said...

I did not see the proper definition of the Public Option in the list.

The Public Option would be a non-profit insurance plan setup by the government, but funded by premiums paid by policy holders.

DCM in FL said...

'.McCain speaks with angry crowd at Ariz. town hall'

@ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090827/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_mccain

PHOENIX – Sen. John McCain met with an angry crowd at a town-hall meeting about health care reform Wednesday, sometimes having to fight to talk and telling one woman who wouldn't stop yelling that she had to leave.

The Arizona senator hadn't yet opened up the meeting at McCain's central Phoenix church to questions when one audience member continuously yelled over him.

"You're going to have to stop or you're going to have to leave," McCain told the woman. When security guards approached to escort her out, he told her "Goodbye, see ya" to a round of applause.

After McCain opened it up to questioning, one man angrily pointed at him and asked the senator why he deserves a better health care plan than him.

"I'm trying to get it for you," McCain told him. "We'll do it for you. We'll make it affordable and available to you."

Other audience members in the crowd of 2,000 told McCain about their medical problems, such as HIV and multiple sclerosis...

...When McCain was trying to answer questions from reporters after the town hall, one audience member yelled at him that he gets hundreds of thousands of dollars from insurance companies every year.

In a voice of feigned surprise, McCain said "Really? I didn't know that."
---------------------------------
sounds like more om the left starting to push back harder...

but the definition of what a 'PUBLIC OPTION" really means is the crux of the matter/

as Nate reiterates again today - overwhelmingly the majority of citizens support the concept - when they understand what a public 'option' really means as opposed to what the GOOPers claim/lie about what it will mean...

J. Scott said...

As far as an earlier poster said about Obama's numbers. They may be falling on the margins, but I doubt they will ever reach the absolutely HORRIBLE numbers the Republicans and conservatives enjoy right now. Its a good thing approval numbers can't go negative. Otherwise, they'd have been there long ago.

And about the public option. Once we finally have a stinking bill to look at from both chambers, if they have a public option in them, I think you will see Obama and Co. go flat out to explain to the American People what it is, and what it is not; in no uncertain terms. That will turn it around.

He's not doing that right now, because Congress can't make up its mind (particularly the Senate) whether or not they want one in the Bill (due to private insurance lobbying and pressure).

Everyone just take a breath. We'll know a lot more by mid next month what will finally get in the bills of the House and the Senate, and what won't.

Or if we even get that far.

DCM in FL said...

calling the public 'option' a FEDERAL insurance program as opposed to a government-run or backed program makes alot of sense imho

BUT I would actually prefer they use the term NATIONAL instead, similar to what they call the National Flood Insurance Program - which is am 'optional' federal government program that many of our citizens are already familiar with

Opus 132 said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Opus 132 said...

What is obviously needed is for Obama to finally get off his ass and start doing FDR-like "Fireside Chats" to educate the electorate about the public option.

And a few press conferences on the same subject would also help.

Better late than never!

whitetower said...

Those who argue that there will be a "public option offered along side private medical insurance" are either being completely disingenuous or completely ignorant.

H.B.3200 bans the sale of any new medical insurance policies to individuals.

Read that sentence again.

Since no more new private medical insurance policies will be written, the public "option," over time, will be the only option because anyone losing their health insurance through work or their individual plan will have no choice except the government insurance plan.

H.B. 3200 means the end of private medical insurance, not a government "option" competing with it.

Alex S. said...

I think that a lot of the opposition to a public option is based on misinformation or ignorance. Democrats shouldn't be afraid to pass a bill via reconciliation because the result will not nearly be as radical as many people suspect. That AARP poll however is pushing it a lot: a public option "for people who can't afford" private health-care - that wording makes it very hard to say no...

By the way, about 2 months ago 538 had a very useful chart showing the contributions of health PACs to several senators. Is it possible to get a more detailed look at a) insurance company contributions, and b) pharma contributions?
After all, PHrMA is onboard after Obama's deal with Billy Tauzin. I think that the relation between insurance contributions and pharma contributions could be very interesting.

Pragmatus said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Pragmatus said...

whitetower…

Please provide some evidence for your ludicrous statement “H.B. 3200 bans the sale of any new insurance policies to individuals.” All you have to do is point to the section of the bill that says this.

And while you’re at it, please give us the page numbers etc where we can find the “death panels” and where is talks about the “government takeover of heathcare”.

What you’ve been reading is GOP nutbrain whip-up-the-frenzy diatribes, not the bill.

loner said...

whitetower—

While you're doing that for Pragmatus, I'd like to also suggest that you familiarize yourself with "grandfathering" as it applies to legislation. Don't hurt yourself.

Geoff—

Polling trolls are so much fun. Half-baked Alaska give you a chubby, too?

DCM in FL said...

I know better than to take the troll bait...

but WHITETOWER - you are just outright intentionally spreading LIES with your ludicrous assertions

shame on you - oh wait, obviously you have no shame...

my bet is you are a 'birther' too

DCM in FL said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Milltycoon said...

@Geoff--
You may be the one who needs to leave your echo chamber. I can tell you are in one because you allude to Obama and the Democratic agenda as "socialist" (I think you do, anyway), when most of the agenda has thus far been moderate to Center Right. Much of the reason that Obama's poll numbers have dropped is because of the loss of faith in him by Liberals, not by centrists. Obama has lost 0 support among Conservatives (they already had none for him), and more of the "center" than not seems to either want strong healthcare reform or is misinformed about aspects of this debate. But there is a large block of the Progressive base who are deflating in response to Obama's weak support for meaningful reform.
Given this reality, Obama had better NOT "back away and compromise." His numbers will go down further if he compromises (not to mention that it will be a worse bill). And this is also not to mention that the "public option" proposal IS the compromise between single-payer health care and toothless co-ops. And this doesn't even bring in the larger issue, which is that no compromise from this point on is even POSSIBLE, since no one on the Right (including the Democratic Corporatist Right) is even interested in compromise. They want to kill the bill, and any bill. How can you compromise with people who don't want anything?
Obama has one way back up to the top of the polls: to ignore the 23% of the country (you) who will blame him for every decision anyway, and to listen to his Liberal base that got him elected. There is a lot more goodwill for a President who does what he is elected to do than one who tries in utter hopelessness to please everyone. You wouldn't even like him if his next 50 agenda items were taken straight from Reagan's diary.

Geoff said...

Milltycoon said...

@Geoff--
You may be the one who needs to leave your echo chamber. I can tell you are in one because you allude to Obama and the Democratic agenda as "socialist" (I think you do, anyway), when most of the agenda has thus far been moderate to Center Right. Much of the reason that Obama's poll numbers have dropped is because of the loss of faith in him by Liberals, not by centrists.


WOW.

You all are completely insane if you think Obama's agenda has been Center Right.

Just, wow.

You're the same crew who was yelling and screaming about Obama being the most popular president ever just two months ago, so lets stop the act.

OBama's falling fast, and you know it, i know it and all of America knows it.

Obama/Holder's witch hunt against Americans at the CIA isnt going to change his trajectory downward - other than to perhaps win back some hard leftists who are disappointed Obama didnt go straight to Marxism instead of his present socialist agenda.

Maybe you're so far gone you think a socialist agenda is Center right?


YOUR CONCLUSION is laughable:

Obama has one way back up to the top of the polls: to ignore the 23% of the country (you) who will blame him for every decision anyway, and to listen to his Liberal base that got him elected. There is a lot more goodwill for a President who does what he is elected to do than one who tries in utter hopelessness to please everyone. You wouldn't even like him if his next 50 agenda items were taken straight from Reagan's diary.


IF obama follows that plan, doubles down on the hard left, he's a one term president, guaranteed.

Anyone with a brain knows this - including your hero Silver. go ahead, ask him.

obama's numbers are falling to the same level of approval as his policies, and that downward drift will continue unless and until obama moves to the CENTER - as he campaigned - instaed of governing like a hard leftist as he is now.

Mark said...

@ Geoff,

I don't want to argue about the state of lefties socialist agenda (or whatever), but I would like to debate the general premise of your reasoning.

You suggest that because Obama's approval numbers are falling that this is the "one and only indicator as to whether the public wants obamacare."

To me that doesn't quite make sense. The current push by Democrats for health care reform (i.e. what I think you mean by Obamacare) is one aspect of Obama's overall approval rating. Other aspects include, but are not limited to, the wars, stimulus, bank bailouts, his current reading list, gun control, rumored education proposals, etc etc etc.

I think it is quite easy to imagine a person who disapproves of the health care reform push, approves of the recent push in Afghanistan, disapproves of the Iraq strategy, approves of education proposals, and absolutely loves Obama's vacation reading list.

If this person weights each of these views equally they will slightly approve of Obama's job as president, but definitely disapprove of the push for health care reform. If this person weights policy related opinions equally, but discounts non-policy opinions (i.e. the reading list) this person would have a perfectly neutral impression of Obama.

However most people do not weight all of there approvals/disapprovals equally. There are probably many factors that go into this including the salience of a particular proposal, an individual's self-interest, social networks etc.

The only way your claim that overall Obama approval ratings are the best indicator of peoples' opinions on Obama's characterization of health care is if they give a significant weight to their approval/disapproval of Obama's characterization of health care compared to the other components of this attitude. This seems implausible and thus a more specific question would be more accurate.

On a related note, the knowledge gap in the health care debate suggests that the overall Obama approval rating would not necessarily be related to support for actual (as compared to perceived or suspected) Democratic health care reforms. If people don't understand the reform (for a number of reasons) then it is not possible to trust whether they actually approve or disapprove of the reform. You can only know that they approve or disapprove of what they think is in the reform. A perception that is not always accurate.

DCM in FL said...

interesting and on point:

@ Political Wire:

'Bonus Quote of the Day'

"I don't have to read it, or know what's in it. I'm going to oppose it anyways."

-- Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), quoted by the Express-Star, on the health care reform bill.
===========================

now that concise comment summarized the GOP adamant opposition to ANY health care & insurance reform.

JUST SAY NO TO EVERYTHING - protect the status quo

how can one seek to 'compromise' with this attitude ???

Opus 132 said...

@ DCM in FL

lots of comments deleted

How can you tell? I see only two deletions (one of which is mine) and both of them are "removed by author"!

Geoff said...

Mark said...

@ Geoff,

I don't want to argue about the state of lefties socialist agenda (or whatever), but I would like to debate the general premise of your reasoning.

You suggest that because Obama's approval numbers are falling that this is the "one and only indicator as to whether the public wants obamacare."

To me that doesn't quite make sense. The current push by Democrats for health care reform (i.e. what I think you mean by Obamacare) is one aspect of Obama's overall approval rating. Other aspects include, but are not limited to, the wars, stimulus, bank bailouts, his current reading list, gun control, rumored education proposals, etc etc etc.

I think it is quite easy to imagine a person who disapproves of the health care reform push, approves of the recent push in Afghanistan, disapproves of the Iraq strategy, approves of education proposals, and absolutely loves Obama's vacation reading list.

If this person weights each of these views equally they will slightly approve of Obama's job as president, but definitely disapprove of the push for health care reform. If this person weights policy related opinions equally, but discounts non-policy opinions (i.e. the reading list) this person would have a perfectly neutral impression of Obama.

However most people do not weight all of there approvals/disapprovals equally. There are probably many factors that go into this including the salience of a particular proposal, an individual's self-interest, social networks etc.


WELL,

I generally agree with your comments. The missing analytical point is that of all the things you list above, health care is the most personal for each voter.

That's why Obama is falling - people in America are 80-85% satisfied with their health care - and Obama is promising transformational change.

The remainder of your post about how the public is ignorant or not re Obama's proposals is like white noise. Yes, perhaps on minutia the public doesnt know EXACTLY what Obama wants to do - but his own examples of how Obamacare will fix things or otherwise be good are sinking him. Consider:

1. Tonsils - obama says docs are chopping tonsils out to make money on surgery. Anyone with a 100IQ and above knows the GP who advises surgery makes NOTHING and the surgeon who it referred to makes an insignificant fee for this surgery. Everyone thinks its odd the PResident is saying obamacare will fix tonsil chopping yet the government will nto be involved in health care decisiosn.

2. foot chopping for diabetes - same as above.

3. medicare "savings" from "waste" - again, anyone with room temp IQ knows cutting 660 billion/10 years means CUTS. YEt, Axelfraud says this is a "smear" - even as Dems at town halls admit cuts are coming. And, Medicare Adv. is VERY popular and Obama says it is a waste of money and payoff to insurers.


And that's just three examples!

Obama's own rhetoric is sinking him.

And as the coup de grace, Pelosi-appointed CBO director Elmendorff says Obama is lying when he says Deficit neutral.

Ergo, the Emperor has no clothes on health care, the most personal issue on obama's agenda. And the people are noticing.

DCM in FL said...

OPUS

I also deleted my comment. It was based on faulty info - in the small comment screen it shows only a complete deletion [including the name of the comment author]

so I assumed it was similar to the mass deletions we have seen on occasion in the past like when Mulehead was threatening nate's life & there was some blog token moderation.

also earlier today in another thread, some troll named MISSY seems to have all her comment posts deleted...

so I jumped the gun once I saw they were deleted by PRAG & yourself... mea culpa in other words

Anthony said...

Polls that ask "Do you approve of how the President has been doing his job, yes or no" are worthless unless the answers are overwhelmingly yes or no. Much better is to ask "yes or no because X, no because Y ..." or "yes or no he's too far left or no he's too far right" or some other set of choices for no. Choices for yes are useful too, but not as much as choices for no IMHO.

Dwight said...

@J. Scott

I think the concern is that the bizzare fabrications, like those whitetower posted, will stick if they are allowed to fester too long. *shrug*

Maybe the FUD will be overcome when the time comes to sell the Bill publicly, maybe it won't. But I don't think the concern about leaving the misinformation to fester is entirely misplaced. If people get bored, turn off, and move on before you get things straight with them then it becomes very hard to reach them.

Rudy said...

If the term "public option" is supposedly the bone of contention as to why such a plan isn't supported in polling unless the definition given is biased toward making it look benign, the Dems have only themselves to blame for coining a meant-to-obfuscate phase.

What has been successful is getting people to understand the disingenuousness of the plan, and thus, their reflexive suspicion of it once so informed. Camels nose under tent. Path to single payor and governemnt takeover of health insurance industry. Not supported by public.

It is abundantly clear that if the government-controlled entity doesn't play on a level playing field with other insurers, that they will drive the others out of the market. Some here view that as desirable, but the elected reps do not support that view as a group. They are properly afraid of such confrntation, and that's why this scheme remains doomed.

shiloh said...

Obama's approval ratings are decreasing slightly because he's losing progressive support re: "his" health care reform "effort".

This is not rocket science.

If and when a rational, reasonable health care bill passes his #s will go up again.

Also, will any of these disgruntled progressives or liberal/moderate independents vote for a party of No! Rep any time soon. Not a dog's chance in hell!

g'day

p.s. Reagan, running against Carter, a god awful president, could only get 50.75% of the vote in 1980 as Anderson got 8%. ie the emergence of Reagan Dems after 4 years of Carter. Now after (8) years of cheney/bush and the party of No! losing the youth, minority voters for the foreseeable future as the Reps main base, older white folk continue to pass every (4) years, their prospects are grim.

Adding palin, mittens, huckabee, cantor, boehner, bachmann, blackburn, "looking for a great white hope" KS Rep lynn jenkins, jindal, sanford, ensign, vitter, "TX could secede" perry, steele etc. as the current Rep leadership, incumbent Obama easily wins re-election by default.

take care

Geoff said...

Anthony said...

Polls that ask "Do you approve of how the President has been doing his job, yes or no" are worthless unless the answers are overwhelmingly yes or no. Much better is to ask "yes or no because X, no because Y ..." or "yes or no he's too far left or no he's too far right" or some other set of choices for no. Choices for yes are useful too, but not as much as choices for no IMHO.


FUNNY how only when Obama's approval is collapsing does the left complain that polls are meaningless.

truly hilarious.

Ben said...

I would guess that a lot of people who chose "creating a national heathcare system" aren't as ignorant as you imply, but simply chose to answer the question a little bit less literally. Many opponents of the "public option" see it as an attempt to create a slippery slope toward national healthcare, and many supporters see it as an important step in that direction. Generally, I'd guess poll respondents aren't as nit-picky as wonky bloggers.

loner said...

DCM in FL—

Missy is (see profile) Walker's wife. Might be that someone commented under the wrong ID.

Rahmsputin said...

until obama moves to the CENTER - as he campaigned - instaed of governing like a hard leftist as he is now.

So you think Obama should continue to work towards the health insurance reform plan he promised during the campaign? I totally agree.

And as the coup de grace, Pelosi-appointed CBO director Elmendorff says Obama is lying when he says Deficit neutral.

Actually, Elmendorff didn't say anything about Obama. He mentioned one of several bills that are floating through congress. Let's not make stuff up, okay?

people in America are 80-85% satisfied with their health care

And how many are satisfied with their health insurance? Given that enormous majorities say they want fundamental change when it comes to insurance, I'm guessing not many.

DCM in FL said...

depends on what one means as 'approval' when one is polled...

as others have noted, I would so "NO - but ..." if I was polled today because I feel he is not being progressive enough.

however, does that mean I have thrown in the towel completely ? by no means - so far

a better metric to balance the equation is also to compare Obama's 'favorability' polling #'2

those are still running significantly higher because folks like myself still give BHO high favorable #'s for many reasons, including that he is still a whole lot better than the alternative we were offererd + we are still HOPEFUL that we will get real CHANGE

RCP FAVORABILITY Average 7/19 - 8/20 -- 59.0 [FAV] 32.8 [UNFAV] = +26.2

RCP JOB APPROVAL Average 8/11 - 8/26 -- 51.8 [YES] 41.8 [NO] = +10.0

there remains a strong correlation, and as long as BHO keeps his FAVORABILITY #'s so high then he can push his POTUS agenda forward

Geoff said...

Rahm -

nice attempt at spin and snark, but facts are stubborn things.

Obama has boasted of his savings from medicare - cbo says no.

obama has boasted the bill with be deficit neutral - cbo says no

obama has boasted his plan will bend the cost curve down - cbo says it will bend up with obamacare.

you cant hide behind the multiple slightly different plans forever, my lefty friends.

Dwight said...

It is abundantly clear that if the government-controlled entity doesn't play on a level playing field with other insurers, that they will drive the others out of the market.

I suggest that the level playing field and competing on product and service to the people insured is exactly what the insurance industry fears most. It will mean that their profits will more resemble what they bring to the table in terms of efficencies and are well aware that most of them or unlikely to pull off a profit competing in the base insurance market and that the ones that do will have to get off their butts and work on the serious inefficencies in their system, ones they have grown quite accustomed to because the oligology allows them to pass the bill for the fat on to those they insure and ultimately society/government as a whole.

Now insurance companies won't disappear in such a market. There is always the upscale market, even in Canada there are private health insurers and plans. Not unlike mail delivery where there is USMail but UPS and Fedex exist in tangental markets.

Rahmsputin said...

From the economically conservative Economist:

"Do you favor or oppose having a "public option" which would allow individuals to purchase
health insurance coverage from the government?

43% Favor, 30% Oppose"

Rudy's point that most people think the "public option" is a trojan horse for single-payer is clearly not supported by the hard numbers. Consistently, we see that the GOP base is opposed, the Democratic base is in favor, and everyone else has no idea what's going on.

shiloh said...

Missy and Walker lol a definite political symmetry ;)

Teamwork is the key ...

Geoff said...

dwight said

I suggest that the level playing field and competing on product and service to the people insured is exactly what the insurance industry fears most. It will mean that their profits will more resemble what they bring to the table in terms of efficencies and are well aware that most of them or unlikely to pull off a profit competing in the base insurance market and that the ones that do will have to get off their butts and work on the serious inefficencies in their system, ones they have grown quite accustomed to because the oligology allows them to pass the bill for the fat on to those they insure and ultimately society/government as a whole.

Now insurance companies won't disappear in such a market. There is always the upscale market, even in Canada there are private health insurers and plans. Not unlike mail delivery where there is USMail but UPS and Fedex exist in tangental markets.


THIS is a common misconception amongst lefties. The "exchange" and "public option" will reduce choice and competition for consumers.

the "exchange" mandates the components of insurance plans - REDUCING choice.

the "public option" will have a sketchy doctor network as they will underpay just like medicare - yet undercharge just like medicare on premiums too - meaning that folks will be pushed intot he plan by the basic economics of it - including employers dumping expensive private plans.

why is this so hard for you all to understand?

i know obama and hte dems have nice flowery rhetoric, but wake up folks, actually think about what the massive govt intervention into the health care industry will do.

no more innovation. frozen at 2009 care levels indefinitely. reduction in medical exports for this reason. doctors leaving the profession.......

Rahmsputin said...

@Geoff

A few points:

1) The IMAC plan is only a small portion of the overall Medicare savings plan.

2) I'm not sure what "the bill" you're referring to. There is no "the bill" yet. We haven't even seen the Finance bill, which is expected to be the most aggressive when it comes to cost-cutting measures and will likely constitute the bulk of the final Senate version.

3) Again, you refer to "Obamacare" and the "Obama plan" but then refer to a solitary CBO report about a single bill, HR3200.

You seem to be confused about the nature of the legislative process, and judging by your irrational aggression over a simple policy debate, I'm guessing you're at least semi-cognizant of your loose handle on the facts. Perhaps you should do a little more research?

Geoff said...

You seem to be confused about the nature of the legislative process, and judging by your irrational aggression over a simple policy debate, I'm guessing you're at least semi-cognizant of your loose handle on the facts. Perhaps you should do a little more research?

AGAIN, the response is to attack me with ad hominems and trying to dodge by playing up some imaginary difference between Obama's position and the almost identical various bills.

Yet, Obama constantly argues in favor of those very bills and terms within.

You can't hide from the facts reported by the CBO and the Mid Session Update forever with ad hominems and shrieks about your favorite Moveon.Org poll

DCM in FL said...

GE-OFF

so how do you explain & try to rectify the FACT that the staus quo has turned our country into an net EXPORTER of people seeking health care over-seas ???

we used to be a big IMPORTER for foreigners coming here for care, but the system has reversed that trend exponentially.

even the private insurers are now sending their clients overseas as medical tourists because they have wreaked havoc in the health care field.

when the free market comes in conflict with basic human rights, then it needs to be moderated for the public good - and decent affordable health care is a right, not a privelege

poll on THAT, but it is the hideous truth that the abject failures in the private health insurance market are what is responsible for destroying our preiminence - not the government

I do not want to be forced to become a medical toursit - but that is exactly what the status quo is leading to.

you want to out-source our health care too, just like with jobs ???

Obama needs to take a stand on this whole medical tourism issue because the public does NOT want this to continue - yet here in FL many are being encouraged to go over-seas to India & Costa Rica, etc for hip & knee replacements and everything else

Walker said...

Hello Friends and Fellow Patriots,

Indeed Missy @ Almost Naptime is my wife.

She is a luxuriously enchanting creature (and surprisingly even more right-wing that me) but is decidedly non-interested in online political discourse.

She received some creepy posts to her blog today from 528.com and called me, furious I might add (and nothing is more furious than an East Texas chick on a full moon), asking that I delete her incorrectly-ascribed posts immediately.

I yielded to her as I value matriomonal harmony above many other things.

Carry on, as Shiloh likes to say.

Oh, and one other thing, Obama is failing.

New nadir on Gallup tracking today (50%).

Geoff said...

DCM in FL said...

GE-OFF

so how do you explain & try to rectify the FACT that the staus quo has turned our country into an net EXPORTER of people seeking health care over-seas ???

we used to be a big IMPORTER for foreigners coming here for care, but the system has reversed that trend exponentially.


you're completely delusional if you think the world's elite do not come to america for medical treatment.

that's a key driver in us medical revenue - one that will dry up if obama's "exchange" and "comparative effectiveness" panels get their way.


i feel for ya buddy, get help.

DCM in FL said...

WALKER - such a troll + a troglodyte for a spouse based on those earlier MISSY posts...

and re: GE-OFF - per wiki:

"Geoff is a fictional land that is part of the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game.'

now that sure does explain alot about a certain deluded poster...

DCM in FL said...

GEOFF

once again - you are inncorrect, sorry that the facts just get in your way.

but it is interesting that you value the "world's elite" over providing decent health care for our own citizens

how telling & unchristian of you & your ilk

the facts remain that our balance of trade in the health care field is a hige drain on our resources - our dollars are rapidly flowing overseas with the increasing medical tourism; plus it then creates unnecessary surpluses in the USA of empty beds & lower demand generating fewer medical procedures BUT results in more ER visits.

and THAT should concern everyone

Rudy said...

Rahm, my point was not that most people believe that most people believe "public option" is a trojan horse for single payor, it is that they do not understand that it is a trojan horse unless the obfucation of the term "public option" is explained. Your Economist data demonstrates that point -- it was not explained in the question that the "public option" would have a structural competitive advantage and thus harm other competitors.

Dwight, I do agree with you that the insurance industry is afraid of more competition, and further, I would assert that they have been willing participants in regulatory efforts to protect the cartel from competition. Reducing those barriers to competition is essential to reform, but a "public option" reeks of stifling competition, not expanding it. Enabling consumer choice among inerstate plans, reduced benefit mandates and expansion of HSA-like products would empower consumers and increase competition.

shiloh said...

So Walker, Missy just likes to spew and doesn't like any feedback lol.

Sounds like the perfect Rep/conservative society if they were in charge! Almost like the cheney/bush years when they discouraged dissent ie "your either w/us or against us".

and Missy if one can't stand the heat ...

There are 2 theories to arguing with a woman ... neither works. ~ Will Rogers

Walker said...

Dudes, I am sorry.

You are all getting ritualistically man-handled by Geoff and its a little embarrassing.

Will someone - ANYONE - please enter the ring and make this debate interesting??

DCM in FL said...

GE-OFF

did you even bother to research your 'facts' before you post them ???

you are using old info from about a generation ago when foreigners actually came to the US in droves for the quality of care - those days are over unforetunately...

research 'medical tourism' yourself & get current with the problem this poses for our health & economy...

for instance "A forecast by Deloitte Consulting published in August 2008 projected that medical tourism originating in the US could jump by a factor of ten over the next decade. An estimated 750,000 Americans went abroad for health care in 2007, and the report estimated that a million and a half would seek health care outside the US in 2008. The growth in medical tourism has the potential to cost US health care providers billions of dollars in lost revenue."

put that in your pipe & smoke it...

DCM in FL said...

WALKER

you need to get those eyes checked

or else get a grasp on reality

better check with your worse hqalf too

Geoff said...

DCM in FL said...

GE-OFF

did you even bother to research your 'facts' before you post them ???

you are using old info from about a generation ago when foreigners actually came to the US in droves for the quality of care - those days are over unforetunately...

research 'medical tourism' yourself & get current with the problem this poses for our health & economy...

for instance "A forecast by Deloitte Consulting published in August 2008 projected that medical tourism originating in the US could jump by a factor of ten over the next decade. An estimated 750,000 Americans went abroad for health care in 2007, and the report estimated that a million and a half would seek health care outside the US in 2008. The growth in medical tourism has the potential to cost US health care providers billions of dollars in lost revenue."

put that in your pipe & smoke it...


you think that a deloitte study means a damn thing to anybody?

hehhehe

"projected" for 2008? Where's the 2008 #'s? Sure, a lot of people who live near teh border of mexico go there for cheap dentistry and prescriptions. wow.

ya got me there, pal.

seriously, this is the best of the intellectual left 538?

Sad.

noone even has the stones to combat my four points above about Dr. Obama's idiocy on tonsil and foot chopping, the CBO and Medicare advantage cuts.

Pathetic.

No wonder Obamacare is tanking in the polls - not even the "smart" left can adequately defend it.

And, saying that Obamacare doesnt really exist yet isnt a defense, its a dodge.

shiloh said...

Walker, one is excused to go tend to your wife Missy. Geoff doesn't need a wannabe personal cheerleader, although PK may need your support sometime in the future.

take care

Walker said...

DCM, the same Deloitte sytudy says thet up to 400K come to the US for treatment.

I would surmise that most of the US citizens who leave these shores for places like Costa Roca, Hong Kong, Belize, etc. are going for largely elective, largely cosmetic treatments.

Those foreigners coming here, however, are coming to more serious, life-threatening treatment.

If anyone has any hard info concerning my presuppositions, I am all ears.

No one has brought up the Times of London mega-article on UK treatment disasters today?

Geoff, is it time??

Geoff said...

walker - sure, go ahead.

a million britons abused by their socialist health care system...

sad really sad

Rahmsputin said...

@Rudy

So your problem is that the poll questions aren't structured around theoretical considerations voiced by some conservative critics? That's a fairly weak criticism, IMO.

brown said...

"You are all getting ritualistically man-handled by Geoff and its a little embarrassing."

Sock puppet.

Rudy said...

No, Rahm, I'm saying any polling on the term is by nature meaningless because it is totally dependent on the positioning of the meant-to-obfuscate term "public option." Any purportedly neutral way of describing public option perpetuates the obfuscation of what it really is.

Walker said...

Sorry, it wasn't the Times it was the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6092658/Cruel-and-neglectful-care-of-one-million-NHS-patients-exposed.html

This, to me, is the crux of the fight.

* 75-80% of Americans are 'content' with their existing coverage

* The health care proposals coming out of the House/Senate are not revenue neutral and do not 'pay for themselves', as Obama states repeatedly, but are instead vastly expensive

* A public option has been stated by many lefty policy wonk types (Ezra K., Barnie F., K. Sebelius) as a back door way to eventual single payer.

As a result of #1-3, I cannot support what the Democrats are supporting. How can I trust them when so much of what they say is untrue or disingenuous on its face??

shiloh said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Geoff said...

brown said...

"You are all getting ritualistically man-handled by Geoff and its a little embarrassing."

Sock puppet.


sorry lefty, i am who i am. i usedta comment on this site all the time before the election in 2008.

nice try, tho.

shiloh said...

Geoff said...

sorry lefty, i am who i am. i usedta comment on this site all the time before the election in 2008.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


And then the party of No! got trounced and it just wasn't fun being a disengenuous, smug wingnut anymore, eh.

Did daily therapy pull one through the discombobulating haze? and out of one's funk! ;)

just wonderin'

loner said...

FYI

Geoff commented over a thousand times between 8/30 and 9/26.

Geoff commented zero times between 9/27 and 11/4.

Polling troll? Absolutely.

Bart DePalma said...

Nate:

The choices provided by the AARP poll are all inaccurate. Option One that you prefer states:

Creating a government funded insurance company that competes with with existing private insurers to offer health coverage at market rates.

AARP admits that the tax payers will be subsidizing Obamacare but then qualifies their description with the non sequitur that Obamacare will be charging market rates for their health coverage.

This begs the question of where all that tax money will be going if not going to pay for below market premiums? Bonuses to Obama as CEO of the new socialized health insurance company?

The AARP reworked question admits the fact that Obamacare will undercut private insurance, but then limits Obamacare to the poor and leaves the rest of us and our insurance alone:

"Starting a new federal health insurance plan that individuals could purchase if they can’t afford private plans offered to them."

Unless a poll covers all the actual elements of the Obamacare legislation, it is inaccurate:

1) The government will determine what coverage your insurance will cover. If you presently use high deductible health insurance or HSAs, your insurance will be outlawed. In any case, your present insurance will be outlawed within a year after it expires The cost of private insurance will be forced to rise to cover all the new mandates.

2) The Obamacare public option will be subsidized by the tax payers either through (1) direct taxes (those without insurance are to be taxed) or (2) indirect taxes on businesses (employer mandates) that will be paid by higher prices paid by tax payer consumers, pay cuts to tax payer employees or laid off tax payer employees. Heritage just issued a detailed study on these costs.

3) The Obamacare public option will use Medicare and Medicaid tables and cut the pay of your doctors by over 30% below that paid by your private insurance.

4) As a result, Obamacare will use your tax money and the cut in pay for your doctors to offer premiums substantially lower than your private insurer. You will do the economically rational thing and join the Obamacare public option that you are already paying for anyway. Viola! You are in the Canadian single payer system.

Jacob said...

To my esteemed conservative commentators. It is obvious that you think that the Democratic plans to fix health care are a bad idea. I suppose that the Republicans are full of better ideas. My question then, is why the Republicans didn't try to implement these plans when they had the chance? Of are conservatives under the illusion that everything is just fine? If conservatives manage to defeat this plan, can we count on you to fix health care next time a conservative majority comes into power? I hope so, but I doubt it. Republicans ignored the issue for YEARS, and now get in a hissy because someone had the guts to stick their neck out and try to fix it.

But then again, the conservatives didn't manage to do too much for their pro-life wing either. Lots of lip-service on that issue. But you did get an unnecessary war or two. Good for you!

The Republicans have shown them incapable of grappling the big issues of the day. And they were voted out for it. I say, stand aside and let the men and women with a plan and some vision do their work. If its a mistake? Well, you should be gratified. Your conservatives can come in like heroes and fix everything, right?

Walker said...

Geoff, it appears the Lefties of 538.com are a bit phased by your mysterious, triumphant return.

The Echo Chamber has become less echo-y.

Set phasers on stun.

You tackle health care.

I will take cap and trade and energy policy.

Mule Rider can take foreign policy, military affairs, and the growing ethics corruption among the Democratic ranks.

Pete Kent can lob well-placed grenades from time to time, disrupting their mojo, and being the sneaky sniper he is famous for being.

Ready, set, go!

DCM in FL said...

BART

logic obviously escapes your limited intellectual grasp

especially when you put your own words out there as representing what "AARP admits"

facts not in evidence - or making it up on the fly

shameless trollish postering

Walker said...

Dude, how could I forget DePalma??!!!

What are our orders, El Capitan???

Rudy said...

Jacob, surely you jest. Republicans have tried for years to get meaningful tort reform and HSAs. You forget that Republicans never had a filibuster-proof majority, so anything that didn't fit the leftist version of nirvana was declared DOA. Diluted version of both HSAs and tort reform finally got through after years of compromise, and both have proven successful -- and could be more successful if expanded.

DCM in FL said...

RUDY

you claim HSA & tort reform as successful accomplishments ???

says who ? they are both regressive & punitive to the majority as well as counter-productive.

on tort reform this is less easily quantified - but studies have proven that only the more well-to-do & healthy bother to open HSAs, and that this puts further strains on the insurance marketplace.

plus many of those who claimthey are opening HSAa never bother to fund themselves...

"Some consumer organizations, such as Consumers Union, and many medical organizations, such as the American Public Health Association, have rejected HSAs because, in their opinion, they benefit only healthy, younger people and make the health care system more expensive for everyone else. According to Stanford economist Victor Fuchs, "The main effect of putting more of it on the consumer is to reduce the social redistributive element of insurance."

again your claims are spurious at best - nah, let's label another lie as exactly what it is...

bait & switch to protect the status quo & further widen the gap between the 'haves' & the 'have-nots'

please do some research & back up your baseless claims before you post - even if you use contrived neo-con think tanks, you could at least attempt to be intellectually honest

DCM in FL said...

HSA = privatized social security accounts

BOTH are terrible ideas that benefit the few at the expense of the majority

another GREAT idea brought by the GOOPers to screw you in the end [literally & figuratively]

Pragmatus said...

Walker…

I suppose your remarks would have some impact if you gave some indication that you have more than a minimum of education.

Your quote: “Geoff, it appears the Lefties of 538.com are a bit phased by your mysterious, triumphant return.”

First off, the word you want is “fazed”. Go to the library and check the word in a dictionary—surely you don’t have one of those around your house, unless Missy needs it to prop her swollen feet up when it’s her “naptime”.

Secondly, what exactly is “mysterious” or “triumphant” about Geoff’s “return”? You write like someone who is desperate to sound educated. Sorry, but the harder you try, the duller you seem.

Geoff said...

i know this is hard for those here who have no lives or jobs to worry about, but sometimes, as a solo atty like i am, i have a free weeks to screw around on the net. like now.

sometiems, im very busy working and dont have time to talk to such intellectual types as yourselves.

indeed, accusing me of being some sort of polling troll is the best substantive response to my many substantive critiques above?

pretty sad.

the litany of the "intellectual" left:

shiloh said...

Geoff said...

sorry lefty, i am who i am. i usedta comment on this site all the time before the election in 2008.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And then the party of No! got trounced and it just wasn't fun being a disengenuous, smug wingnut anymore, eh.

Did daily therapy pull one through the discombobulating haze? and out of one's funk! ;)

just wonderin'

loner said...

FYI

Geoff commented over a thousand times between 8/30 and 9/26.

Geoff commented zero times between 9/27 and 11/4.

Polling troll? Absolutely.
August 27, 2009 8:34 PM

AND, yea, i didnt have shit going on in aug and sept last year, just like this year. my practice is cyclical. is that too big a word to understand, those quoted above?

Geoff said...

Jacob said...

To my esteemed conservative commentators. It is obvious that you think that the Democratic plans to fix health care are a bad idea. I suppose that the Republicans are full of better ideas. My question then, is why the Republicans didn't try to implement these plans when they had the chance? Of are conservatives under the illusion that everything is just fine? If conservatives manage to defeat this plan, can we count on you to fix health care next time a conservative majority comes into power? I hope so, but I doubt it. Republicans ignored the issue for YEARS, and now get in a hissy because someone had the guts to stick their neck out and try to fix it.


FAIR POINT, well taken.

the GOP did get thru HSA's and prescription drug plans for non-rich seniors.

but, they failed to do a comprehensive reform. Keep in mind OBama and crew screamed about discussion of medicare reform in 2006 - and now Obama and crew are advocating very similar cuts, so the hypocrisy is on both sides.

THAT SAID, think about Clinton in 1993 and Obama in 2009. Both said health care reform is the only way to have a good economic recovery.

Clinton was CLEARLY wrong - he lost, and the country went to boom times right after in the mid 90's and beyond.

What makes you think Obama is right?

Pragmatus said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Pragmatus said...

Walker…

Instead of just repeating the same sentences over and over, perhaps you can answer some questions.

Do you have health insurance? If so, is it provided by an employer, or do you pay the premiums yourself? Or are you on Medicare? I’m trying to find out just what your opposition to health insurance reform stems from.

NU'69 said...

Looks to me that 63 percent got it roughly right

whitetower said...

for Pragmatus, loner and the other kids posting here who have not read H.B. 3200,

Section 102.c.1. states that, "Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan."

Translation for the kids: the only "private" new health insurance that can be offered is through the national health insurance "exchange."

Later, in section 203.a, H.B.3200 mandates that the exchange commissioner "shall specify the benefits to be made available under Exchange-participating health benefits plans during each plan year."

Again, translation for the kids: the government will determine the types of benefits individuals may receive.

The availability of private plans outside the exchange for individuals who are not satisfied with the coverage that the government determines is apprpriate is nonexistent.

Really, these blogs ought to establish minimum age for posting.

Pragmatus said...

Geoff…

If you can’t even find the “shift” key on your keyboard I shudder to think what kind of “practice” you have, especially one that runs dry for months at a time.

Geoff said...

Walker said...

Geoff, it appears the Lefties of 538.com are a bit phased by your mysterious, triumphant return.

The Echo Chamber has become less echo-y.

Set phasers on stun.

You tackle health care.


WELL, im not really into the whole battle thing, im more interested in really seeing what exactly intelligent lefties are thinking.

Ive done a ton of reading on this health care issue on all sides blogs and all MSM available and a fair amount of the boring as hell COB/Center for American Studies/Heritage stuff

That, plus just listening and watching a ton of Obama since June 2009 on this (and comparing that to Obama of the past) gives me serious pause as to whether the Dems know what the hell they are doing in this grand OBamacare plan of theirs.

Ifyou take the Stimulus as an example of the New Dem agenda's efficiency and effectiveness, much is left to be desired. Heck, take a look at the NYT yesterday -

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/27/nyregion/27stimulus.html?_r=1&ref=politics

see jobs claims = "puffery" and "mythical" job creation - and note the NYT says only a "fraction" of Stimulus has been spent so far---meanwhile the NYT trumpets the Stimulus as saving the economy in other articles. truly hilarious

money passages:

But counting the money coming in is a much simpler task than trying to measure just how many jobs the stimulus money will create. Based on the $3.25 billion already allocated, the city estimates that 30,776 jobs will be created by early 2011.

The amount that has actually been spent and the jobs that have already been created are a fraction of those figures, officials say, though no precise numbers are available. The projections of how many jobs the stimulus program will create or save in the city have brought accusations from the city’s comptroller, William C. Thompson, that the mayor’s office has resorted to “puffery.”

In one example, the city government’s online tracker of stimulus funds attributes nearly 5,000 jobs to a scheduled replacement of ramps that lead to the main ferry terminal on Staten Island. That project is budgeted at $175 million.

Meanwhile, a planned railroad tunnel under the Hudson River, which will cost about 50 times as much, is supposed to produce only about 6,000 construction jobs.

“As you are aware, the effort to measure the impact of federal stimulus dollars on local labor markets is, at this point, extremely speculative,” said Mr. Thompson.. The comptroller said the mayor had more than doubled the job-generating effect of the money.

Even one of the ferry terminal project’s biggest champions was unsure how the jobs estimate was calculated. Representative Michael E. McMahon, a Democrat from Staten Island, said the company hired to rebuild the ramps to the terminal would employ 100 to 200 people at the site once the work got going in the fall.

the ripple effect will take hold, Mr. McMahon said. Those workers will spend their pay on lunches from nearby delis, and their employer surely will buy supplies from local merchants, purchases that could spur additional hiring in the neighborhood.

Add it all up, he said, and “you get into the hundreds” of jobs. But, he added, “I don’t see how you get thousands.”

Still, Mr. McMahon did not want to foreclose the possibility of such a boon from a single repair project. “If you find out it’s thousands, would you let me know?” he said.
...................................

Still, analysts said it was too soon to tell how New York compared with other cities in using the stimulus money to spur a turnaround of its economy.

“A very small percentage of stimulus dollars have actually been spent” across the country, said Eric Gillespie, chief information officer of Onvia, a Seattle company that has created an online database of stimulus-funded contracts. Only minor progress has been made “in terms of dollars landing in the hands of people who are going to spend it and create the mythical new jobs,” he said.

Geoff said...

Pragmatus said...

Geoff…

If you can’t even find the “shift” key on your keyboard I shudder to think what kind of “practice” you have, especially one that runs dry for months at a time.
August 27, 2009 9:57 PM

WOW.

You really are a total douchebag.

Congratulations!

You really think anyone but a total douchebag cares about punctuation in blogging comments?

this is what the smart lefties are reduced to...whining about punctuation

Pragmatus said...

whitetower…

If there were a minimum intellect required to post here, we would be nicely rid of you.

Don’t just select one small sub-sub paragraph to make your point. The entire section needs to be read in order to make sense of it, for both of your claims. If you can’t even understand that the insurance “Exchange” would be composed of private health insurance companies then you haven’t even gotten to step one. The Exchange and the public option are not the same thing, Einstein.

I’ll bet you cherry-pick Bible passages in order to endorse your worldview too.

Rudy said...

I see, DCM, anything that isn't redistributionist in nature is de facto bad and a "lie." Something that empowers people to NOT get ripped off by the cost of insurance can't be tolerated. Anything that might, as Howard Dean says, take on the trial lawyers, cannot be reformed.

In a nutshell, you've surfaced the crux of why Obamacare must be defeated. It would perpetuate all that's wrong with the health care system, and elimate any possibility of building upon what's right.

loner said...

Geoff—

I hadn't realized you were a polling troll until quite recently. My interest in polling trolls was renewed with the arrival here of another of your kind.

Your words...

i usedta comment on this site all the time before the election in 2008.

8/30 to 9/26 - 1,000+ comments
9/27 to 11/4 - 0 comments

How about a litte Rasmussen, Scarecrow?

RCP has the numbers from Gallup, Diageo/Hotline and Rasmussen tracking polls at intervals (same day) from 9/26 thru 10/26 and you can click on the pollster links to fill in the missing days. Forty or so days out was my point of reference in the comment above. Gallup last had the race Even on 9/24. Rasmussen last had the race Even on 9/23. Obama had the lead from then on.

9/26
Gallup +5
Diageo/Hotline +5
Rasmussen +6

10/9
Gallup +10
Diageo/Hotline +7
Rasmussen +5

10/13
Gallup Expanded +10
Gallup Traditional +6
Diageo/Hotline +6
Rasmussen +5

10/18
Gallup Expanded +7
Gallup Traditional +3
Diageo/Hotline +7
Rasmussen +6

10/22
Gallup Expanded +6
Gallup Traditional +4
Diageo/Hotline +5
Rasmussen +7

10/26
Gallup Expanded +10
Gallup Traditional +5
Diageo/Hotline +8
Rasmussen +5

Rasmussen had the race fairly stable at roughly where it ended 40 days out and tracked it that way right to the end. Gallup had it Even a day later and from then on somewhat more volatile in their models.


Me back on 3/24. The shoe fits.

loner said...

whitetower—

Your words:

H.B.3200 bans the sale of any new medical insurance policies to individuals.

Your words. Feel free to try again.

Geoff said...

loner said...

Geoff—

I hadn't realized you were a polling troll until quite recently. My interest in polling trolls was renewed with the arrival here of another of your kind.


DUDE, what's up with you? I'm not allowed to talk polling on a site that was all talk about polling before the election?

Are you nuts or something?

Any response to my substantive argumetns above?

How about a 16% unemployment rate?
Want to talk about that?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20090827/ts_usnews/isunemploymenttheworstsincethegreatdepression

looks like this 16% unemployment number is really starting to break thru the clutter perhaps



What happens when you start counting all these people who have been heavily battered by the labor market? The Bureau of Labor Statistics has another rate that includes "marginally affected workers" and part-time workers. That number, referred to as U-6 because of its identification in bureaureports, was 16.3 percent last month--nearly 7 percentage points higher than the official unemployment rate. What's more, the number of people who have given up on finding work has been steadily rising over the past few months, from 685,000 in May to 796,000 in July. "If you have that number of people leaving the workforce, that seems to me a serious problem," says economist John Lott.

Many people are giving up because the labor market is so bad--but how bad historically? A U-6 rate of more than 16 percent certainly does not compare to the Great Depression, when a quarter of the workforce was unemployed. And Williams points out that a much larger number of workers were agricultural workers in the 1930s. These farm workers are not included in today's statistics. So, by his estimates, nonfarm unemployment was at 35 percent in 1933). Trying to compare that U-6 number with the early '80s recession gets a bit tricky. The U-6 measurement did not come into use until 1994. Before that, the Bureau of Labor Statistics used a broader measurement, referred to as U-7, to figure out the number of unemployed plus workers dropping out of the labor force. In 1982, U-7 hit a peak of 15.3 percent, below the current U-6 of 16.3 percent. But 1982 should probably look even better compared with the labor market of today. U-7 overestimates the number of discouraged workers compared with how we measure them today. For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics started asking people in surveys if they were actually available to work. These and other changes reduced the measurement of discouraged workers by 50 percent, according to some estimates.

So if you care not just about people who meet the official definition of "unemployed" but also about people who are dropping out of the labor force, 2009 seems to be trailing 1982 in terms of the health of the labor market. Williams says that when he takes into consideration people who haven't looked for work in more than a year because they can't find jobs, the real unemployment rate today goes all the way up to 20.6 percent by his calculations. "It won't take much to get it to the worst since the Great Depression," he says.

Pragmatus said...

Rudy…

Then what is your alternate to Democratic proposals for health insurance reform? What is the GOP plan?

You complain to the skies about “Obamacare”, yet neither you nor your party has offered any alternative whatever. One can only conclude that you and the GOP are happy with the way things are.

I think that says all anybody needs to know about your philosophy.

Pragmatus said...

Geoff…

Can you do anything but predict disaster? And cherry-pick polls that reflect your point of view?

How about your health insurance? Satisfied with it? Do you pay the premiums, or does an employer?

Geoff said...

loner said...

whitetower—

Your words:

H.B.3200 bans the sale of any new medical insurance policies to individuals.

Your words. Feel free to try again.


WHAT whitetower said is incorrect - but what your sayign is incorrect as well.

The truth, as im sure you know but wont admit, is that ALL health insurance policies sold in America, as of the start date in 2013, MUST qualify to be sold on the "health care insurance exchange system" that OBama is setting up.

to QUALIFY for to be on the "exchange", insurance plans must meet the wish list of the hard left re insurance plans - abortion coverage, sex change ops, full on head shrinkage and prescriptions - just to name a few of the MANDATES on insurance packages once this monstrosity takes (if it passes) effect in 2013.

The point is no longer will an individual be able to make a deal with an insurer outside of heavy-handed federal mandates on coverage and price.

That is a recipe for disaster, reducing customer choice (i.e. no more catastrophic-only coverage and a HSA to cover a high deductible) AND it screws young Americans who will be MANDATED under penalty of a $2500 IRS fine out of your refund to BUY insurance via the "exchange"

You understand now? EVERYONE will be REQUIRED to buy thru the EXCHANGE, like the products or not.

Is that America?

Geoff said...

Pragmatus said...

Geoff…

Can you do anything but predict disaster? And cherry-pick polls that reflect your point of view?

How about your health insurance? Satisfied with it? Do you pay the premiums, or does an employer?
August 27, 2009 10:20 PM

Right back atcha, pragmatic one. answer your own questions before deposing me about my insurance. :)

and i aint cherry picking my friend, y'all lefties are taking on water right now in the SS Socialism

Geoff said...

it actually used to be pretty cool on here back in 2008 --- it was more about accumulating new polling data in the comments and yacking about it then about ad hominems as 538 appears to be now.

The most humorous part for me last year was how Rasmussen would go in the mind of the "conventional wisdom" of the majority lefties here from the most accurate ever (if obama was way ahead) or most inaccurate every (if mccain was close or ahead)
Ditto with Gallup.

Ah, the old days.

Pragmatus said...

Geoff…

I’ve said many times here that I am on Medicare.

Does this meant that you will tell us who provides your health insurance? Surely it’s not a secret. Surely there’s no embarrassment attached to your insurance coverage—is there?

Dwight said...

Walker said...
Dude, how could I forget DePalma??!!!

What are our orders, El Capitan???


Give him a moment, he's got to check with his wife for the latest disinformation dissemination from the insurance industry. ;)

-- -- --

@Bart DePalma

This begs the question of where all that tax money will be going if not going to pay for below market premiums?

There is going to be an initial start-up capital investment, of course. But largely the money is going to credits to the people currently falling in the grey area without coverage. It is going there with or without the public option in place. The only difference being that it'll cost (if I remember the details of the CBO correctly) an extra $150 Billion for the government if they have to rely on the current health insurance industry.

Really this is the market at work. The current insurrance companies [ab]used a market condition to either get sloppy or soak extra profits. Now the chickens are coming home to roost as their choices in handling the largesse has created the opportunity for new competition to form and clients to find alternate solutions.

Or to put it another way; When you are getting screwed on the outsourcing take it back inhouse.

Geoff said...

This is the trash that passes as substantive argument on 538 these days? Wacky inquisitions by leftist hacks on the govt cheese? Really?

Pragmatus said...

Geoff…

I’ve said many times here that I am on Medicare.

Does this meant that you will tell us who provides your health insurance? Surely it’s not a secret. Surely there’s no embarrassment attached to your insurance coverage—is there?
August 27, 2009 10:28 PM


WELL, i hate to burst your radical left bubble, but i buy my own insurance on the private market. Is that okay with you? You know, i actually PAY for the SERVICES that i use. I dont use the govt to act as my parents or guardian, because im an actual, independent person as opposed to a govt-dependency addled douche who attacks folk about their insurance coverage like yourself.

:)

loner said...

Geoff—

Why would I care what you talk about on Nate's blog and why, not caring, would I bother to engage you? You are, in my opinion, a polling troll. My only interest in you and your comments at this point has to do with that.

To borrow from my wife: You're only here for my amusement. Carry on.

Geoff said...

loner said...

Geoff—

Why would I care what you talk about on Nate's blog and why, not caring, would I bother to engage you? You are, in my opinion, a polling troll. My only interest in you and your comments at this point has to do with that.

To borrow from my wife: You're only here for my amusement. Carry on.
August 27, 2009 10:34 PM

CLASSIC close minded liberal snobbery on display.

No logic to back up your grandiose claims when tested by critical thinking and logic - so the leftist leaves the field.

good day, sir. Enjoy your retreat, like your Messiah BHO on the public option. :)

Care to place a bet on whether BHO gets the PO?

Rudy said...

Praggy, that's not true and you know it. I've offered a constructive set of elements continuously, and But these seem to fail your criteria because they doesn't turn the system upside down.

The primary elements of constructive reform would empower consumers to help control their health care costs. For example (and by no means an exhaustive list):

1. No more cost-shifting from government payors to private payors.

2. More Medicare and Medicaid managed care.

3. More competition among health plans by more benefit plan choices.

4. Fewer mandated benefits, particularly for elective procedures.

5. Change insurance regulations to enable insurance to be sold across state lines.

6. Tax equity between self-purchased plans and employer-sponsored plans.

7. Tax benefits to promote HSAs that feature catastrophic insurance.

8. Fewer regulations artificially limiting the number of health care providers.

9. Greater use of paramedics for routine health care.

10. "Costco" for health care so that when someone needs an MRI, lab tests, dermatology work, off-hours primary care, or whatever, they aren't subject to rip-off prices.

11. Voluntary insurance options that would limit tort liability to reasonable limits, eliminating the legal lottery and defensive medicine.

This set of fixes would easily reduce the cost of health insurance by at least 50% virtually overnight.

loner said...

Geoff—

Grandiose? Critical thinking and logic? Leftist?

Someone still owes me on a bet I agreed to back in 1995 on whether Boxer (the idiot) would be re-elected in 1998. Only a fool would bet on policy outcomes. Keep trying. Maybe you'll find another.

Don't doubt that I'll be reading you as long as you comment here, polling troll.

Gales of laughter.

Eusebio Dunkle said...

These comments are useless. How can some of you have such engaging opinions yet get suckered in by internet street trash?

We'll get progressive reform on every major issue within the next decade. The only wildcard is how long it takes for critical mass of the road block to die.

Walker said...

Geoff,

Your dissection of the NYT's article on the stimulus was dead on, btw. Talk about conflicted.

I too do not think Obama, his administration, or the congressional Democratic leadership really know what they're doing on this health care reform initiative.

They are almost to the point of just trying to clamor for the passage of ANY bill they can cobble together and get through.

They don't really know what's in the bill ('cause there really is no bill - tactical mistake), or how much it will or could cost, or what the specifics will be, etc. Listening to the congressional Democrats try to explain and/or defend this endeavor is almost comical.

You are right, though, the stimulus bill killed any fence-setting regarding the sheer possibility or suspension of belief that Obama, Reid, Pelosi, etc. really truly know what they are doing. This really hurt them and the more jobs that are lost the worse it will get.

Pragmatus said...

Geoff…

Jeez—why so angry on the basis of a simple question about your insurance coverage?

If you buy your own insurance, are you happy with the explosion in premium costs every year? You realize that you are paying, with your premium dollars, for part of the $300 billion in overhead waste that health insurers squander every year. (Not my figures, both CBO and GAO, plus any number of other surveys, support this figure.)

So you are happy with paying for this waste?

Also, you realize that with the way things are now, that you are opposed to changing, your insurance company can drop your coverage for any number of spurious reasons. They are accountable to no one under the present system. They frequently cancel coverage when a premium-payer develops some expensive malady, such as cancer. I am assuming you are aware of this, and are comfortable with it.

I must admit, your philosophy is mind-boggling. Seems to me you’d be pretty upset at “premium creep”, and would want a way to reform the system that allows that to happen.

shiloh said...

Geoff said...

it actually used to be pretty cool on here back in 2008 --- it was more about accumulating new polling data in the comments and yacking about it then about ad hominems as 538 appears to be now.


As a 538 casual observer last year saw 24/7 ad hominem attacks by disingenuous, smug trolls like yourself.

The most humorous part for me last year was how ...

The most humorous part for me last year was the party of No! getting its butt kicked for the second time in two years!

but, but, but Geoff, on the bright side ;) you now have an official 538 groupie:

Walker said...

Geoff, it appears the Lefties of 538.com are a bit phased by your mysterious, triumphant return.

The Echo Chamber has become less echo-y.

Set phasers on stun.

You tackle health care.

I will take cap and trade and energy policy.

Mule Rider can take foreign policy, military affairs, and the growing ethics corruption among the Democratic ranks.

Pete Kent can lob well-placed grenades from time to time, disrupting their mojo, and being the sneaky sniper he is famous for being.

Ready, set, go!


albeit a brain dead, teenage crush kind of groupie.

Dude, you and Walker together, unstoppable! Totally tubular! ;)

btw, should Missy be jealous?

Pragmatus said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Pragmatus said...

Rudy…

Here are your point-by-point suggestions for “health insurance reform”. As you can see, it’s just a lot of fluff.

♦ No more cost-shifting from government payors to private payors.

You’ll have to explain that one. Fact is hospitals are constantly throwing unpaid medical bills on the public. Private insurers are under no obligation to pay for the uninsured, and they don’t. YOU do, as a taxpayer, whether you are prepared to realize it or not.

♦ More Medicare and Medicaid managed care.

“Medicare managed care” was a total flop. I know because I tried it. It’s still available, but almost nobody wants it. Costs to the government skyrocketed when Medicare is administered by private insurers who forced their patients into HMOs. That’s the cuts Obama wants to make in Medicare.

♦ More competition among health plans by more benefit plan choices.

There is nothing in the world that prevents insurers from RIGHT NOW offering more plans, more competition etc. This is a FREE MARKET SYSTEM currently, remember?

♦ Fewer mandated benefits, particularly for elective procedures.

What MANDATED benefits are you talking about with the present, PRIVATE INSURER system we have? They don’t operate under “mandates”.

♦ Change insurance regulations to enable insurance to be sold across state lines.

Might save a few million, out of a total cost of approximately $3 trillion. But that’s already in the new proposals.

♦ Tax equity between self-purchased plans and employer-sponsored plans.

Very tiny offset to costs. It can be part of reform though.

♦ Tax benefits to promote HSAs that feature catastrophic insurance.

An HSA cannot “feature” catastrophic insurance. An HSA is an account, containing MONEY that is deposited (with a corresponding decrease in income tax) that can be used to pay for future health care costs. It is NOT INSURANCE. An HSA won’t protect you from catastrophic illness any more than your checking account will.

♦ Greater use of paramedics for routine health care.

This can be a part of reform, but again you are talking very tiny savings.

♦ "Costco" for health care so that when someone needs an MRI, lab tests, dermatology work, off-hours primary care, or whatever, they aren't subject to rip-off prices.

This already exists for both private insurance and Medicare. ALL PROVIDERS are paid a reduced fee by both Medicare and private insurers.

♦ 11. Voluntary insurance options that would limit tort liability to reasonable limits, eliminating the legal lottery and defensive medicine.

This is just not relevant to HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM. If you want to make a separate issue of this, please feel free to.

Rudy said...

You are quite ignorant of the insurance market, Praggy. Your refutations have no substance behind them. It is not the free market. It is heavily regulated with the deck stacked against new competitors that could invigorate competition.

Pragmatus said...

Rudy…

Well then certainly you can provide specific examples. Otherwise you’re just parroting the same foggy blather that always comes from the right. No details whatever. I hear, every day (in fact I know people it has happened to) about insurance cancellations. I know from personal experience that insurers can refuse to cover anyone. Just because you deny these realities doesn’t make them go away.

How are you covered?

Hu Chi said...

A quick case with no analysis and I'll be off.
On a Friday, I experienced chest and left arm pain while walking. Took aspirin, called a cardiologist friend in CA (I'm in OR). He said I should probably go get checked out asap. Next AM I walk into the ER, tell them the story. They wire me up, say they want to admit me, I spend Saturday night in the hospital, feeling OK the whole time. Sunday, angiogram shows absolutely nothing, congratulations. Probably musculoskeletal.

I go home. Bill comes. $14,000, of which my BC/BS covers maybe $2,000. (That's less than my $2500 deductible, so I'm out of pocket $14,000.) All they covered was the cost of getting a scheduled angiogram. What's wrong with this picture?

Rudy said...

I'm sorry, Praggy, I'm not going to waste more of my time explaining for you. You have the outline. You're willfully ignorant, and intend to stay that way. So be it.

Smitty said...

I also will give a quick example. For no reason whatsoever, I suddenly had unbearable pain in my right shoulder and my entire arm froze in place.

I go to my HMO's ER. I'm told I have a fever. I ask how, since I've been on a strong antibiotic for six days. I'm fast-tracked by the triage nurse.

The ER doc explains I most likely have an infection inside the shoulder joint and that he has a surgeon on call because it requires immediate attention. First, though, an MRI is necessary for verification.

The MRI is denied by the HMO. I am released with prescriptions for heavy pain killers, more antibiotics and a sling for the shoulder.

Two months later, the HMO finally agrees to an MRI. It was an infection, and the damage in my shoulder joint is now permanent.

The day after we received the MRI results, we listened to the CEO of health conglomerate that owns our HMO testify before a committee in Washington. He proudly pointed out how much they had reduced costs just by cutting MRIs by 90%.

I will copy what Hu Chi said: "What's wrong with this picture?"

Pragmatus said...

Rudy…

That’s what I thought. Whenever the Right is confronted with facts and truth they run away.

Are you ashamed of your health insurance coverage?

DCM in FL said...

RUDY

well at least you posted your top 11 reasons to VOTE NO on DEM health care reform & offered your version of cost control...

PRAG already dissected most of them, but I do give you credit for 1 thing - transportability across state lines would be a good thing.

all of your other 'proposals' are either counter-productive or status quo & nothing more.

and your conclusion: "This set of fixes would easily reduce the cost of health insurance by at least 50% virtually overnight." - well that is not only unsupported ny any evidence BUT is made of whole cloth [OK, it is a MYTH]

you want fewer mandates - BUT you never addressed one of the current private insurance systems most fatal flaws - PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS

as we all know all too well, they use this to deny coverage all the time - and they use it to even deny policy issuance. this is a necessary mandate the the government MUST require to regulate health care delivery

the other is that the private market is intentionally dumping/deny coverage for older & less healthy people - where is your proposal to correct this fatal flaw in the system ?

all of your suggestions are to benefit the insurance & medical industry bottom lines - how do any of them benefit the people ???

nada - it will just line a few people's pockets even more - the same old, same old

you are not suggesting real reform except on a PROFIT basis

progressives demand real reform to deliver a better health care system that is fair to ALL of us as is our right

but at least you did try - you just do not get it

Smitty said...

Excellent post, DCM. I agree.

DCM in FL said...

Hi SMITTY

I remember you from this time last fall in the heat of the election

I sympathize with your medical story posted above.

I have my own horror stories - including being denied new policy issuance when I moved to FL 4 years ago because of 'pre-existing conditions'

forcing me to play a stupid game that requires me to maintain a 'residence' out in CA simply so I will not lose my Blue Cross health insurance policy coverage

no private insurer will offer me a policy now without excluding anything to do with my heart or liver [even though I am not having any problems with anything for many years]

my for-profit CA BC policy has a huge 5K/7.5K deductible [+ Rx above that] and I make no claims anyway

but I am forced to see my old Drs out in Cali once a year to verify that I live there & am in good health in case I ever need medical care in a future emergency...

I need a minot hernia surgery [belly button] which I have put off for 4 years now because of the ridiculous out-of-pocket costs

the only way I could afford it today would be to fly to Costa Rica as a medical tourist...

what isn't WRONG with this picture of our private health insurance system gone amuck ???

I WANT MEDICARE FOR ALL !!!

or at least a reasonable affordable public option with no pre-existing condition exclusions for the time being...

brown said...

"i usedta comment on this site all the time before the election in 2008."

Oh, you usedta? Posting 10,000 comments doesn't exempt you from being or having a sock puppet, jackass.

Pragmatus said...

Insurance reform…

The right have sidetracked this debate almost completely. It’s the typical way they stall any change—drag the conversation off into the weeds, where it can be killed under cover by the big-money interests.

A good tactic to counter this is to simply ask all those who are vehemently opposed to reform if they are happy with their coverage, whatever it might be. If so then they are happy with skyrocketing premiums, reduced care (i.e. more “referrals”, “authorizations” and insurer footdragging), skyrocketing deductibles, abrupt policy cancellations and denial of coverage.

When asked about any of this, they never answer. Why? Because to answer truthfully they would have to admit that they themselves are the parties most getting screwed by the insurers.

It boggles the mind how people like that are led, sheeplike, to their own destruction. They fight like animals to preserve the prerogatives of their oppressors.

Unbelievable!

DCM in FL said...

unbelievable & sad, but true...

we have nothing to fear - except FEAR & LIES...

'Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right' has never been more on point than now

Leah Davidson said...

Fellow progressives, you're smart people, know the facts, are quite articulate.

Why waste time arguing with right-wingers?

They're obviously
1)delusional
2)misinformed
3)stupid
4)malicious
5)all of the above

If you care about health care reform, volunteer with Organizing for America. The big push is ON.

I was at a rally tonight (the Organizing for America bus tour) with lots of health care workers, and lots of folks chanting "Single Payer." People who KNOW health care in this country, and put it above ideology, at least seriously consider single payer, and many support it. Of course we realize that the cold war mentality isn't dead, and many folks can be manipulated by the boogie-man of socialism, so a Public Option will do. We don't have to be just like every/any other industrialized democracy in the world -- we can give our citizens the health care they need in our own fashion.

We ain't doing it under current circumstances, and never will as long as humane Americans back down in the face of rapacious corporate opposition.

Please, progressives, don't cast your pearls before swine.

Canvass your neighbors and lean on your congresspeople.

(Polling on this subject is pretty meaningless, as there is no single bill yet, and too much misinformation floating around. I doubt our senators and congressmen are paying much attention to the polling when it comes to really figuring this puppy out. I have fivethirtyeight google bookmarked as Entertainment, BTW. This endless, pointless wrangling is good for little else.)

DCM in FL said...

LEAH

I agree with the gist of your post, especially about organizing & single payer.

I have contacted all 3 of my congressional delegation:

Mel Martinez [R] - retiring any day now, so he doesn't give a damm & never even bothered to respond...

Bill Nelson [D] - basically a blue dawg dem toadie who is publicly saying 'let's go slow' & favors the status quo publicly

Suzanne Kosmas [new D rep] - straddling the lines on her public positions. I met her during the campaign [in which our goal was to dump the corrupt Feeney] & she was pro-business but also moderately progressive... now in the face of withering rabid screaming lunatics she seems to be in retreat

I told her that was unacceptable & a deal breaker. If she does not fully get out there & support at LEAST a workable public option, then she is gonna lose her seat in 2010 - but I fear that she is the type of 'frosh' congressperson that thinks there is safety in keeping quiet rather than be a forceful advocate

who is our forceful public advocate in DC now that Kennedy is gone ??? I want a heroic figure to step up & lead the fight since BHO seems content to play this in slo-mo so far

well at least there is Howard Dean - but he needs a bigger soapbox

damm, if JFK Jr was only still with us to rally around

WV - iment

Pragmatus said...

My Congresspersons…

My House Representative is Henry Waxman, so no need to preach to him, although I have peppered him with emails saying I expect him to insist on the public option.

My senators are Feinstein and Boxer. I keep them in the email loop too.

Smitty said...

My House Representative even sent us all the information we need to contact him, at any time, any where.

My Senators...one is the gang of six. He did say in his town hall meeting this week that he would vote for a bill with single payer.

I remembered you, too, DCM. I'm always here, reading. I just haven't been posting.

I do like your posts, Pragmatus.

Leah Davidson said...

DCM, good for you. I've written to all my reps too. Several times.

I live in New Mexico, so I have to keep my eye on Jeff Bingaman. An aide of his was at the rally tonight, reading a little speech, about how great the HELP version of the bill was. I hollered, What about the Finance Committee? My neighbors got a chuckle out of that. The Finance Committee did come up a little further along in the speech. Apparently Bingaman is sticking his neck out on that one, as THE progressive, and we have to support him. As long as he does the right thing, I will.

When the aide started reading the list of things we want in health care reform it dawned on me with never-before-experienced clarity that single payer was the way to achieve ALL of them.


The ignorant and hysterical opposition doesn't realize that what they CALL socialism just isn't. Karl Marx would laugh himself silly.

I think, at least, the public option, if properly structured and administered, will prove that to all but the invincibly ignorant, and give them better, less expensive health care to boot.

Now, get out there, everyone, and DO something about it.

Smitty said...

Leah, I also live in NM.

I'm busy learning how to be left-handed, dealing with pain, etc., so I can't be as active as I was during the campaign. However, I do things like watch CSPAN and read. I have called my House Rep and the offices of our Senators. I do share everything I learn with friends in all the states where I've lived previously. I have been able to change the minds of a few.

Leah Davidson said...

Smitty, ANYTHING we do, even if it's just a quick note to a representative or a serious conversation with a co-worker or relative, is useful.

I have a low-paying but full-time job and a family and a very busy life (thank god I've got my health! And State Coverage Insurance!) so I don't do as much as I'd like to either.

And I like a good argument as much as anyone. Some arguments are just plain pointless, though.

I don't doubt the sincerity of those who disagree with me, btw. They're convinced that the change we're undergoing is a BAD BAD thing. Change is always difficult, and for some people it's very threatening.

In thirty years, though, Americans with rational, equitable, humane health care will look back on this brouhaha and wonder what the fuss was about. IF we do our job today.

I just hope everyone who's bickering on blogs is ALSO doing their little practical bit, whatever it may be.

Smitty said...

Leah, what county are you in?

Leah Davidson said...

That hotbed of radicalism, Bernalillo.

Smitty said...

LOL, Leah. I'm 90 miles south of you.

Leah Davidson said...

I don't know much about points south. What's it like, political-climate-wise?

I moved heaven and earth (no, actually just a husband, five kids, and a black Lab, plus accoutrement) to get back here from two decades of exile in southwestern Louisiana.

Returning to NM gave me my political life back.

That and the Obama campaign. I'm still keeping my eye on Obama, though.

lillyahoo said...

Here's what Paul Krugman has to say on this topic:

"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that administrative costs under the public Medicare plan are less than 2 percent of expenditures, compared with approximately 11 percent of spending by private plans under Medicare Advantage. This is a near perfect “apples to apples” comparison of administrative costs, because the public Medicare plan and Medicare Advantage plans are operating under similar rules and treating the same population.

(And even these numbers may unduly favor private plans: A recent General Accounting Office report found that in 2006 Medicare Advantage plans spent 83.3 percent of their revenue on medical expenses, with 10.1 percent going to non-medical expenses and 6.6 percent to profits—a 16.7 percent administrative share.)"

Unless we have some realistic alternative to private insurance companies for those of us under 65, we're at their mercy until we're old enough for Medicare. Yet many of us are out here trying to raise kids and muddle through, hoping desperately that we don't get anything that will bankrupt us. Can the seniors at the town halls possibly understand this? Maybe not - they never lived in a world where this could happen to them.

Smitty said...

This County tends to vote Dem, or worst case a tie. However, the rural area where we live is primarily staunch, "ask no questions, believe what the Party says" Republican. It IS who they are, their identity.

I sensed it but didn't understand until I did canvassing for the Obama Campaign. Great folks as long as politics is not the topic.

Leah Davidson said...

Smitty, that unquestioning way of life is depressing (I know from my Louisiana years, if nothing else) but change does happen, and on the whole people get over it.

Medicare, according to Republicans, was going to lead directly to communist dictatorship, but now everyone who's on it is glad to have it.

Smitty said...

lillyahoo, thanks for sharing that. It is a fact that some realistic alternative is necessary. I have so many female friends literally praying they can stay healthy another 4-8 years until they are old enough for Medicare.

Staying home and raising children is wonderful, but it doesn't include retirement or health benefits for too many women.

DCM in FL said...

LEAH

on Medicare, wish someone would do a decent poll on who wants Medicare for All ???

I know I do - and I would bet if the question was framed that way, it would poll at least 65% of those under 65 y/o, and even higher for those who of us who are already 50+

dump 'single-payer' / go with 'universal Medicare for all citizens from birth to death'

shrinkers said...

Here's what should happen on health care -

President Obama should start saying, again and again, "I promised Teddy."

He should push for single-payer, universal healthcare. Medicare for EVERYONE.

The "public option" is a compromise. And everyone knows it. Push for universal, single payer, and settle on a public option.

After 2010, when Dems win 3 more seats in the Senate and 10 more in the house - because at least we now have a public option to compete with the insurance pirates - come back and pass the bill we should have gotten 30 years ago.

The dream shall never die. The Republicant thugs are losing, and they're scared spitless.

We promised Teddy.

Smitty said...

DCM,

I think that question would poll very, very high. Both my husband and I believe a "Medicare for All" is a great solution. Plus, the start-up costs would be much lower. Plus, it would be so simple to transfer records if they want to keep a Medicare for Seniors separate from a Medicare for all.

In fact, I wrote that as a suggestion to the Whitehouse, etc.

Leah Davidson said...

Medicare for all makes sense, of course. You still have to call it a CHOICE to make it palatable.

(What boggles my mind these days is how many people apparently don't know the word "option" means "choice.")

Of course given a choice of a system that's easy for care providers and care receivers to use, saves money, provides superior service, etc. etc. the choice will become a real no-brainer.

But to get anything accomplished AT THIS MOMENT we need to all be on the same page when it comes to rhetoric. Define public option properly, get Congress to craft it correctly, and it'll BE Medicare for all.

DCM in FL said...

I am currently forced to pay $350/month in extortion to a for-profit BC of CA private insurance policy for NOTHING...

the premiums went UP 17% again this year, and I made NO CLAIMS - since I have a huge deductible of $5K/7.5K out-of-pocket which forces me to forgoe anyrthing except one Dr checkup each year [not covered] & cutting my expensive prescription doses in half [against Drs advice].

I receive NOTHING from BC - except that they are pocketing massive 'profits' off my back for many years

IF I ever really get sick, I realize they will dump me [and they assume I would not be able to afford the expensive premiums so it is a foregone conclusion too]

BUT in the meantime, at least i have an insurance card so a hospital will admit me at least...

now, I would GLADLY pay higher premiums to a Medicare program or public option for decent insurance & access to medical care including real preventative care [oh, i do get me a flu shot - not covered which makes NO SENSE]

or at least provide basic Medicare for ALL & let us purchase private supplementals in a regulated market [just as the 65+ do now]

does anyone know anybody who turns down their Medicare or SS ??? NOPE

it would be easy as heck to structure a Medicare for ALL program that was self-funded - and the hospitals & Drs would be satisfied

PLUS it would stop this horrible trend forcing us to become medical tourists shipped over-seas to get healthcare - that is going to be the death of our health care system sooner rather than later IF we do not put a stop to it now with real reform

Smitty said...

Unfortunately, too many younger adults seem to think a catastrophic policy and HSA is enough. Older folks like me know, either first-hand or from close friends and family, that something like cancer is not covered in a catastrophic policy AND that there will never be enough money in an HSA to cover treatment costs.

In addition, the older we become, the more "pre-existing conditions" we have. That is simply part of life.

I do think a "Medicare for All" where we pay premiums until age 65 is a perfect solution. Those who want their current health care coverage can keep their current coverage.

DCM, we had CA Blue Cross/Blue Shield for one year. It was a battle the entire time. I truly feel for you.

Right now we have one of those "cadillac" plans with very small co-payments. But what good is it if the company denies what an ER doc says is a "must have" and now I'm permanently damaged? And the thought of paying taxes on such a flawed plan is quite irritating.

Leah Davidson said...

Anyone in touch with reality KNOWS the current system is inhumane and unsustainable.

But there's lots of money flowing all the time to keep it in place, and plain old fear of change for the people it's flowing to exploit.

That's been made crystal clear this summer.

I really think more people understand this than not, and if we all PUSH for serious regulation of insurance companies and a public option (with the ultimate structure founded on current Medicare, properly funded)real change is gonna come.

It's either that or become the world's largest banana republic.

DCM in FL said...

SMITTY

I agree, although I would use a harsher word than 'irritating'...

the problem si currently we really do NOT have workable rational good choices - only between the lesser of multiple bad/evil choices...

Medicare for ALL would take out the 'pre-approval' catch 22 that the for-profits bash us with since Medicare allows Drs to make the medical decisions rather than a private insurer cubicle worker earning a commision or bonus for denying coverage

a no brainer [but I fear those with no brains or experience or compassion still would not get it right]

Hu Chi said...

The argument against regulation is disingenuous, to say the least. There are certainly "natural" forces at play in the economy, but nowhere near enough of them for the economy to constitute a natural system analogous to a self-regulating ecosystem.

Yet that's what "conservatives" would have us believe, that free enterprise doesn't need regulating. Sounds good on paper, but at the highest levels there are far too few players.

A better analogy is with sports. Even the hardest-core fans don't argue that umps and refs and rules aren't necessary. The rules have to be as few as possible to cover all possible eventualities (something that wasn't true when the recent financial meltdown happened), and the officials have to be continually monitored.

Level playing field on health care, anyone? We're playing a rigged game now, and losing against private industry.

Smitty said...

Hu Chi,

The comparison I usually make is locking the door to my home. The lock keeps the honest person honest. It does little to stop the thief.

Regulations are rules of the game, to keep the honest business honest. The thief always finds a loop hole, like "subprime derivatives".

If a person reads history, especially about previous countries that tried democracy and/or a republic, a person discovers that greed and corruption caused the downfall of each one. I am beginning to fear that our country may be slipping down that slope.

Smitty said...

To further make my point about greed and corruption, here is the title and subtitle of a new Washington Post article:

"Banks 'Too Big to Fail' Have Grown Even Bigger

Behemoths Born of the Bailout Reduce Consumer Choice, Tempt Corporate Moral Hazard"

In short: "3 Banks Hold Almost 1/3 Of Deposits, Issue Half The Mortgages And 2/3 Of Credit Cards"

So they hold us hostage through our homes, our finances and our health?

Smitty said...

DCM,

Is this your insurance company?



--- The California insurer Anthem Blue Cross -- a subsidiary of the insurance giant WellPoint -- today blasted out an email to its customers, attacking the Democrats' health reform plans and asking customers to help fight them.

--- The email says legislation "does not meet our definition of responsible and sustainable reform and "would likely have a significant negative impact on our partners and customers."

Leah Davidson said...

Before I go to bed (much too late) I just want to remind everyone to check out the Organizing for America website. There are events coming up all over the country.

Here in NM there'll be a booth at the State Fair -- Great idea: everyone goes to the State Fair, right? Volunteers are needed for several three hour shifts on Friday, September 18, to distribute information.

I just signed up for the first shift that morning.

The teabaggers are fighting back, by the way -- they're launching their own TeaPartyExpress in response to our bus tour.

I'm pretty sure they'll continue to make fools of themselves. We just have to be more politely insistent in our message.

Hu Chi said...

Smitty

I share your fears, but see no alternative than to try to make the system work better.

Somehow, though, the problem must be addressed in such a way as to avoid dehumanizing those whose actions serve to make things worse. As I see it, this isn't about fighting people. It's about exposing error and articulating solutions.

I don't see Gandhi and King as "fighters", and I see their sort of leadership as what's needed now. There's no value in invoking a left wing mirror image opposition to the thuggery on the right.

The rabid anti-Obamans in the south are used to being held in contempt. More of it won't change them, nor will hostility toward the very wealthy convince them that their values may be misguided.

The torture issue seems relevant here. Torture solidifies opposition among those who are connected with the victims.

Corporations are licensed to perform services that benefit society. If they don't, as determined by rules agreed upon by representatives of the people, their licenses should be revoked.

azruavatar said...

"It is tempting to attribute these results to attempts by conservatives to blur the distinctions of the health care debate. And surely that is part of the story."

You never mention what the other side is Nate. It's fun to accuse the right of misinformation or (more likely) distortion, and that's not entirely untrue, but the Democrats have been nothing short of incompetent in explaining what there goals for healthcare are. Vagueness abounds and even a consistent message on WHY we should do healthcare seems out of reach for the Democrats. The poor messaging is at least as much to blame (if not more so) for the inability to get this done.

Alan Williamson said...

Many Americans think Barack Obama is a Muslim...LOL. The average American is stupid. I didn't say ignorant, I said stupid!

Hilter once said "What luck for the rulers that men do not think". I know corporate leaders feel the same.

Davy said...

'Missy@ Passed out drunk on the couch' deleted all her conservative trolling posts. In response,

DCM said,

"Missy is (see profile) Walker's wife."

Walker responded,

"Indeed Missy @ Almost Naptime is my wife."

Well that explains everything. I kind of like the fact that 538 allows for unedited responses to conservative trolls rather than moderating them out despite the result of luring us off-topic into a bottomless pit of flame wars (which can be fun. I've managed to infuriate both Mule Rider and Pete Kent who, in a fit of rage, yelled that I am a Stalinist. If you Wiki Stalinist, you'll understand how inaccurate that description is).

Walker and wife seem to have embarked upon a concerted conservative effort to discredit our opinions and beliefs. They respond by deleting their comments. Rather than call them cowards, I challenge them to keep posting. We'll address your arguments (or ignore them if they devolve into the Nazi name calling). You're not going break our resolve and if you stick around, you just might learn something.

Davy said...

Walker said,

"You are all getting ritualistically man-handled by Geoff and its a little embarrassing."

I don't know, dude. Judging by the other posters responses here you might want to visit the optometrist and have those rose coloured glasses looked at.

It appears G-off has been handed his hat.

Mule Rider said...

...I've managed to infuriate both Mule Rider and Pete Kent who, in a fit of rage, yelled that I am a Stalinist.


I don't remember calling anyone, on here or otherwise, a "Stalinist." Especially you. Methinks you might be telling a little bit of a fib, or maybe you're "misremembering" details a la Andy Pettitte vis a vis Roger Clemens' steroid use.

I have used names like son-of-a-*****, ***hole, etc. or worse - although I've tried to leave most of the name-calling in the past unless someone really comes off as a bitter leftist troll - but "Stalinist" just isn't really in my lexicon.

Mule Rider said...

Re-reading your sentence, though, one could surmise you were just referring to PeteKent as hurling a "Stalinist" bomb. So my apologies if I misread what you wrote.

Davy said...

loner said,

"FYI

Geoff commented over a thousand times between 8/30 and 9/26.

Geoff commented zero times between 9/27 and 11/4.

Polling troll? Absolutely."

Yeah, I think I remember this desperate asshole right around the time that Republicans could hear the death knell.

Nostalgic throwback. Anybody miss 'Real Joe'? How about "this is good news...FOR JOHN McCAIN!"? Remember when Mule Rider went off his meds? Those were the days.

'Missy @ drunk on the couch' are lightweights compared to that time.

Interested Citizen said...

This kind of crap doesn't surprise me at all.

http://tomoveanation.blogspot.com

Davy said...

Mule,

PK called me Stalinist. I've yet to adequately invoke your ire (though I did hit a nerve a time or two). That remains my goal, however, so keep it coming.

Judge C. Crater said...

"Meanwhile, 35 percent of Republicans thought the public option refers to "creating a national healthcare system like they have in Great Britain" -- but so did 23 percent of Democrats."

If the pollsters had asked them to locate Great Britain on a map, the results would've been even worse.

Davy said...

G-off said,

[blah, blah, blah...(paraphrasing) i'm an atty whose on vacatoin. i don't have time to deal w/idiots.

The Attorneys I work with can spell, punctuate, and avoid using IM speak in order to give the appearance of professionalism. You are a fake.

Bart DePalma said...

Dwight said...

BD: This begs the question of where all that tax money will be going if not going to pay for below market premiums?

There is going to be an initial start-up capital investment, of course.


The taxes and employer mandates are ongoing, thus are not limited to capital startup costs.

Really this is the market at work. The current insurrance companies [ab]used a market condition to either get sloppy or soak extra profits.

Nonsense.

Unless you have collusion, a market with dozens of participants competing for the business of tens of thousands of companies is per se highly competitive. There is no evidence of collusion.

There is nothing market oriented about government socialized insurance coercing our tax money, coercing lower payments to providers and coercing higher costs to its private competitors in an effort to undercut the competition. These predatory practices would all be unlawful violations of anti trust law if practiced by Humana or Blue Cross.

Todd Dugdale said...

Geoff wrote:
"You understand now? EVERYONE will be REQUIRED to buy thru the EXCHANGE, like the products or not.

Is that America?
"

49 of the 50 states in America require everyone who drives to have a liability insurance policy with specified minimum coverage. TN doesn't require coverage - only if you can prove that you have the cash on hand to provide an equivalent level of self-insurance.

So, yes, that is America.

Oh my, the socialism! The mandates! Tyranny! Wolverines! Tea bags must be waved at once! We can't even drive on the public roads without government-mandated insurance, and the injury claims attorneys will go out of business!

Davy said...

G-off said,

"AND, yea, i didnt have shit going on in aug and sept last year, just like this year. my practice is cyclical. is that too big a word to understand, those quoted above?"

Cyclic: adjective. Occurring in cycles, regularly repeated.

So you're a lackluster attorney who regularly can't get any action? Plus you're a grammar, capitalization, and spelling lazy-ass. Do you turn in briefs to the court peppered with IM speak?

Yeah (note that I spelled it correctly) you're cyclic alright. You're constantly wrong.

Bart DePalma said...

lillyahoo said...

"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that administrative costs under the public Medicare plan are less than 2 percent of expenditures, compared with approximately 11 percent of spending by private plans under Medicare Advantage. This is a near perfect “apples to apples” comparison of administrative costs, because the public Medicare plan and Medicare Advantage plans are operating under similar rules and treating the same population.

There are multiple hidden costs in Medicare that are not considered here:

1) Medicare and Medicaid fraud is rampant because of a lack of supervision and coerced lower compensation rates. This includes both procedures that were never performed and additional procedures ordered to make up for the lack of compensation for normal procedures.

2) A large part of the administrative costs of Medicare and Medicaid are foisted off on the medical providers.

3) Costs imposed by Medicare and Medicaid are transferred over to paying insurance or patients.

My wife was a project manager for an HMO participating in the Florida Medicaid program in the 90s. Her for profit HMO had no problem competing with the non-profit state run Medicaid program even though the state only paid the HMO 95% of what they spent on running Medicaid. The competition only became untenable when Florida kept adding mandates on the HMO artificially increasing its costs. This is precisely what will happen under Obamacare.

Davy said...

@whitetower said,

"the other kids posting here who have not read H.B. 3200,"

Okay, you got me there. I haven't read the entire house bill. NEITHER HAVE YOU. Don't try to fake me into thinking you have.

If you had, you'd know how false your argument is. I get my news from Jon Stewart (among others). Did you watch the entire segment the other night involving Betsy MacCaughy? You should. Your argument fell flat.

No one is coming to kill your Grandma.

The government is not interested in running a health insurance company. It is interested in providing health care for everyone; not just the privileged.

There is no socialist agenda for defeating capitalism.

Only Republicans are interested in defeating the health insurance reform for their own self interests. Goddamn , you guys suck!

Davy said...

Okay, let's travel back in time. I'm in my 40's. I come from a small rural town. My doctor knew my family well and we knew his. It was a relationship where trust ruled. I think my doctor probably took payment in chickens.

Fast forward to the nineties. I've got a corporate job with benefits and all of a sudden, the health care industry starts changing the game. I can't see my family doctor because he isn't "in program" as dictated by the HMO. I didn't even know what an HMO was until then. Obviously, someone got in the way of me and my doctor. Oh...that's right. It was the health insurance industry.

Politicians aren't getting in between me and my health insurance; they're trying to evict corporations from that position.

Davy said...

G-offsaid,

"WOW.

You really are a total douchebag.

Congratulations!

You really think anyone but a total douchebag cares about punctuation in blogging comments?

this is what the smart lefties are reduced to...whining about punctuation?"

Ummm...

I got nothing. Anybody else on this blog want to comment on the idiocy and the devolution of our culture by the misuse of our language? It's off-topic but; hey, I'm in a flame war mood.

Geoff; a word of advice: if you would like to appear credible in an intellectual argument, then I suggest that you argue credibly and in an agreed upon method of communication. That would be the GODDAMN ENGLISH LANGUAGE!

And, no, that really isn't all that I am concerned about. It's just that you make it so much fun to skewer your position by illustrating that you're a dumbass and a liar.

Davy said...

Dang. Must be a new thread. Can't get any east coast conservatives to fight.

Nosimplehiway said...

@DCM in FL

Thse story you relate about McCain is interesting because it highlights how sometimes he can be such a decent, reasonable guy, and other times just irrational.

My jaw just drops everytime I hear McCain come out against the public option. That someone who legitimately qualifies as an American military hero because of his service in Viet Nam would be so hypocritical!

He is the son of an admiral who had single payer national health insurance since before he was born. In fact, he was born on a military installation in the Panama Canal Zone, the doctor who delivered him was most likely a federal employee. While studying at Annapolis, he continued with government healthcare. While on active duty, he was still eligible for government funded health coverage. As a military retiree, medicare eligible person and HEHBP eligibile person, he still has government insurance.

How can he deny the rest of America the same high quality healthcare he has been eligible for since birth?

Dwight said...

Unless you have collusion, a market with dozens of participants competing for the business of tens of thousands of companies is per se highly competitive. There is no evidence of collusion.

This has been covered before here several times by multiple people. Direct collusion is NOT required with an oligopoly to cause problems (that's basic economics).

Further the competition that is going on is NOT towards the providing benefit of the individuals covered. The nature of the market/business is (for a number of reasons) such that the way the insurers are pursuing profits (and that is their goal, as is to be expected) is very determental to the health care of the individuals they are charged with covering.

In short the efficency of money spent to true medical coverage provided is for shit.

Vincent said...

This is so frustrating to read. I am a pragmatist who pays taxes and I'm neither a liberal or a conservative.

The public option has a few different forms depending on the committee/chamber writing it.

The public option espoused by the left, a Medicare pricing based public plan, would put every insurance company out of business, bankrupt hospitals and force the federal deficit up. The reason why is Medicare doesn't pay market rates for the services it purchases. A study by MedPAC (the Medicare payment group that advises Congress and is non-partisan) shows that hospitals LOSE $5 for every $100 that Medicare pays them. The reason why hospitals can afford to make money (and buy new fancy MRIs and linear accelerators to help treat cancer) is commercial insurance pays 25% more than Medicare. Since Medicare pays at a loss to hospitals and a public plan based off of Medicare payments would attract a lot of members (significantly cheaper) hospitals would no longer make any money. There is a reason why the hospital lobbying group doesn't support a Medicare based public plan is because they know that such an outcome is likely. In order to keep hospitals in business Medicare rates to everyone would have to go up - a lot - that would add a lot to the federal deficit. So in essence all a robust public plan does is increase the federal budget by a lot more than it should. It would be a significant problem for the economy.

The reason why Medicare has so little overhead is that they don't have anyone containing costs. There are probably 80k people who work at United Healthcare and 5k people who work at Medicare (you can check). Medicare is a large payment processor - it is so popular because they don't say no to anyone. Therefore if a doctor wants to do a test for the 4th time, no one at Medicare says no. If you don't believe that that happens then you haven't dealt with healthcare. At the end of the day, the government is not good at administering anything - they're good at building armies and collecting taxes - they're bad at healthcare.

The right hasn't done anything but oppose whatever comes out of the left. That's worthless.

The best and most pragmatic proposal has been what Massachusetts has done. Their public plan is publicly funded but privately administered with a heavy dose of insurance regulation (well-needed). The result of it has been 1) lower premiums (risk pools get healthier not because of better pricing) and 2) near universal coverage.

Harper said...

How did Obama's marketing titans whiff on this one?

They still deliberatly cling to "public option" as opposed to "government plan", despite a the phrase "government plan" clearly polling better.

Nice job with the election, but awful job with the messaging here.

Dwight said...

@Vincent

The reason why Medicare has so little overhead is that they don't have anyone containing costs.

Healthcare is funny like that. It turns out that not having a whole lot of people dedicated to "containing costs" (AKA denying payment for treatment) in the long run actually costs less to provide a given level of health coverage. As it turns out though it isn't particularly good for squeezing as much profit out. Pushing hard to avoid paying benefits, while highly ineffecient for providing care, has been shown to generate sizable profit. Unfortunately the downside to this is wide swaths of people that don't actually get the coverage they paid for and eventually they and the true cost of such practices get dumped elsewhere.

Ryan said...

Dear Geoff,

Let's clear something up. As a republican, I assure you that you are not only completely wrong on most of what you say, but also the reason our party is out of power. You scoff at 50% approval, but fail to realize it is more than Bush's plus Cheney's plus Limbaugh's combined. You make claims about how pushing health care will make Obama a one-termer, ignoring the significant evidence a public option would lower costs and provide a service valued by middle class and lower class people - ones who traditionally vote republican in rural areas. I beg you, for the good of my party (I am disowning you right here, right now on behalf of all of us), PLEASE stop talking.

Ryan said...

Also, Geoff, I happen to know who you work for by posting here. Shall I let everyone else know who puts the money in your wallet as you blabber on with Republican talking points? I don't think they'd find you to be a very "authentic" voice on the conservative side after that. Once we kick out the scum like you and Sarah we can go back to being proud.

DCM in FL said...

RYAN

well said about Geoff. how refreshing to see a post by a rational republican.

different opinions & beliefs are respected by most progressives & democrats on the blog.

it is the truly spiteful handful of crazed trolls who claim they speak for your party that have given your brand a bad name & worse reputation.

PLEASE take your party back ASAP.

DCM in FL said...

Ok, RYAN

please do tell. we all know that a number of the regular right-wing spammers sure appear to be 'subsidized' [Pete the Parrot, et al]

so who is GE-OFF fronting for ???

the troll doesn't even ID himself on his Blogger profile, so imho he deserves to be outed...

Ryan said...

Naturally. You may not like the authentic Republicans out there. Mike Huckabee scares the hell out of more than a few people... He is, however, more authentic than the cardboard props we've put up like Sarah Palin or... God Forbid, George Bush. Seriously, true conservatives believe in minimal market intervention. Guess what, the market doesn't work in some places: Mainly education and health care. The rest of the world knows this, so we need to stop being idiots about it and lower our costs by arranging market incentives the best we can. The money in Premera's pocket is literally the money that could have saved someones life. Is that what we're trying to stand by? My party needs to stand up and realize they need to stand for something other than obstruction and "The Family."

DCM in FL said...

as I have posted before, all I know is that the pseudonym 'GEOFF':

'Geoff is a fictional land that is part of the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game.'


WV: defer

Ryan said...

DCM, it's better we keep these people in fear of being outed, it gives us power over their sponsors. If you haven't paid attention, fear is how neocons operate. Still, didn't we all stop listening to neocons years ago? Didn't we all decide last November they were the ones who messed everything up?

DCM in FL said...

RYAN

IF/when the national or state parties run socially progressive reuplican candidates, then some of us are able to support them - when they deserve our support.

why, I will admit to voting for John Anderson for POTUS back in the day.

JA got 7% of the national vote in '80. I could not support Carter again, and Reagan was a terrible sock puppet - as history has proven.

But no Republican candidate has deserved my vote since - at least in the states I have lived in.

that will include Chain Gang Charlie Crist here in FL - the man is a fraud & another pox upon the GOP, especially now that today ol' Charlie has installed his own lobbyist crony sock puppet as our appointed interim senator...

Mule Rider said...

Who's this new pissant "Ryan" that is coming on here claiming to be a Republican yet bashing all things Republican?

I'm all about people having critical introspection - especially when it comes to political parties - as the rampant homerisms and double-standards that both Dems and Reps have for their own screams hypocrisy, but his sanctimonious outcry against his fellow party members seems a bit daft and of dubious authenticity.


That's my take...from someone who claims neither Democrats or Republicans.

shiloh said...

Mule, thanx for sharing and it only took (4) words for an ad hominem.

Congrats!

DaMav said...

I don't agree with your "perfect" definition for the public option because it implies that the public option is just created by the health care "bill". A better phrasing would be: "Would you favor a health care bill which requires the government to set up and operate, at government expense..." (continue with Quinnipiac language).

This puts in two key words which lie at the heart of the opposition, i.e. that the government MUST create from scratch a new program and PAY THE COST for operating it.

Saying "the bill creates" dodges these implications.

Despite my conservative outlook I very much respect 538. Keep up the good work.

DCM in FL said...

DaMav

your semantic dance is an intentionally misleading poison pill...

you just want to repaet over & over the word 'guvmint'

why would this be a government expense ???

the bill would collect income as premiums - so it would self-fund the program

your are trying to make it sound like the money would have to come out of some other 'guvmint' program

such as Medicare - which is exactly what the dishonest right-wingers are telling the retirees, and it is a fabrication

so cut the crap - you just want to say NO to anything except the status quo... how pathetic & self-serving

Mule Rider said...

Mule, thanx for sharing and it only took (4) words for an ad hominem.

And you're able to count at a kindergarten level...

Congrats!

Mule Rider said...

And for the record, shiloh, what I did wasn't technically an "ad hominem" attack. It was just a good old fashion insult. There's a difference. For it to have been an ad hominem attack, it would have meant that Ryan and myself were actually debating a point and that I was hurling an insult as a method of refuting his argument. That wasn't the case.

You might want to brush up on what those fancy terms actually mean before you start throwing them around. Of course, that's not the first time you've ever blabbed about something w/o knowing what you were talking about. Remember backtype? Yeah, thought so.


Be a good little angry leftist smart-ass and just shut your damn mouth. How's that?!

DCM in FL said...

hey MuleHead

Shiloh just pwned you

hehaw

Ryan said...

Actually, Mule, time to look at the dictionary again. Attacking someones credibility in order to assail their point is an Ad Hominem. The point that I was a republican is the one you were attacking. Nice try though!

You did nail the insult part too though, but so soft? Cmon. I know life must be hard there living with your mother (especially since I forgot to put food in her bowl when I left last night) but you gotta grow up and start playing by the big person debate rules.

Ryan said...

Did I mention I love when people use grandiloquence as a weapon? I mean really, I stand by minimal government intervention while calling Huckabee authentic and you attack my conservative credentials? You are aware that the word sanctimonious requires hypocrisy, right? You are aware that Republicans support public education, right?

Now let me revert to mocking you, since that's likely the only thing you'll understand given your neocon nature. "Your obdurate argument is a non perspicacious panalopy of impetuous tenancies, implacable demeanor and peregrinating logic. You make the ingenuous sheep of our party proud. If only Dems were a bit more obsequious than they already are, that strategy would work!" Now seriously, I "rode the mules" for you, happy? Lets keep it a bit more laconic from here on out.

shiloh said...

Mule, always a sweetie pie, give us a kiss!

DaMav said...

@DCM in FL

You don't think the word "government" is relevent in describing the "public option"?

You actually think there won't be startup and ongoing operating costs in the Government Option? You actually think they will all be covered by premiums?

Avoiding confronting reality is why I suggested improved descriptive language. Thanks for demonstrating my point.

DCM in FL said...

DAMAV

I object to you loading a question with multiple terminology that you propose solely to try to poison any potentially objective answer.

The PUBLIC OPTION as proposed will be a FEDERAL program set up to offer to the PUBLIC an OPTIONAL alternative to purchase an affordable & transportable NON-PROFIT health care insurance policy which will COMPETE with private insurance policies - it is nothing more [unfortunately]

they SHOULD be polling: "do you support Medicare for ALL CITIZENS from birth to death ?"

A - YES by an overwhelming majority

PaleBlueDoubt said...

To be honest, I'm democrat and I was hoping we were going to institute a European system. You know, a health care system that actually works.

Now that I know that it's just another health insurance company, I'm honestly more disillusioned than ever.

I'm seriously thinking about re-migrating to England. Democrats are totally spineless, and republicans are a cancer. I'm an expat at the moment, and don't intend to come back anytime soon, mostly because the whole country is completely stupid - Bill Maher was right.

And as always progressives seem to thing they have to reach out to conservative troglodytes who don't want to come out of their caves.

I'm sorry, but progressives need to drag stupid America kicking and screaming into the modern world.

jdk said...

I hate to even get involved in this mess.

When Nate says, well the REAL definition of "public option" is ...
he highlights the problem.

What you (Nate) think the "public option" means is just what you (Nate) think it means, because there really is no actual bill and thus no true meaning.

There, in fact, are elected representatives who think that "public option" is more akin to "public school" and want that to be the "public option". So that in the same way that the government hires teachers to teach anybody who shows up, the government should hire doctors to treat anybody that shows up. (For goodness sakes, if it is a right like elementary education, then how else can you really do it.)

There are still others who are willing to call (and support) non-profit coops and exchanges as what "public option" means. As if credit unions are the public option to banks. Wright Patman thought so, and I'm a 30 year member of the Congressional Federal Credit Union named after him.

Still others are willing to say the if every person has the right to buy into the current plans that Federal Employees including Reps and Senators have, then that is the "public option". (But who could afford that?)

While the administration has bungled this whole thing by not being clear (Problem:Solution), it has to its credit allowed the equivocal use of the term "public option" to flourish, precisely so that it can claim victory no matter whatever happens.

Nate, you cannot blog this into tidiness, it is sausage making.
Sto Lat.

Ken B said...

I suspect respondants would have gotten the correct answer more often (at least a few points) if the poll had replaced replaced the Great Britain option with one that said "Create a government run healthcare system where the hospitals are owned by the government, and the doctors are employed by the government."

kingrew said...

Has everyone forgotten who led us into an economic meltdown and very nearly a great depression? Has everyone forgotten who led us into an unnecessary war? Obama inherited a huge mess from Bush, and seems to be bringing us away from the brink of a great depression. I for one am grateful for that.
The majority of Americans would benefit from having the option of a public health care plan. There is very big money (ins. companies and drug companies) behind all this blatant fear mongering. It would be a shame if Americans missed out on this opportunity to have an improved and affordable health care system simply because the ins. and drug co. CEOs don't want to reduce any of the billions of dollars they make denying health coverage to so many. Please understand who is manipulating this. You all know people who have been denied coverage, who risk losing their homes because of medical bills. We have a chance now to make a difference. Let's not blow that chance.

DRH said...

Here's the problem with the poll: it ignores what many believe to be the effect of the "public option" as it interacts with the rest of the rules in the bill. Many opponents (and some proponents) see the rest of the bill as putting enough bias toward the public "option", that it eventually will take over. There should have been another choice in the poll that described the "public option" in such terms.