Over at Firedoglake, Jane Hamsher cites a poll, commissioned by Research 2000 for the progressive activist organizations Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America:
Would you favor or oppose requiring all Americans to buy health insurance — the so-called mandate — even if they find insurance too expensive or do not want it?
FAVOR 38%
OPPOSE 51%
NOT SURE 11%
I’d also note that the wording of the question is the most charitable rendering the issue is ever likely to get.Hamsher's claim that "the wording of the question is the most charitable rendering the issue is ever likely to get" is a little audacious.
No, it isn't.
Why not simply have the question say: "Would you favor or oppose requiring all Americans to buy health insurance?". Or, "Would you favor or oppose requiring all Americans to buy health insurance or pay a fine?". That would be a more charitable -- and neutral -- question.
It's a bit redundant, rather, to emphasize the phrase "even if they find insurance too expensive or do not want it". Particularly when that statement is not literally true. Rather, the Senate bill, as Jane's colleague Jon Walker notes, would exempt individuals from having to buy insurance if the plans would constitute more than 8% of their income.
Or, if you want to provide more information to "help" the respondent come up with a response, why not mention the benefit of the mandate -- that it's necessary to keep premiums affordable in a world of guaranteed issue? Or, why not mention that the government will provide billions of dollars in assistance to low and medium income people to help them afford health insurance? Kaiser, for instance, does mention that in their poll, which has this far more charitable question:
Would you favor or oppose requiring all Americans to have health insurance, either from their employer or from another source, with financial help for those who can't afford it?That poll produces a dramatically different result: 66 percent in favor of the mandate and 31 percent opposed.
The goal, of course, is not to be charitable -- it's to be as fair as possible. Kaiser's question, for my tastes, is somewhat too charitable to the pro-mandate side of the argument. And Hamsher's, contra her claims, is a little too charitable to the opposition's.
243 comments
Paul Krugman stole your post and used it as todays Op-Ed!
I don't know what planet you live on Nate, but 7.9% of someone's income is a lot and can, in fact, make a mandatory purchase of insurance "too expensive".
Big (the one in Japan), I think that's Nate's point. 8% of income IS expensive, maybe even "too expensive," and so under the bill people would get help if they had to pay that much or more.
And what do all of these polls tell us? Nothing. Other than that most polls and/or poll respondents can be manipulated into conveying whatever the pollster wants.
Frankly, I'd be ticked off if I found out that my representatives in Congress based their voting on what some random sample of people who answered a poll said. Why is so much credence given to polls on this issue? They shouldn't matter one bit.
BigInJapan08--
Is 8% really that out of line? My wife's current health insurance (through her employer) as a public school teacher costs a whopping 18% of her total compensation package (!), and mine (which is a dirt-cheap graduate student insurance plan with few benefits) is 6% of my income. Most don't realize it since the money comes off the top instead of us having to write a check, but we are paying for it nevertheless.
I don't see how the activists can reject the idea of another 30 million having access to affordable health insurance, millions having the doughnut hole filled and no more rejection due to pre-existing conditions and the tons of Medicare reform in there.
I can't.
Nate, a lot fuss has been made about the mandate, and you yourself asked if their were any compromises progressives could ask for not related to the public option or the Medicare expansion.
What about taking a page out of Snowe's book and demanding that the mandate be on a trigger?
We'll enact a mandate, when insurers and providers prove that the laws other provisions can actually lower costs. That way the 30 million more customers the insurance industry stands to get will be partially dependent on them lowering their rates rather than jacking them up to absorb the new subsidies.
What I find mostly interesting about that poll: Even if we take it seriously, it doesn't do what Jane wants. This is how people feel about the mandate. It doesn't say anything about the public option. This is how people will feel about the mandate even if there is a public option.
If this is an argument against the bill Jane hates (the bill without a public option) it is an argument against the bill Jane likes and supported for months (the bill with a public option).
@defender of freedom:
Subsidies and donut-hole filling can both be done without a mandate. Furthermore, the current bill allows people with preexisting conditions to be charged up to 50% more for insurance, so the idea that a mandate is necessary to keep premiums down is fallacious. Even if people with preexisting conditions weren't being charged more under the current bill, you'd be having the middle class subsidize their coverage, not the rich. Get funding from the wealthy, not the healthy.
On an unrelated note: Something I've not seen discussed but is in the bill text if you look (I can give you page numbers if you really care) is that even beyond the 8% cap thing in the Senate version, both versions of the bill have language saying that the dept. of Health and Human Services has some authority to issue waivers for people for whom no "affordable" health care is available. I don't think I'd suggest this removes the problems with the mandate since there is no evidence HHS will issue these waivers in any quantity, but its existence seems to provide pressure against truly large premium hikes and also provides a point of focus for activism. If affording health insurance in a world with a mandate were a problem, couldn't activists petition the white house to issue the waivers in greater numbers?
Mandates for health insurance is the moral equivalent of requiring us all to open accounts with Goldman Sachs - and they get to "self police".
Mandates with no government-run option is extortion - rewarding richly the people who are responsible for the current, disfunctional mess.
..and, being close to 50, I'll be in the group whose premiums get tripled.
Can someone please explain why this is a more reasonable plan than allowing me to buy into Medicare?
Is this question fair enough?
Would you favor or oppose creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies? (Wording of CNN poll)
FAVOR OPPOSE NOT SURE
59% 31% 10%
How about this one?
If Congress proposed passing a strong public health insurance option PLUS allowing people age 55 to 64 to buy into Medicare, would you favor or oppose this idea?
FAVOR OPPOSE NOT SURE
58% 31% 11%
But I guess poll results only matter if they show support for "moderate" policies.
By the way, Hamsher's point is clear once you stop selectively quoting her:
"I’d also note that the wording of the question is the most charitable rendering the issue is ever likely to get. When it appears in the ads of a Republican challenger who notes that the IRS will act as Aetna’s collection agency, I bet those numbers get dramatically worse."
Big,
I think 8% is less than many people pay.
I think its a trade off. A mandate would drive done costs for many by increasing the pool of healthy people in the insurance pool. So I think its reasonable people who currently pay even more and want it, can now get it for less. People who wanted it before, but couldn't afford it also are more likely to be able to ...
People who are not buying insurance make others pay (and a lot for bad quality care) ... one way or society as a whole pays. This just makes the distribution of cost more explicit and hopefully more fair and makes access and quality better (efficiency).
Nate must make a lot of money because, like all the jerks in Washington, he seems to have no clue what "affordable" means.
Nate:
In order to be neutral and objective, all questions concerning elements of the health insurance legislation must include ALL of the costs and trade offs. The reason majorities of polled Americans support things like the public option in the abstract when costs are not mentioned, but overwhelmingly reject the actual legislation before Congress, is because they know the price tag that comes with the actual legislation.
There is nothing redundant about including the point that the young folks compelled to buy health insurance do not need it. In reality, they are being compelled to purchase insurance to pay for other people's care.
Including language about a subsidy is misleading because not everyone will receive the subsidy and we will all end up paying for any subsidy with higher taxes, higher prices for goods and services, and/or reduced growth and jobs from higher marginal income tax rates and higher debt. There is never a free lunch where the government is involved.
Worse still, including language about a subsidy without any mention of costs and tradeoffs as you suggest is simply dishonest.
Thus, a neutral question might read:
Would you favor or oppose requiring all Americans to buy health insurance or pay a fine to the IRS even if they can pay their own medical bills and do not require insurance?
Or...
Would you favor or oppose requiring young Americans to buy health insurance or pay a fine to the IRS in order to help pay the medical expenses for older Americans?
RT: Republicans vote against jobs bill 174-0. Not sure why Pelosi isn't making a bigger show of these votes.
The Democratic leadership's confused strategy is amazing, isn't it? Politico yesterday was quoting Pelosi as saying the deficit would be one of the major issues for 2010. TPM had a story with Democratic Senate Campaign Committee leader offering a preview of 2010 messaging: That the GOP wants to rewind to Bush. And MoveOn raises a million bucks to negative campaign against Lieberman.
Except... the deficit isn't a winning issue for Democrats and Pelosi shouldn't push it (but can say they'll repeal Bush's tax cut to help ease it). Bush is history. Voters aren't worried about moving back to Bush, they're worried about not moving forward from where they are. Lieberman isn't on the ballot next year and will be easy to defeat anyway. Fundraising would be better directed at competitive 2010 races to see if, should the economy begin to turn around, Dems can hammer GOP obstruction on jobs bill, financial regs, public option, etc. as stopping forward movement. Maybe we can pick up seats and render Lieberman's vote as irrelevant as Inhofe's. Ezra Klein has posted polls showing GOP approval is still in the toilet, not at all comparable to 1994.
Dem leadership should retool their messaging. Progressives shouldn't direct their anger at their own party and talk about staying home. Pass what you can now, blame obstruction for the shortcomings and talk about getting the vote out in 2010.
PS If a mandate passes, GOP will harp on it, which might hurt Romney in the primary since he signed one into law.
Bart, get off the drugs.
The reason majorities of polled Americans support things like the public option in the abstract when costs are not mentioned, but overwhelmingly reject the actual legislation before Congress, is because they know the price tag that comes with the actual legislation.
The price tag? You mean negative 25 billion? Yeah, that must be the scary part. Also, your ideas of "neutral" questions are downright cracked.
"george kennan said...
RT: Republicans vote against jobs bill 174-0. Not sure why Pelosi isn't making a bigger show of these votes"
They also tried to filibuster a military spending bill last night, yet Democrats are not playing it up.
Heck of a job, guys.
There is nothing redundant about including the point that the young folks compelled to buy health insurance do not need it. In reality, they are being compelled to purchase insurance to pay for other people's care.
*boggle*
It must be so wonderful to live in your fantasy world where young people never get sick or injured or pregnant, Bart.
Would you favor or oppose requiring all Americans to buy health insurance or pay a fine to the IRS even if they can pay their own medical bills and do not require insurance?
And where there are lots of people who can pay unexpected large medical bills without insurance.
The entire conservative "solution" to health care according to Bart seems to be to resolutely insist that there actually is no problem with health care at all and in fact to deny that large segments of the population even need health care at all!
Nate the Kaiser poll doesn't stop there. After that initial question, a potentially leading question was asked to covert people from there previous position. But since both leading questions converted the same % of people, you could say that at the end Kaiser comes up with a result that look a lot like Research 2000. Since presumable people that offer support when asked a generic, "charitable" question about individual mandates will at some point find out that mandates are mandates...it's not unreasonable to consider the end result of Kaisers poll something closer to 55% opposed, 36% in favor, and 9% undecided.
BigInJapan08:
I don't know what planet you live on Nate, but 7.9% of someone's income is a lot and can, in fact, make a mandatory purchase of insurance "too expensive".
Well, I suppose we could go round and round about what everyone's arbitrary definitions of "affordable" are. Or we could note that the US spends 16% of GDP on healthcare. Health care isn't affordable NOW. Whining about how it's still not going to be affordable enough doesn't make a lot of sense, considering that by any reasonable account it's going to get a fair bit more affordable.
And the idea that 8% of your income at maximum for health insurance is just way too much is ridiculous. Health care is a basic human need like food and housing - and affordable housing is commonly accepted to be about 30% of your gross income or less. Food, similarly, begins getting subsidized when it gets to 30% of your income, and averages about 10% of families' income.
Not to mention that if you are paying 8% of your income for health insurance, you're almost certainly either paying way too much for health care or not taking advantage of welfare programs already available to you. It's like that Matthew guy who was on a few days ago.
The real problem currently is that if you're sick and on a plan that's too expensive, you can't switch to one that costs less. Sometimes you can't switch at all because the insurer has a monopoly in the state. That's why we need increased competition via the health-care exchanges and insurance mandates.
BD: The reason majorities of polled Americans support things like the public option in the abstract when costs are not mentioned, but overwhelmingly reject the actual legislation before Congress, is because they know the price tag that comes with the actual legislation.
Hunter L. Cook said...The price tag? You mean negative 25 billion?
CBO has the price tags around $1 Trillion when counting the ramp up years where taxes are collected but no services are provided. However, when the first decade is spending is calculated, the price tag is $2.5 T.
Cato performed a far more honest count that included the costs to employers and citizens of being compelled to buy health insurance. The price tag then balloons to $6.25 T.
Your figure probably refers to the amount that is supposed to be subtracted from the deficit. That is also a crock of crap given that all of the bills rely upon a half trillion dollars in unidentified and thus completely fictional Medicare cuts to get there.
The healthcare bill as-is forces the middle class & the healthy uninsured to subsidize the poor & the sick. Meanwhile, insurance companies will continue to improve profits (if not profit margins.)
This bill is even worse than the "stealing from the rich" Republicans and Teabaggers always whine about-- it's putting the pressure on the middle class & the healthy.
Scrap the mandate, or vastly increase subsidies. Not a great solution, but hey, the public option is dead despite being supported by a majority of Senators, Congressmen, and Americans, and single-payer was never even on the table, so fixing this P.O.S. bill into something that at least does some good seems to be our only solution.
RT: Republicans vote against jobs bill 174-0. Not sure why Pelosi isn't making a bigger show of these votes.
Are you kidding? The GOP is jumping in front of every camera they can find bragging about voting against "Son of Stimulus." Pelosi does not want to help them.
No one with an IQ above room temperature thinks Stiumulus or Son of Stimulus is an efficient jobs creator. Even if you credit the largely fictional "jobs created or saved numbers," you end up spending between a quarter and a half million per "job" depending upon who is counting.
There is an obvious, heretofore undefined lined between health care advocates. It's not just the Public Option, it's the subsidies. You call people batshit crazy for not wanting to create a welfare class out of working Americans? Then we've been on a different page from day one. The idea was: control spending. Reduce the influence of insurance companies (leading to their eventual death). Create a government operated pool, however small, that it might be eventually expanded to true universal health care. You are wrong that money will fix this thing. It will destroy the Democratic party. Now you're trying to discredit a passing remark about a pointless poll? Get down off your high-horse. You're hysteria is proof of your myopia.
How many stimuli are we up to now?
Like 3? Plus all the bailouts. And endless Fed liquidity. Insane.
Good job Repubs. Impressive solidarity heading into 2010.
R. Graham,
Furthermore, the current bill allows people with preexisting conditions to be charged up to 50% more for insurance, so the idea that a mandate is necessary to keep premiums down is fallacious.
No, no it isn't. Your argument, however, is rather obviously fallacious.
How much does a person with preexisting conditions cost the insurance companies vs. someone without? I'll give you a hint: it's way, way, way more than a 50% difference. If it wasn't, there would be no need for a cap. So the insurance companies can't possibly recoup the extra cost of insuring this group through their premiums alone. Unless you expect them to lose money providing insurance (hah!) they'll have to increase premiums on everyone else unless something is done to add more healthy people to the risk pool as an offset.
Nitpick ONE question. Good work, Nate.
Wording is important, you are right.
But so in context.
Everyone who wants to see the WHOLE poll, and not just one question, it's at - http://act.boldprogressives.org/cms/sign/natpollresults121809/
Public option: 59% to 31%.
Mandates without public option: 33% to 56%.
Voters overwhelming say Obama didn't fight Lieberman hard enough: 63% to 29%.
Didn't like the first question's wording? How's this for unambiguous -
Would you favor or oppose a health care bill that does NOT include a public health insurance option and does NOT expand Medicare, but DOES require all Americans to get health insurance?
Favor: 33% Oppose: 56% Not Sure: 11%
Or this wording -
If the government requires 30 million uninsured Americans to buy health insurance, and gives subsidies to some Americans to help them afford this insurance, would it be accurate to say this plan, quote, "PROVIDES" 30 million Americans with health insurance?
Yes:36% No:48% Not Sure:16%
Nate, when you cherry-pick parts of polls, you expose your agenda. I do NOT claim to know what your agenda really is, other than proving your previous points right.
You think that these polled people are thinking the mandate doesn't provide subsidies and THAT'S why they are against it? Doesn't this question clear that up a bit for you?
Would you favor or oppose a health care bill that does NOT include a public health insurance option and does NOT expand Medicare and does NOT require all Americans to buy health insurance -- but DOES provide significant subsidies to low- and middle-income families to help them buy insurance?
Favor:42% Oppose:46% Not Sure:12%
More people in that poll still opposed a bill with no public option, no medicare buy-in, AND no mandate BUT subsidies.
The outrage is bigger than "shut up liberals and progressives, we're tossing some money at poor people", ok?
@Bart
So the GOP should stop complaining that unemployment is too high and start complaining that Democrats are trying to create jobs?
And when did CBO numbers suddenly become "fictional?"
Part of the reason you guys lost so badly last year is that you couldn't find a consistent meme to attack Democrats, i.e. Marxist/foreign-born/elitist/Muslim/Atheist/corporate/anti-American/Socialist/race-baiting/sexist, etc.
And these lies will work if you can keep them consistent, as Bush/Rove did so well.
But if you keep switching memes in order to stay "anti-Democratic" I guarantee your beloved wingnuts are in for another shellacking.
Bart DePalma said...
No one with an IQ above room temperature
~~~~~~~~~~
Is your IQ above or below room temperature?
just wonderin' as it would help all of us decipher your posts. ;)
Persuter, I go to the doctor roughly once a year so for me, 8% of my income for health insurance is wildly disproportionate to what I pay for housing and food, both of which I use or consume every day. Of course, my health situation could change but that's my situation in the present. And remember, that 8% is premiums alone. That's just the money you pay to the protection racket to be in it. When you try to use your coverage is when it can really start getting costly.
Nate, why so many posts attacking the "batshit left" for opposing the bill and not one criticizing Ben Nelson, who actually has a vote in the Senate and is threatening to scuttle the bill over abortion? BTW, he also wants to allow states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion. Many states, poor Red ones in particular, will do just that. Which means a good chunk of the "30 million uninsured who will get coverage if this is passed" will, in fact, not be covered.
Your not including the unfunded mandate called Medicaid expansion. Meh, let the states worry about it. Even Ahnold was bitching about it the other day. Another $3B for Calif's deficit.
Donna said...
"Nate, why so many posts attacking the "batshit left" for opposing the bill and not one criticizing Ben Nelson, who actually has a vote in the Senate and is threatening to scuttle the bill over abortion?"
Oh Donna, don't you know that pressuring conservative Democrats is forbidden? Get with the program and start yelling at the dirty hippies.
Since 8% of one's income is sooooo affordable to you guys, lets make everyone pay 8% of their gross salaries to make healthcare affordable. Let's see, unemployed people pay nothing, Obama owes 32K next year, Lloyd Blankfein owes a couple billion, and Nate, how much will you pay?
Fair for the poor, fair for the well off!
Stupid law. Stupid Congress.
I laugh at the assumption that's prevelant in this post that government will be effecient in meeting consummer needs. Puhleeze, this just isn't happening. Also Harry Reid is the guy pushing for Dec 24, 2009 so all the options people are presenting are obviously something the Dem party leadership is not interested in.
After I posted that last comment something interesting struck me: a funny similarity between the individual mandate and single payer.
The problem folks have with the mandate is that it takes away people's choice. You have to pay for healthcare, even if you're healthy. Now, compare to a single payer system. We all have healthcare, and we all pay taxes. I suppose it's conceivable that we could fund such a system entirely by taxing the rich...but that wouldn't be politically feasible even if single payer was. Moreover, that's just a question of a wealth transfer, which is easily enough accomplished in other ways (say, subsidies).
So really, I'd like to hear some people tell me what the difference is. For those who oppose the mandate, would you oppose a single payer system funded through taxes that were exactly as progressive as the funding of this bill? If not, I'm not sure your argument about removing healthy people's choice holds any water.
Jacob said...And when did CBO numbers suddenly become "fictional?"
1) When Congress provides CBO with bill summaries rather than the entire bill with all of its undisclosed fiscal land mines. In the case of the Senate, you could fit all of the people who have actually seen the bill set for a vote in a phone booth.
2) When CBO assumes "savings" like undisclosed Medicare cuts will actually occur.
3) When CBO assumes that demand for medical care will not surge when it is subsidized. The actual cost of both Medicare and Medicaid were several multiples of the CBO estimates. The cost of Tenncare and Romneycare in MA were likewise far more than estimated.
4) When CBO is given a week to perform the estimate.
If a corporation did this, they would be subject to criminal fraud prosecution by the SEC and massive class action shareholder lawsuits. We voters will have to be satisfied with the 2010 elections.
Woo hoo! Bart, who never met a cliche he didn't love, has a New Name!
Bart brings us... drum roll, trumpets... Son of Stimulus!
Bart... just to be a teeny tiny bit intellectually consistent (I know, I know, but it wouldn't hurt you to try, just once)... considering you've never ever called the first bill by its real name ("stimulus") wouldn't it be more accurate for you to call this new bill "Progeny of Porkulus"?
Just sayin'...
Now we have to endure Bart saying "Son of Stimulus" a dozen times a day. I might as well stay over in Freeperville. (Like Bart, they all think they're witty, too.)
Hey Bart... YOU'RE NOT A LIBERTARIAN. You're just another teabagger.
"So really, I'd like to hear some people tell me what the difference is. For those who oppose the mandate, would you oppose a single payer system funded through taxes that were exactly as progressive as the funding of this bill?"
You don't understand the difference between a mandate to buy private insurance and a public system that is ultimately controlled by the voters?
Hunter L. Cook said...
No, no it isn't. Your argument, however, is rather obviously fallacious.
How much does a person with preexisting conditions cost the insurance companies vs. someone without? I'll give you a hint: it's way, way, way more than a 50% difference. If it wasn't, there would be no need for a cap. So the insurance companies can't possibly recoup the extra cost of insuring this group through their premiums alone. Unless you expect them to lose money providing insurance (hah!) they'll have to increase premiums on everyone else unless something is done to add more healthy people to the risk pool as an offset.
Well, at least you're outright admitting this is an insurance bailout on the backs of the middle class & the healthy while insurance companies make bank, instead of pretending it's actual reform.
Nate might defend the insurance companies and their measley 3.3% profit margin, but when that 3.3% is going to apply to another thirty million Americans, half of which aren't getting any sort of subsidy, calling this anything else than a middle-class bailout of insurance companies is disingenuous. Every other reform proposed was based on progressive taxation, but of course the only one with a chance of passing is the one that benefits the poor & the rich while totally screwing over the middle class.
I want poor people and sick people to have access to health care as much as the next guy, perhaps moreso. Forcing middle class families & healthy people to buy at-profit insurance is not the way to do it.
If you actually care about reform, you'd either support a public option/single payer, or push for a sizable increase in subsidies to cover more of the cost and the next tax bracket up.
Michael,
Since 8% of one's income is sooooo affordable to you guys, lets make everyone pay 8% of their gross salaries to make healthcare affordable.
I think this is the heart of the problem. You assume that if everyone paid 8% of their income we'd be able to pay for healthcare. But we wouldn't. Healthcare costs are 16% of GDP in this country. So we'd only get about halfway there doing it this way.
Also, such a funding mechanism wouldn't be progressive at all, whereas the bill as it stands is. So you'd be going backwards.
Hey, speaking of polls... why are Obama's Gallup app/disapp numbers back to 52-40 today? I thought he was imploding all over the place?
And now we have climate deal and a health bill next week. I see 60-32 looming again.
Happy holidays, teabaggers.
filistro:
Did I upset your delicate sensitivities by placing in quotes the GOP nickname for the Dems' most recent waste of $150 billion? So sorry. I woud have preferred the more accurate Son of Porkulus, but then I would be denied the benefit of your responses to my posts.
;^)
BTW, someone who uses the gay sex act term of "teabagger" has very little room to complain about name calling.
I dont care how its paid for, I am not getting mafia insurance. I cant wait for this mandate crap to get through without a public option.
Can anyone think of any example, at any time in our nation's entire history, where citizens were mandated by federal law to purchase a product from a private company?
Is this even constitutional? Has anything like this ever come before the Supreme Court? Are we all just wanking here over a bill that's just going to be shot to pieces by SCOTUS?
Hunter, the difference to the average middle class person if HR676 passed in comparison to what is being proposed in the Senate is staggering. Under HR676 a family earning $56K a year would be paying $2700 a year via a payroll tax. No deductibles, no co-pays, nothing else. Under this Senate plan that same family will be paying $4500 for their portion of the subsidized premium. And that's just the premium.
Proponents of mandates often like to use arguments that sound like they're arguing for single payer but mandated subsidized private insurance is NOT single payer.
@Hunter:
So really, I'd like to hear some people tell me what the difference is. For those who oppose the mandate, would you oppose a single payer system funded through taxes that were exactly as progressive as the funding of this bill? If not, I'm not sure your argument about removing healthy people's choice holds any water.
---
Also, such a funding mechanism wouldn't be progressive at all, whereas the bill as it stands is. So you'd be going backwards.
---
The bill as it stands is progressive up to $82k a year, and then flatlines. The US tax structure as-is is progressive up to, IIRC, about $350k. A single-payer plan would be based on the latter. You tell me which one is more progressive.
Bart, you teabaggers started out calling yourselves teabaggers, proudly. Your lack of popular culture knowledge is not our problem. And BTW, you're the ones who have a problem with gay sex, not us.
"The bill as it stands is progressive up to $82k a year, and then flatlines. The US tax structure as-is is progressive up to, IIRC, about $350k. A single-payer plan would be based on the latter. You tell me which one is more progressive."
And, of course, voters have more control over the contents of a single payer insurance plan than they do over a private insurance plan.
Ah, how I love it when Bart stumbles into my little traps. Allow me a moment to rub my hands together and indulge in unseemly gloating...
Okay, I'm over it.... :-)
Now Bart, here are my rules if you want me to respond to your posts.
Rule #1.) All bills are called by their actual names. This means I too will refrain from referring to the "Kill a Million Iraqis" initiative, the "Is Our Children Learning?" act amd the "No Billionaire Left Behind" tax cuts.
Rule #2: All people are referred to by the names they call themselves. This, of course, makes "teabagger" totally legitimate. It's what you guys originally chose to call yourselves, and we are merely doing the courtesy of complying.
Cheers, dear.
^just checked, the highest US tax bracket is $372,950+ @35%.
Bart DePalma said...
BTW, someone who uses the gay sex act term of "teabagger"
~~~~~~~~~~
W/out resorting to definitions ;) teabaggin' is not exclusive to Gays.
BDP, does one have a Gay fetish?
just wonderin'
@Bart
So you further prove your childishness by labeling a frat-boy prank/Republican fetish as a "gay sex act."
Why are you guys so fascinated by homosexual sex? It mystifies me.
And if your anarcho-capitalist cult didn't want to be called teabaggers, you shouldn't have self-applied the name. Sorry little buddy, but you're stuck with it now.
Congrats on scouring the internet to find a post of "teabagger" being used by a conservative who's unaware of the real meaning. But hey, blacks call themselves niggers, so I guess its all cool.
A good test...if you wouldn't use a nickname in front of your kids....its probably not appropriate to be calling people it "just for laughs". Or do you guys teach your kids to "make fun of the teabaggers"?
Sorry, Nate, but Glenn Greenwald nailed you today (along with the rest of the "Sit down, shut up, and support the bill") crowd:
if progressives always announce that they are willing to accept whatever miniscule benefits are tossed at them (on the ground that it's better than nothing) and unfailingly support Democratic initiatives (on the ground that the GOP is worse), then they will (and should) always be ignored when it comes time to negotiate; nobody takes seriously the demands of those who announce they'll go along with whatever the final outcome is.
Whether or not you call yourself progressive, he just described you to a T.
Merin, not only was that the only question Jane quotes in her original post (in other words Jane, not Nate, was cherry-picking), there would be no reason for Nate to discuss those other questions since those other questions generally don't actually have anything to do with the health care bill.
The percentage of Americans who approve of a public health insurance option or a medicare buy-in doesn't have anything to do with the bill because the health care bill doesn't contain either of those elements, and it has been demonstrated a bill which contains those elements cannot pass this Congress.
Whether people approve of Obama's behavior toward Lieberman is a completely separate question from whether a bill should pass.
The other questions from the original PCCC poll do have something to do with health care, but actually disastrously hurt hurt Jane's-- and your-- position.
There are three questions here. Do you favor or oppose a mandate, in the abstract apart from its interactions with anything else? Do you favor or oppose a bill which contains a mandate, but no public insurance type provision? Do you favor or oppose a bill which lacks both a mandate and no public insurance type provision?
And what we find if we compare these three numbers is that the position being pushed by Jane and the rest of the "progressive" blogosphere-- that the mandate is acceptable if there is a public option, but unacceptable once the public option is removed-- is an extreme minority position, held by under ten percent of the population. The public opposes the "none of the above" bill as they describe it 46-42, and opposes the "mandates, but no public insurance" bill 56-33-- and this is the case even though the poll unfairly and confusingly mentions subsidies in the second case but not the first case. Comparing the abstract mandate question is instructive, because with its 51-38 "no vote" margin it allows us to deduce the exact percentage who oppose the bill as it stands, yet actively support a mandate if a public option is present; comparing the abstract mandate question with the "mandates without public option" question it's about five percent, at least half of the "not without the public option" crowd.
(By comparison, polling in September showed 41 percent of the public believing the health care bill will institute "death panels". Five percent isn't even a large fringe; there is no electoral reason for Democrats to cater to the viewpoint that a mandate is good but becomes bad if there is no public health insurance company.)
In short what this poll shows is that at maximum, even given weighted questioning, at most a fourth of the bill's supporters consider the death of the public option worth killing the bill over. In order to say this poll means the bill must now die, what you and Jane are arguing is that your 1/4 of bill supporters must count more than both the 3/4 of supporters who want to pass even if we can't have a public option, and the plurality of the population at large who opposes health care reform under any circumstances.
@brian - I'll say teabagger in front of anyone. It's hilarious. Lighten up.
A few points,
@ Persuter
"It must be so wonderful to live in your fantasy world where young people never get sick or injured or pregnant, Bart. "
You're not be reasonable here. Mandating insurance on "young healthy people" in order to cover the expenses of "Old sick people" is half of what the Mandate's supposed to do. Young people do get sick, injured, and pregnant. However on AVERAGE if they pocketed the premiums, and simply paid for any expenses out of pocked, they'd come out far, far, ahead.
"Not to mention that if you are paying 8% of your income for health insurance, you're almost certainly either paying way too much for health care or not taking advantage of welfare programs already available to you. It's like that Matthew guy who was on a few days ago. "
I don't know WHERE you're getting your numbers from. Likely, you're not accounting for Employer paid premiums, which largely come out of wages. Right now I'm paying about 8% of income AFTER the Employer "Subsidy" for individual health care.
Lastly, some back of the envelop numbers for the single payer people here.
If the US government was to take over all Medical expenses, that would equate to a 25% raise in taxes for everyone, across the board, including sales taxes. Or, just people giving an additional 9% of their entire income to the Federal government.
sure thing bitch....
funny stuff
I guess I can afford insurance - I've been buying it for thirty years. High deductible catastrophe insurance. If I wasn't buying it, I could probably afford health care. As it is I cannot; haven't been to a doctor for 20 years despite various problems.
Buying insurance prevents me from having health care.
Actually, I would like to see a survey that asked the following question:
Do strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose requiring everyone to buy and be covered by a private health insurance plan?
Fortunately, the question has been asked in Maine, a state that I would contend trends slightly toward the left of center of American politics. Here are the results from that Lake Research poll
16% strongly favor, 19% somewhat favor, 21% somewhat oppose, 34% strongly oppose
So in this poll, 37% favor the mandate and 55% oppose. That's surprisingly close to how the Obama/McCain vote broke down in that state (Obama had a 15% margin). I hope that Lake Research or some other reputable polling organization will put the same question to a sample from across the country. I'm guessing, based on the Maine results from September, that those opposed would be in the majority by about 10%.
Persuter, I go to the doctor roughly once a year so for me, 8% of my income for health insurance is wildly disproportionate to what I pay for housing and food, both of which I use or consume every day. Of course, my health situation could change but that's my situation in the present.
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
I will again make the point that people like you who think that you shouldn't have to pay because you're not using much health care now are exactly the problem here.
This is like getting in a car wreck, going up to the other car, and finding the other guy calling GEICO to get an insurance policy.
The entire point of insurance is to amortize the possibility of a large medical cost over your life. When you say that you're not paying a lot for medical care now, there is absolutely no response to that except to suggest that you have absolutely nothing to contribute to this debate. You literally fail to grasp the most basic elements of the question.
This is exactly why polling people on whether they like this bill is ludicrous. You've got the one camp insisting that the government keep their hands off of Medicare and another camp insisting that healthy people shouldn't have to subsidize the sick.
Mandating insurance on "young healthy people" in order to cover the expenses of "Old sick people" is half of what the Mandate's supposed to do. Young people do get sick, injured, and pregnant. However on AVERAGE if they pocketed the premiums, and simply paid for any expenses out of pocked, they'd come out far, far, ahead.
That's what insurance is supposed to do, not the mandate. On average, ANY insured group will come out ahead if they don't buy insurance and just pay for the insured stuff themselves - that's why insurance is profitable. There are literally math PhDs whose entire career is making sure that the insured group pays more in premiums than collects in benefits. That's the point of insurance.
The problem with your reasoning is that while on AVERAGE they'll come out ahead, that means that a thousand people will end up ahead $10, and some poor schlub will end up behind $10,000.
As I said to Donna, if you do not grasp this fundamental point, you literally can have absolutely no informed opinion on this debate whatsoever.
Will someone PLEASE tell me where I can go to get a FAIR summary of the health care bill ?? My wife and I are actively following this issue and we are totally confused. I know I can just read the bill, but it would be helpful to have a road map to do so. Nate.....help us !!! OR KEITH or RACHEL ....spend an hour explaining the details. Thank you.
if you are one who is siding with Nate over the Progressives..please unsubscribe from MoveOn's email list
Speaking of teabaggers .... what on earth SHOULD one call them?
Jeez, brian.
Amazing, I'm so frazzled I can't add. That would be 35% favor and 55% oppose mandated private insurance in the Lake Research poll of Maine voters.
@Pat:
If the US government was to take over all Medical expenses, that would equate to a 25% raise in taxes for everyone, across the board, including sales taxes. Or, just people giving an additional 9% of their entire income to the Federal government.
A single-payer plan wouldn't be based on a flat tax increase, it'd be based on a progressive tax increase. Likely by the implementation of tax brackets at $1 million and up.
Right now I'm paying about 8% of income AFTER the Employer "Subsidy" for individual health care.
I find this, quite simply, extremely hard to believe. Regardless, the only answer to this is that you are, in fact, paying way too much for health care.
@ Persuter,
I didn't just say ahead. I said "Far, Far Ahead"
In terms of young people, it's not "a thousand people will come out ahead $10, and one poor schlub behind $10,000"
With those young, uninsured people who could afford insurance, but don't choose to, it's more like "A thousand people will come out $20,000 ahead and, a hundred break even, and ten $100,000 behind" over the course of ten years.
The "Mandate" is supposed to act as a wealth transfer mechanism. It's common in liberal circles. The concept "We make the young healthy people pay into the system to cover the sick people".
@ Persuter,
How do you find this hard to believe? Do you have a real understanding of what insurance premiums are?
I'll give you an example. An Average insurance premium in NJ for a healthy, 25 year old male runs $5,000. Would it be crazy to say, that male is making $50,000 a year, self employed?
If so, magically, his insurance is 10% of his pay.
Pat:
Young people do get sick, injured, and pregnant. However on AVERAGE if they pocketed the premiums, and simply paid for any expenses out of pocked, they'd come out far, far, ahead.
Let me introduce you to insurance. Here's the key element: if everyone in America decided not to get health insurance and pocketed the premiums, on average they would come out 3.3% ahead. That's the profit margin of the insurance companies.
So, if we'd all be better off without insurance, why do we buy it? Because while the risk of catastrophe is small, the effect is completely unacceptable. We die. Or we go bankrupt. The whole point of having insurance is that almost all of us pay a small amount more than we should so that the very unlucky among us don't get completely screwed. Because I don't know if that's going to be you or me. And you don't either.
One thing that I do appreciate Nate pointing out is that health insurance companies profit rates are low. That was helpful. Where insurance companies have failed badly is in constraining costs imposed by other health care industries and services, industries and services that actually have very high profit rates. It seems to be easier for private insurance companies to merely pass on increased costs without putting up to much of a fight. When this illuminating fight between progressives first broke out, I more or less supported a mixed system of private and public insurers. At this point, I'm moving toward the belief that only universal Medicare will actually constrain health care costs in this country.
Persuter, you're being misleading. Everone inderstands insurance. We all have a"risk" of something. However, when a young person's risk premium is x and he is asked to pay 3x, thats no longer insurance, thats socialism.
Yes, young people get sick. However, a bunch of 22 yr olds running around without insurance his hardly the cause of HC crises.
filistro:
Tea Party folks do not call themselves "teabaggers." There have been a couple GOP politicians and conservative pundits who ignorantly used the term their Dem colleagues were using without knowing the context of the usage.
Applying a term reserved for those who suck on another's nut sack to a political opponent is juvenile and offensive in the extreme and certainly belies the image you folks on the left have of yourselves a tolerant thoughtful sophisticates. This would be similar to calling a feminist such as yourself a hairy man hating dyke. So lets agree that you will drop the usage of the term tea bagger and I will not call you a hairy man hating dyke.
Pat,
With those young, uninsured people who could afford insurance, but don't choose to, it's more like "A thousand people will come out $20,000 ahead and, a hundred break even, and ten $100,000 behind" over the course of ten years.
Thanks for your completely madeup numbers. That clarifies everything. By the way, are you really this ignorant on this subject, or are you having a little fun with us? Did you think we wouldn't notice that you are only considering the effects on the healthiest subset of people? Anyway, the key is still the same: the difference between what Americans would get by not using insurance at all, and what they get from everyone buying in, is 3.3%. This is roughly the prime interest rate, so I'd say it's a fair price to pay to get rid of the variance.
With those young, uninsured people who could afford insurance, but don't choose to, it's more like "A thousand people will come out $20,000 ahead and, a hundred break even, and ten $100,000 behind" over the course of ten years.
Yes? AND?! You're sitting here ACKNOWLEDGING that certain people are going to be left poor and destitute, and simply going, "Well, yeah, so obviously we don't need insurance because there aren't that many of them!" It's the traditional conservative mindset, "I've got mine, Jack!"
The "Mandate" is supposed to act as a wealth transfer mechanism. It's common in liberal circles. The concept "We make the young healthy people pay into the system to cover the sick people".
Again, this is what insurance does. Your claim that this is somehow limited to the "mandate" simply is you once again showing that you have absolutely no basis whatsoever for discussing this. You fail to grasp the most basic, fundamental point in all this.
How do you find this hard to believe? Do you have a real understanding of what insurance premiums are?
I'll give you an example. An Average insurance premium in NJ for a healthy, 25 year old male runs $5,000.
Can you cite that, please? I am a healthy 27-year-old male who paid for his own insurance for the last two years and at no point was I paying even 25% of that. Going on ehealthinsurance.com and looking up plans for a 25-year-old male in New Jersey, there are numerous plans that cost less than that, and, with only two exceptions, all the plans that cost more than that are zero-deductible plans.
If that truly is the "average", then that's because of employer-paid premiums, where people are happy to pay too much since they don't see a dime of it anyway. If you are paying 8% of your income, you are paying way too much for health insurance.
Me and 9 friends go out to eat. 5 of us pig out on steak and goodies, 5 decide to drink water. When the check comes, we institute a "mandate" that all contribute equally. Is that insurance? Is that fair?
@Hunter
Two things.
1. I understand insurance fine. I was SPECIFICALLY referring to the young, healthy, individuals who choose not to be employed.
2. You've severely understating the "savings" of not having insurance. Besides the insurance company's profit margins, there's...
A. The OVERHEAD that you wouldn't be paying. Something liberals generally love to point out, especially in comparison to Medicare.
B. The "real cost" savings. Generally, with many people, they'll get medicine, or the best possible medicine regardless of cost, because "The insurance is paying for it". If the patient was paying for it, they're generally much more careful with their money...shopping around, not getting procedures/items that they don't think they need, than if the insurance company is covering it.
Insurance quotes
People wanting to have some idea how much health insurance would cost them if they're not already covered might check out this site.
http://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/individual-health-insurance.fs
Me and 9 friends go out to eat. 5 of us pig out on steak and goodies, 5 decide to drink water. When the check comes, we institute a "mandate" that all contribute equally. Is that insurance? Is that fair?
No, it's not insurance. Did you seriously think this was a good analogy? Insurance is for costs that you incur without the intention to do so. That is the entire point.
Again, if you don't get this fundamental idea, you have nothing to contribute to this debate. You literally just claimed that people choose to get sick. At that point, it is clear that there is nothing useful that you could possibly say, because you fundamentally do not understand even the most basic principles that we're talking about. People don't CHOOSE to get sick - that's why sick people have to be "subsidized" by the healthy through insurance, because any of us might become sick.
Dude, its you that don't understand. Subsidies are socialism, not insurance. In insurance, everyone should have equal risk of incidence. Its a fundamental tenet. People with higher risk, pay more.
When I know my cost for something are higher, and I want to "share" that costs with another lower cost person---thats socialism. You know, its Obama's economic motto.
Donna and R. Graham,
You both seem to be arguing that single-payer is better than what's currently on the table.
I agree.
But that wasn't ever the question. Single payer has never been on the table...not even close. The question is whether this bill is better than the alternative: no bill.
Also, Donna, props for using the actual single payer bill to come up with your numbers. R. Graham, you on the other hand seem to be arguing about some fictional single payer regime you invented in your head that involves Warren Buffet just covering the tab himself. Sorry, we don't do fiction here.
In any case, I may have overstated my comparison somewhat. My point is not that one is as good as the other. It's that the nearly universal argument against mandates (people are forced to buy in even if they don't want to) is equally valid against single payer. That's appropriate if you are some Teabagger who thinks survival of the fittest is an appropriate orginizational structure for a post-industrial democracy. But it's a downright backwards argument if you're a liberal.
@Persuter
1. Calm down.
2. Calm down.
3. Insurance works because people are risk adverse. But there's a limit to it. Say for example, there's a 1% chance of $100,000 in damages occuring per year to an individual.
People would rather pay $1000 a year for 100 years, than risk getting hit with that $100,000 all at once. It's how people are. In fact, because they are risk adverse, they'd even consider paying $110 or $120 a year for 100 years.
However, there's a limit to how much more they'll pay due to their fear. At an extreme example, they won't pay $100,000 per year for insurance for a risk that's 1% per year of being hit with $100,000. That makes no sense.
99.9% of the people won't pay $50,000 a year for that policy. And most of them won't pay $20,000 a year for it. Which, is what my top example was before. Pay $20,000 to avoid a 1% risk of $100,000.....
4.
In regards to premium costs by state...
http://www.ahipresearch.org/statedata.html
http://www.ahipresearch.org/PDFs/StateData/StateDataNewJersey.pdf
I'd be skeptical of that E-Insurance data. Dropping in data for a 60 year old male living in Trenton still gave an individual premium under the average premium in NJ according to the other data.
Also, note, Premiums you pay depend HEAVILY on the state you're in.
@Brian
Even if this piecemeal bill passes, insurance companies can STILL charge people different rates based on age, lifestyle, etc. Just not so much that the sickest are priced out of the market. How do you not get that?
There's no shame in not understanding what insurance is, and there's no shame in not understanding what socialism is. But instead of flaunting your ignorance on these threads, maybe you should educate yourself.
I like pie. Anyone here like pie? I mandate that there be pie for everyone....
How come I don't have any pie?
Here, I've changed my example. Same concept. Doesn't matter if costs are "real" or "expected".
Me and 9 friends agree to buy insurance. 5 of us are age 60, 5 are age 20. When the bill comes, we institute a "mandate" that all contribute equally. Is that insurance? Is that fair?
Btw, Pat understands this far better than you. The reason we buy insurance is because people are risk averse.....ie people would rather not lose $10 than gain $10. Therefore, insurers can charge our expected costs, and we'll still pay.
Bart DePalma said...
Applying a term reserved for those who suck on another's ...
~~~~~~~~~~
TMI, plus, as per usual, your argument is inane.
Suffice it to say, the name originated w/the right wing blogosphere/talk radio/fox news yahoos.
The poll question I'd like to see is -
Would you favor or oppose expanding Medicare so it includes all Americans?
Simple, straightforward.
I'm glad BdP is here. He displays so well the conservative attitude of simply not giving a shit. I don't have to wonder if my impression is accurate -- he proudly confirms it every day.
The gods provide us with conservatives so we have people we can feel morally superior to with a clear conscience.
Brian--
I assume you despise Medicare, then? That's even worse than your hypothetical scenario; it's more like the elderly folks (who have incurred more of the expenses) walk out and leave the young-un's to pick up the check.
The idea of the young subsidizing the old, the healthy subsidizing the sick, is the nature of health insurance. If we each paid our expected costs, a young healthy male (like myself, thankfully) would pay maybe a hundred dollars a year for a premium, while someone with cancer would pay a hundred thousand dollars easily. Instead I pay more into the system than my expected costs because while I might save money with your dream scenario now, I would hate to have to deal with it should I get sick.
Jake-
Given I work in insurance, I'm 99%sure I understand it better than Persuter. But, I'll try not to be like you and him going around accusing people of ignorance when you have no idea.
Anyway, liberals are obsessed with insurance its clear. In spite of the individual market being like 10% of total costs--they think the evil insurance companies are all to blame. I guess thats a sign of how insulated from doctor costs we are--since noone complains about them. Cause noone actually pays a doctor bill.
@Hunter:
You said: It's that the nearly universal argument against mandates (people are forced to buy in even if they don't want to) is equally valid against single payer..
This is the favorite strawman tactic of the private insurance mandate proponents cloaking themselves in single payer rhetoric. "Single payer is a mandate too!" Duh. Every progressive arguing for single payer understands that it will be mandated and paid for via a payroll tax.
We're not upset that it's a mandate. We're upset that it's to buy a product from a private corporation. One with nebulous guarantees that we'll get the service we're paying for but absolute guarantees that the government will come after us if we don't buy it.
@brian
The reason we buy insurance is because people are risk averse.....ie people would rather not lose $10 than gain $10. Therefore, insurers can charge our expected costs, and we'll still pay.
Not quite. We buy insurance because we weigh the small chance of a catastrophic accident that will cause us to decide between death and bankruptcy against the much smaller monthly expediture.
You pretend that everyone can just set aside maybe $10 a week, and pay whatever happens to come up.
Bull.
Ask someone to break your leg, then go pay for the emergency room, the X-rays, the cast, taking the cast off, the doctors, the painkillers etc etc out of your pocket. Do it tomorrow, and report back.
Better : go get cancer. Pay for your own chemo. Or have a heart attack, and buy yourself a bypass. Or get yourself trapped beneath a flipped over car. Write us a report on the costs. Do not use a dime of insurance payments.
I appreciate today's post. It's very important for everyone to understand how easily a polls results change with the phrasing of the questions... I bet as a pollster other people's polling makes you nuts!!!
Blogger brian said...
"...they think the evil insurance companies are all to blame."
To quote a famous conservative: "there you go again!"
Like many of the more conservative trolls here, you really seem to have never met a progressive or liberal person. Do you truly believe that we are motivated by a hatred of "evil insurance compaines" and nothing else? Have you really not considered that people are motivated to fix the health care system because they, uh...let's say believe that no one should be denied coverage for the care they need.
i know it sounds crazy, but just try to imagine a world where people act because of real motivations, and not just the fantasy motivations that you ascribe to them.
Fair point though, that I don't know whether or not you truly understand insurance. I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you're saying rather that you're misrepresenting the concept to fit into your political view, so much the better.
@Donna
We're not upset that it's a mandate. We're upset that it's to buy a product from a private corporation.
Bingo.
Here's a thought.
After a couple of years of teh individual mandate, people might be willing to accept universal single-payer -- because, in theory, they're the same, the difference being that single payer is both more dependable and more efficient. And perhaps politicians won't be so afraid of the idea. And maybe the public will begin to really press for it.
Individual mandates is a step toward what we really want.
RE: senate bill regs for insurers:
pre-existing conditions NTE 3:1 vs 'healthy' individuals
others such as smokers & over-weight 'unhealthy conditions' NTE 1.5:1 policy premium
OK, maybe the 'non-healthy' could be rationalized - but a 3:1 policy premium ratio for writing a 'pre-existing condition' basically guarantees that NO NEW POLICIES will be written - or all pre-existings will be maxed out & punted further down the road
plus the reg on rescission control is a complete joke with no teeth
HOW IS THAT REAL REFORM ??? 3:1 ??? WTF !!!
Persuter said: Going on ehealthinsurance.com and looking up plans for a 25-year-old male in New Jersey, there are numerous plans that cost less than that, and, with only two exceptions, all the plans that cost more than that are zero-deductible plans.
That's because the cheaper plans are going put you out a buttload of money out of pocket before their coverage kicks in. And those high deductible catastrophic plans are notorious for finding ways to dick you around without paying.
That, you pedantic ass, is why so many young and not-so-young people in shitty jobs with no benefits forego insurance. It makes no sense whatsoever to shell out premiums and then $5K for "coverage" that tells you "oh, sorry, your policy doesn't cover that particular thing" when you need it. And you want to force people to buy this crap?
Yep, Medicare is the worst program in history. Generational theft. I honestly think its going to bankrupt us.
Again, you're not understanding true insurance. You want it to be socialism, and thats fine. The thing to note is it can make the "users" very insulated from costs...which leads to overutilizing. Back to my resteraunt example, if I know 3 water drinkers are paying, I'm ordering filet mignon.
@brian
Back to my resteraunt example, if I know 3 water drinkers are paying, I'm ordering filet mignon.
That's because you're a conservative, and you don't give a shit about anyone else.
"Generational theft."
Unless you think that laws requiring parents care for there children are a form of "generational theft", I don't see how you can call Medicare theft. It merely eliminates freeloaders who would rather not be obliged to the generation that fed, clothed, protected and educated them. I suppose you'd also like to eliminate public education.
Brian,
It may not be the "Worst program in History", and wasn't meant to be generational theft, anymore than Social Security was.
However, it is true, that many on the left don't seem to have a firm grasp of what over utilization means, and how that's affected price increases.
BRIAN
wrong - apparently you have no knowledge of anyone on MediCare [I do here in FL]
MediCare combined with SS are THE very best programs - ask any working class senior about this wonderful safety net.
BOTH need better funding mechanisms & not sure how/why a billionaire like Trump should get either SS or medicare payments [there needs to be a means test for benefits]
and the private sector can still take part as suplemental insurance & retirement plans can be purchased
but the basic SAFETY NET is actually what has kept our nation from going bankrupt in the past by controling costs that the retired poor could never afford if left to the private market with no income
MEDICARE FOR ALL - we would/should pay for such a basic guarnateed access to real health CARE that is also GOOD health care
I love it -- conservatives trashing Medicare. Give them a chance, they'll oppose Social Security, Medicaid, and public schools, too.
Really, we don't have to worry about the Dems losing any seats next year. Just encourage the Republicans to talk about what they really think, and we're bound to pick up at least a dozen.
There is another factor for insurance. Insurance guarantees that care will be available.
Let's say you have an accident at home. If the ambulance picks you up, maybe they'll get paid. If they get you to a hospital, maybe the hospital gets paid. If enough "young healthy" people are getting into accidents and not paying the bills, then no more ambulances, and no more ERs.
And in fact that's what's happening. ERs are closing thoughout the country. Ambulances will be the next to go. Pretty soon, unless you have some sort of membership, if you're in an accident nobody's going to help you. Forget medical INSURANCE, it's medical CARE that will die.
That's what this mandate is for. It might make make the insurance companies a little more or a little less. You might pay a little more (or in some cases, a little less). But it virtually guarantees that the hospital will get paid. Which means the ER gets to stay open.
That's the dirty little secret about health insurance. People who don't have it don't pay- they just walk out of the hospital and thumb their noses at the doctors. Half the bankruptcies in this country are from medical bills- that's money that hospitals are effectively bilked out of. What are the hospitals supposed to do? Overcharge everybody else? Insurance companies won't pay for it. Even those that are charity based still have to get some money. The reason that most city hospitals are falling apart isn't because somebody's run off with the money. It's because not enough people are paying their bills. Net result is going to be no ERs.
I like having hospitals. Even if I don't need them right now, I like them being available, like fire departments. And I'm willing to pay for that privilege.
People who don't buy health insurance aren't paying for that privilege. They expect me to pay for their hospital.
THAT is what Obama and company need to explain to people.
@shrinkers
"The poll question I'd like to see is - Would you favor or oppose expanding Medicare so it includes all Americans?"
A poll asking related questions was released in February.
http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org/resources/PollMemo.pdf
"Federal leaders are considering expanding Medicare to all Americans, so that people have another option besides private health insurance or an HMO. Do you favor or oppose the creation of this type of public health plan option?"
64% favor 28% oppose 8% unsure
"There is proposed federal legislation that gives any American, regardless of age, the option of joining the Medicare program. Americans who choose this option would share the cost of the coverage with their employer through increased Medicare payroll deductions, instead of paying private health insurance premiums. Do you favor or oppose this legislation?"
60% favor 27% oppose 12% unsure
@Matthew H
THAT is what Obama and company need to explain to people.
Right you are. but I don't expect the "explain" to happen now. Right now, what matters isn't selling the public so much as getting a bill enacted. Selling the public happens during campaign season. It happened last year, it'll happen again next year. In between, it's about the inside-the-beltway politics.
I mean no criticism of that -- it is how representative democracy works. We elect people to do the nation's business, and every two years we re-assess how they did. Yeah, we can maybe influence them in between, with letter-writing campaigns and such. But the main report card is delivered at the ballot box.
Right now, the pressures and other games are being played very quickly, behind a few doors in Washington. The lines have already been drawn, and I don't think anyone needs to waste time selling the public at the moment. Next campaign season, the big guns come out, on who did what and what it meant and who tried to screw us by being obstructionist.
Excellent, Spud Hamster, thank you.
More ammunition for the future, once we get the principle of individual mandates in place. I bet people will start really pushing for a choice of The Real Thing.
Matthew,
I understand your logic. There are a couple alterations that need to be made.
1. "People who don't have it don't pay". True, they don't. They declare bankrupcy. And if they do have it, they're hit with a massive charge. Also, those people who "don't have it"...don't get "optional" surgury.
However, the Hospitals DO overcharge everyone else to make up for the losses.
2. The other problem with the Mandate, is what do you do to people who won't "pay"? The Penalties being proposed aren't enough. You HAVE to buy a $5000 policy, and if you don't we'll tax you $500? But you can get a policy any time you want, regardless of pre-existing conditions?
Some people...will pay the fine, and be happy. And when they get sick, will just jump on a plan.
Matthew H said: That's the dirty little secret about health insurance. People who don't have it don't pay- they just walk out of the hospital and thumb their noses at the doctors. Half the bankruptcies in this country are from medical bills- that's money that hospitals are effectively bilked out of.
Not true. Most uninsured people don't walk away from their ER bills. They get put on payment plans and hassled by collectors for years if they can't make their payments. And most of the bankruptcies caused by medical bills happen to people who HAVE insurance, so there goes that argument. I'm so sick of these bogus "Welfare Queen" type memes about the uninsured. The uninsured are NOT responsible for the high costs of health care. The most generous estimates have the uninsured adding 8% to the average premium. 8% isn't nothing but what about the other 92%.
And FFS, can people stop with the explaining how insurance works to argue for mandates. WE KNOW HOW THE FUCK INSURANCE WORKS ALREADY. We also know that the for-profit health insurance system DOESN'T WORK to deliver actual health care to a lot of people.
Mett-
I get the mandate helping the "deadbeats" issue. However, you run back to "do they not have insurance because the people with insurance drove up costs" . Or like the resteraunt, "does the water drinker not pay because the other guy is eating filet mignon". It critical that the "users" don't overuse, or the "non-users" will try to avoid any mandates.
@Pat
Some people...will pay the fine, and be happy. And when they get sick, will just jump on a plan.
Exactly. And that's why the fine should be much higher, enough to cover the actual cost of the premiums. But conservatives would howl at that, wouldn't they?
Better yet -- get rid of the idea of "premiums" and "fines" -- just have a progressive tax (payroll tax for employees, maybe a surcharge for people who get most of their income through capitol gains) and just put the whole country on Medicare.
But Republicans would hate that, too. Which is why we don't have it.
Yet.
@brian
It critical that the "users" don't overuse, or the "non-users" will try to avoid any mandates.
But how do you decide who is "overusing"? If anyone suggests a mechanism for that, the nutjobs scream about "death panels".
Hunter- the "this bill or the highway" is a false dichotomy. This bill has not passed yet. Even if a public option is off the table (which, with reconciliation, it may not be), increased subsidies and/or removing the mandate would make this plan an acceptable short-term solution to expand coverage(although in the long term, it still does nothing to solve the very real problems with the cost of health care in this country).
As far as single-payer being a "mandate," single payer would be paid for with progressive taxation, not a forced buy-in. In other words, it's wealth redistribution from the wealthy, whereas the current plan is wealth redistribution from the healthy.
@Donna
I'm so sick of these bogus "Welfare Queen" type memes about the uninsured.
Excellent observation. Thank you. You are absolutely correct.
If you don't pay, you get hounded. And most medical bankruptcies are people who actually have insurance, and reasonably expected the insurance company to pay for their expenses -- since the people have been honestly and responsibly paying for coverage for exactly such a situation.
Insurance companies don't really add any value to the system. We need to take them out of the equation. Unfortunately, it will take a few steps to do it.
Right, because once the insurance companies have everyone locked into their overpriced policies, they're gonna allow a single payer system. Jesus, the stupidity on thisboard is amazing.
I actually think Medicare will be abolished within 25 years. Heck, it wouldn't be enacted now if it didn't exist. People know its killing us. Some ballsy prez will finally just be frank with America in a few years, when costs get even worse. Heck, GWB went after SS. It'll take some educating of the people though. People are still in denial that its sustainable though.
@R. Graham
You're right. but unfortunately, the current makeup of the Senate, plus the arcane rules that govern reconciliation, mean that we may not be able to get all the way there in one step. And if this bill dies, we're sunk for another generation (which is what the Republicants are counting on).
I'm all for pushing as hard as we can, as far as we can. And then coming back again next year, after we pick up a couple more Senate seats, and improving on it.
Whatever bill gets enacted, do not imagine this is the end of it -- unless we weaken the Democratic Party so much that we lose control of Congress.
@brian
I actually think Medicare will be abolished within 25 years.
Keep saying that. Please. It'll insure the Republicans loose seats next year.
Brian,
Medicare's a Third rail. It "Can't" be abolished. If it was, what would the senior citizens do for health care? What about the 3.4% they'd been paying for so long??
That's why the Democrats are pushing so hard for some "Reform" or "Single Payer"...
If it went through, it'd create enough dependence that it would be very hard politically to revoke.
You "Might" be able to slowly weaken Medicare by, oh, reducing funding to the point where most hospitals wouldn't take it, and people would have to buy "co-insurance" to get timely access to care.
@Brian
Your restaurant analogy is flawed. First, you do realize that there actually are all-you-can-eat restaurants, don't you? Second, if you go to such a restaurant, knowing that you can eat all you want for a flat fee, why would you limit yourself to a glass of water? On the other hand, there is a limit to what people can eat (and to how often the vast majority of people want to go to a doctor's appt.). Third, although some all-you-can-eat restaurants are fairly well stocked, I've yet to come by one that serves Filet Mignon; that's why there are supplemental steakhouses (or supplemental insurance for those on Medicare). Really, you need to find another analogy, this one's just not working for you.
bart... how interesting that you would picture me as a "hairy, man-hating dyke." In fact I am a trim, fit, youngish-but-slightly graying grandma with a whole crew of adorable little grandbabies who follow me around like ducklings.
But if anybody ever wants to see a righty show his true colors, just call him a teabagger. Funny how that name-calling thing works, right, Bart? When you're the one on the receiving end, you get REALLY ugly.
I realize you're splitting costs, rather than paying a flat fee, but in the end it works out the same. People take what they need and everyone pays the same regardless of how much they take.
@Pat
You "Might" be able to slowly weaken Medicare by, oh, reducing funding to the point where most hospitals wouldn't take it, and people would have to buy "co-insurance" to get timely access to care.
Yes, that is what the Republicans have been trying to do for years. That's the reason we have Medicare "Advantage" accounts now. That's why Medicare has been underfunded for years now, and why it needs fixing. Republicans hate Medicare, because they don't give a shit about anyone but themselves -- and they imagine in their short-sighted idiocy that they'll never need assistance.
Bush tried to do that with Social Security too, tried to "privatize" it by encouraging people to put money into stocks instead. Fortunately, he failed -- when the market tanked, seniors would have been completely wiped out.
@brian
"Heck, it wouldn't be enacted now if it didn't exist. People know its killing us."
You should take a look at a few polls on the subject (some are posted in this very thread) and stop living in an insular fantasy world.
@filistro --
If I wasn't married, I'd be dating you. Just sayin'.
shrinkers:
:-)
modestybi above asks: "Can someone please explain why this is a more reasonable plan than allowing me to buy into Medicare?"
And the answer is that no one has to do that, no one even has to try, because it isn't the choice with which you are presented. Sure, someone waved candy in front of your face, but you still can't have it, so no one has to explain why the candy isn't better than food your mother put on your plate.
Why is this so difficult for people? Why do they think adulthood makes anything and everything achievable, if they simply reuse the arguments that they made, unsuccessfully, as a child? What kind of citizen conducts himself or herself in that way?
@ Shrinkers...
LOL... you apparently missed the reference to stripping funding from Medicare and the current political environment.
It appears Nate is a member of the "get something passed with health care reform in the title" club.
Some people would be in a serious bind if they were forced to pay 8% to a corporation.
If you can't understand that, you should go back to baseball stats.
@Pat
You promised to ignore me.
Yep, you have to phase it out. Current people get it, then some staggered refund of your taxes into an HSA account maybe. Leave a catastrophic piece.
Like I said, GWB went after SS and it was "untouchable". McCain proposed eliminating health tax deduction, which I thought was a rail. People know the truth, they just need a non-pussy leader to take them there. I actually would like to see a poll on phasing out Medicare.
I don't see how the activists can reject the idea of another 30 million having access to affordable health insurance, millions having the doughnut hole filled and no more rejection due to pre-existing conditions and the tons of Medicare reform in there.
I can't.
How many millions of people will be made worse off because of this bill?
It isn't rocket science.
This bill will hurt people.
@brian
McCain proposed eliminating health tax deduction, which I thought was a rail.
And McCain lost. There's a reason for that. He admitted he knew nothing about economics. This suggestion of his was one indication thereof.
@brian
at this point, I realize you're just a jokester trying to get a rise out of people, but...
REPOST
http://www.ConsumerWatchdog.org/resources/PollMemo.pdf
"Federal leaders are considering expanding Medicare to all Americans, so that people have another option besides private health insurance or an HMO. Do you favor or oppose the creation of this type of public health plan option?"
64% favor 28% oppose 8% unsure
"There is proposed federal legislation that gives any American, regardless of age, the option of joining the Medicare program. Americans who choose this option would share the cost of the coverage with their employer through increased Medicare payroll deductions, instead of paying private health insurance premiums. Do you favor or oppose this legislation?"
60% favor 27% oppose 12% unsure
Since people favor expanding Medicare by a 2 to 1 margin, I doubt very much a poll would find that Americans want to eliminate it.
Jeez... I go away for two hours to watch a chubby granddaughter skate in the "Baby Snowflakes" program (so cute it makes your face ache)... and I come back to find an EXPLOSION of new developments. GOP filibustering troop funding, Smokin' Joe has skipped town when he's needed for a vote, (what vote?!) a snowstorm is shutting down teh capital, a vital vote is being held on Sunday.. what's going on?
Has anybody got an updated tick-tock on all this? What's the Sunday vote about? I think I'll need to drink quite a lot if I intend to get any sleep this weekend.
What a relief it will be when this sucker has safely passed.
My Gods.
The Republicans are filibustering funding for American troops?
And they claim to support our troops overseas?
Their hypocrisy and dishonesty and partisan gamesplaying knows no bounds of shame.
Well, these were the same people who underfunded VA hospitals, after all.
I can't wait for the next campaign cycle.
Bart DePalma said...
Applying a term reserved for those who suck on another's nut sack to a political opponent is juvenile and offensive in the extreme
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the teabagger is the one whose nutsack is sucked on, not the opposite.
My favorite Senator, Al Franken, has earned a writeup by Fox Noise. It has their typical partisan slant, but Oh My Gods am I proud of him. Minnesota is proud of him.
Go, Al!
Spud--no, dead serious.
You're taking my steak example too literally. I'm only pointing out that if 3 500 lb slobs asked an anorexic to split a dinner bill evenly, the anorexic would likely get shafted. The anorexic=20 yr old in health insurance.
Why is their no public option then. These polls make no sense.
Hah, here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUEypqnjufw
McCain needs to get over his absurd love affair with Lieberman. You picked Palin, bub, get over it.
For the record, Rachel discovered the first pop culture use of the term 'teabagger' in some obscure movie from 1998. Fox Noise propagated its use during the astroturf rebellion.
While we liberals didn't coin the term, we do delight in using it. You guys completely set us up.
brian, you're a teabagger. Sounds like you could use a good teabaggin' about now.
@brian
"Why is their no public option then"
Are you kidding me? Who do you think pays the brunt of a typical Senators' campaign costs? Who pays for their little jaunts here and there? Who wines and dines them and doles out jobs to their wives and children?
You really aren't that naive, are you? Much of the Senate is bought and paid for. Dick Dubin has said as much.
btw, anorexics and 500 lb slobs are rather rare and are most likely not long for this world.
I suspect McCain and Lieberman have been teabagging.
@beavis - There are, sad to say, a lot of tonedeaf mofos among progressives. These are the same people who think they'll sell "immigration reform" by telling Americans that immigrants do jobs they won't do.
On another message board I frequent a woman complained that she and her husband would be hard-pressed to afford the $700 a month the mandatory insurance would cost her and her husband, and that they wouldn't qualify for subsidies because their income "looked good on paper", though they were up to their eyeballs in bills. Somebody actually responded with something like "Well, people will have to rearrange their priorities!"
(facepalm)
Middle class couple (and frankly, I don't care how upper-middle they are) being presented with a brand new $700 a month bill, when they can barely keep up with the ones they have. $700. This shit has political suicide written all over it. And spare me the guilt trip.
Uni, and youre a shithead. Go fuck yourself.
@R. Graham
Thanks for that link. Priceless!
But if anybody ever wants to see a righty show his true colors, just call him a teabagger. Funny how that name-calling thing works, right, Bart? When you're the one on the receiving end, you get REALLY ugly.
It's not what they call you, it's what you respond to. Also, the more you respond to it, the more people call you it.
@Donna:
Exactly. That's been my whole beef with the mandate from the start.
@shrinkers:
No prob. The more clips of Lieberman I see, the more realistic comparisons between him and Droopy the Dog seem.
"...Really? Ohh-kay."
"Middle class couple (and frankly, I don't care how upper-middle they are) being presented with a brand new $700 a month bill, when they can barely keep up with the ones they have. $700. This shit has political suicide written all over it. And spare me the guilt trip."
I want a system that offers affordable health insurance to everyone so that no one has to make a choice like this. But that has been taken off the table by Republicans and conservative Democrats. I firmly believe (as a progressive) that, despite how mucked up the system is now, it is a social obligation (especially of those who are fortunate enough to be healthy) to purchase health insurance. This middle class couple without insurance: if one of them gets seriously sick, will they not go to the ER and likely pass their expenses onto those of us who have health insurance? How is that fair? If they stay healthy will they mail the rest of us a check to cover the fact that we're covering their butts?
I'm fully sympathetic to the fact that we have a system that screws people out of access to affordable health insurance (and that's if you're healthy...God help you if you're sick and uninsured). My rage is with the system. But for me an individual mandate is a no-brainer. I would be happy to allow people to willingly go uninsured IF I had an assurance that, if they get sick, they would pay every cent of their medical costs. I am confident that very few people who willingly go uninsured are really able to do that.
Hit post on my last comment before I finished. I meant to say spare me the guilt trip about "poor people" and preexisting conditions. I personally know a lot of people, especially self-employed, who are drowning in debt though they look middle class on paper. People who are in serious danger of losing their homes, or who have already walked away from them. This mandate only looks at your income, not your mortgage (beyond the interest maybe), credit cards, student loans, child care or elder care expenses, college tuition for your kids, auto insurance, or any of your other bills. If you make $44k as an individual or $88k as a family of four you have an extra 8 to 10% of your income lying around for private health extortion...uh...I mean insurance premiums. And that's just the premiums. I strongly suspect that most of the people who support mandates have good insurance provided through their work and have no idea how much it really costs. If you are a well-paid person who gets your insurance subsidized by your employer, you really have no business telling other people what premiums are "affordable" to them.
It's one thing to be anti-rich, but attacking middle class people is just bone stupid on the part of progressives.
Franken joined the Senate in July after winning an eight-month political and legal battle with Republican Norm Coleman over an election that nearly ended in a tie.
I love the Fox spin machine. They just can't bring themselves to say that Coleman l-l-luuu...Coleman l-l-luuu...he l-l-luuu. Coleman almost won.
I don't think there is such a thing in politics as a tie. What would happen? Double overtime? Coleman serves on even weeks and Franken on odd weeks?
I just loved the look on Franken's face when he shut down Lieberman. He may have toned down the comedy but that was a mischievous look as if to say, 'I'm about to tell this windbag to shut up'. Classic.
Also, don't forget that mandatory premiums, subsidized or not, is money that's not being circulated in an economy that's 70% based on consumer spending. Are the CBO scores taking that into account?
@Donna
Also, don't forget that mandatory premiums, subsidized or not, is money that's not being circulated in an economy
This effect would also be true if it was payroll deductions for a single-payer plan.
With fewer medical bankruptcies, and lower premiums in general because the hospitals don't have to overcharge for non-paying patients, the ill effects should be canceled out.
Nelson's wishes granted?
http://tinyurl.com/yadbwtz
Well, reading between the lines, it looks like Reid has caved to Nelson: it looks like the abortion language will look more like Stupak than not and there is probably going to be a state opt out provision for the new Medicade rules.
Will progressives still support this bill if this is the way it comes down.
@Spud Hamster
Will progressives still support this bill if this is the way it comes down.
The real question is whether the Senate will pass it. We can strip the Stupak language after we get more progressives in the Senate starting in 2011.
Wait. Did someone just argue that money being spent on health care isn't being put into the economy?
@shrinkers
"The real question is whether the Senate will pass it."
Yes. I should have been more explicit.
Will progressives in the Senate still support the bill?
Without them the bill will fail.
I think it's far from a given that there will be more progressives in the Senate in 2011. (I don't see the disastrous rout that some see coming but unless the economy bounces back like a superball, I doubt we'll have many if any pickups next year).
@mcc
Wait. Did someone just argue that money being spent on health care isn't being put into the economy?
Yes. You know, conservatives always argue that money that goes to the gummint does no good at all.
@justin- "This middle class couple without insurance: if one of them gets seriously sick, will they not go to the ER and likely pass their expenses onto those of us who have health insurance? How is that fair? If they stay healthy will they mail the rest of us a check to cover the fact that we're covering their butts?
Like I said, they'll be put on a payment plan and they'll pay that bill along with all the rest. If they can't keep up, they'll be hounded by collectors and their credit will be ruined. Contrary to the popular Welfare Queen myth of the uninsured, most of them do not walk away from their ER bills. If they get cancer or some other kind of long-term major illness they usually exhaust their assets and then go on Medicaid. And let's not forget that middle class people WITH insurance are going bankrupt in droves and, guess what, medical bills can be discharged in bankruptcy.
So far, the bill in the Senate has kept the individual mandate (the only aspect that seems to be absolutely non-negotiable) but tossed the public option, the elimination of annual caps, and the Medicare buy in for 55-64 year olds. It allows rating for age and preexisting conditions. It also allows for recission in cases of "fraud or misrepresentation". Gee, I wonder what that's all about. The Senate bill will allow insurers to avoid state regulations and sell across state lines. Sen. Ben Nelson (whom Nate has yet to criticize for threatening to scuttle the bill over abortion though he has plenty to say about the "batshit crazy" left for being critical of the bill) wants states to be able to opt out of the Medicaid expansion.
But hey, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Thank God it has the Almighty Mandate!
Me and 9 friends agree to buy insurance. 5 of us are age 60, 5 are age 20. When the bill comes, we institute a "mandate" that all contribute equally. Is that insurance? Is that fair?
YES, that IS insurance. If you and nine other people get together and purchase insurance in the United States, say as a company, you will purchase group insurance, under which you will all pay the same rate. That is absolutely the case.
I KNOW I have linked you to this before but I will do it again:
for example, in the United States, often all employees of an employer receiving health insurance coverage pay the same premium amount for the same coverage regardless of their age or other factors
Now, take a moment. Think about it. You predicted that something would be one way. It is in fact, in the real world, usually the exact opposite. That's because you don't know what you're talking about. The idea of calculating a common rate for a large risk pool is not socialism - it is common practice in the insurance industry.
Is it good for young people? No. But it isn't socialism.
Nate!
Cursed with logic.
That'll teach you to go to to a mini school...U of Chi
Jeez
@Persuter
Is it good for young people?
It is good for young people. Because they will grow up in a world in which they will have medical care as they age.
@Donna
You're beginning to sound like a concern troll. You gave it away when you implied that insurance payments are taken out of the economy.
brian said...
Uni, and youre a shithead. Go fuck yourself.
~~~~~~~~~~
hmm, it's always best to ignore a post you don't like rather than use profanity.
just sayin'
Yeah, I just argued that money spent on health insurance isn't being put in the consumer economy. It will not be going to restaurants or movies or grocery stores as it might have before.
Really, I don't understand why this is such an outrageous statement. I thought most progressives understood that more money in the hands of working and middle class people means more money in the consumer economy. It's part of the reason we support progressive taxes and oppose regressive ones. Even with the subsidies and the Medicaid expansion (now thrown in doubt by Nelson), this health reform means that a good number of working and middle class people will have LESS discretionary income to spend at the mall, at least in the short term.
I baited him shiloh. I knew he'd go there.
I assure you I'm no concern troll, shrinkers. A lot of my visceral reaction to this HCR stems from 10 years in the military, where I saw defense contractor shenanigans up close and in person. Handing private corporations government subsidies with a guarantee of profits is asking to be ripped off. This is looking more and more like a "cost plus no-bid" contract with a handful of insurance companies.
@Donna
Yeah, I just argued that money spent on health insurance isn't being put in the consumer economy. It will not be going to restaurants or movies or grocery stores as it might have before.
When you pay premiums for insurance, it goes to three places:
1) salaries of people who work in the insurance industry,
2) salaries of people who work in health care (when someone files a claim that gets paid), or
3) investments to keep the insurance company solvent, so that eventually they can pay claims with it.
1) and 2) obviously go back into the consumer economy. 3) eventually does as well.
So you're wrong.
Mr. Universe said...
~~~~~~~~~~
Pretty sure homophobe Charles and 538's former #1 troll are no longer here because everyone was ignoring their baiting er posts.
Baiting can be very easy to ignore or not ...
On the bright side at least he didn't threaten to kill you! ;)
I had a to laugh when he said he was in insurance. I'd just deleted something along the lines of this:
Too funny. I was tempted to ask if you'd ever been employed after reading some of your earlier comments.
You a teabagger, Brian?
Pecker was a letdown after Hairspray, Cry-Baby and Serial Mom.
Mr U... brian gets very very testy about being called a teabagger. He even threatens to hit girls and stuff.
I can't imagine why, when teabaggers go around looking like this.
Now, if we called them T-baggers, there might be cause for complaint. But what's wrong with teabags? Michael Steele has just designed his own, with a plaintive little logo on them even... (Listen To ME!) the teabags whimper...
There's a poem in there somewhere...
Group insurance is insurance/socialism. Your employer "socializes" the cost-true. You don't see this for auto/life/home insurance. We expect that if we are younger or get a ticket--our auto rates will be higher. There's no lobby to combine young and old risks on auto. Nah, screw young people.
Unfortunatly, Congress subsizides group health ins., so we expect "socialized" rates. Course, I partly left my last compnay cuz they had rich benefits that as a younger person, I wasn't using but was losing salary too. As costs go up, my guess is younger people will do this more.
Socializing the cost (govt or emplyr) may be needed, however it leads to a detachment from costs, that I've repeatadly cited examples of. Unless we address this point, any scheme will be unsustainable long term.
Filistro-
You're really a woman? What kind of foul mouth woman calls people teabagger? So much for fairer sex.
What a lucky man your hubby is.
And, no you call me a teabagger, you're taking shit right back. I'm not standing for it.
Yes MCC, once money is put into health care, it just disapears. Poof. If you read the bill, it's on page 147.
"All revenues collected by this act shall be removed from the economy. It shall not be used for providing medical care or salaries. Any profits made due to this act may not be re-invested, but must immediately be put in a matress."
Read the bill
@donna
Also, don't forget that mandatory premiums, subsidized or not, is money that's not being circulated in an economy that's 70% based on consumer spending.
Mandatory premiums are spent by people consuming insurance. They no longer have the choice to use that money for other things, but should have a choice of insurer and of the most appropriate policy for their needs.
The money isn't destroyed, and it's the movement, not the storage of it that drives the economy.
I'm biased on this topic though. I'm in Australia where we've got Medicare that applies to everyone. There's optional private insurance available in addition for coverage of extras like dental work, physio, choice of beds in some hospitals, etc).
I've paid for it in my tax (and an additional 1% income tax because I earn more than the average and I'm not a veteran or pensioner or some other things I forget right now). I've also got private insurance, which I've never claimed anything on. I've used my Medicare to see GPs for free - which has prevented me from getting sicker. Apart from being born in one, I've never been to a hospital except as a visitor. I'm very happy that I've been paying for something that I haven't needed to use yet.
Anyway the point of this was to point out a way that Australia got people to take out private insurance in addition to Medicare - there are Govt rebates of 30% of the insurance costs if you get (and keep) full insurance from before your 30th birthday. If you start at 31, then it's 29% and reducing 1% each year. This sort of thing only works because we already have laws preventing insurers from giving no-claim bonuses or from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions. They're allowed to charge more based on your likelihood of having a pre-existing condition due to age (and a few other things I think). There are a large choice of insurers and they make a tidy profit.
Our system isn't perfect, but in terms of creating the most benefit to the most people and still looking after the most vulnerable in the society, it's about 1000% better than what you guys are arguing about, and 100000% better than what you've got now.
Put something in place that is better than what you have now. You can improve it later. For example by creating something like our Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme - look it up, I've gone on too long here already.
brian, I call you a teabagger because you belong to a group that wears teabags on their hats, has their own printed teabags, encourages their members to send teabags to politicians, and has organized rallies designed to dump thousands of teabags on public property (which they were then required to remove because the dumping violated city bylaws.)
What should we call you? Bubblegummers? Candycaners? You're all about teabags! You're teabaggers!
Now, we are a print media here. We don't speak, we spell. If I called you a T-bagger you would definitely have cause for complaint. As it is, you got nuthin'.
Anyhow, better get used to it, sweetie. Having unwisely exposed your extreme sensitivity to the term, I suspect you're going to hear a LOT about teabags from now on. :-)
Can we please retire the cliche "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". It's obnoxious.
There are several well known psych. experiments that show that human beings are prone to reject unfair outcomes, even if it results in a personal loss. It's human nature not to let other people treat you in a way that seems unfair. I assume it's because once you give an inch, you're opponent will want to take a mile.
The best example I can think of for this type of behavior is illustrated by an experiment that generally includes two participants in each iteration (the game has been played in a wide variety of culture settings and has been repeated many times; it's generally known as the Ultimatum Game). In the experiment, one participate is given 100 dollars, for example, and told to divide it between him or herself and the second participant. The second participant is allowed to accept or reject the deal, in which case neither participant gets anything.
Surprisingly, in many settings, the one who divides the money offers the second person a 50/50 or 60/40 split. Moreover, when offers of 20% or less are made, more often than not the offer is rejected, even though it's free money that's being rejected.
That's human nature. Fairness is important. Not only that there are physiological and hormonal changes that take place when someone treats you unfairly (there are also changes when they treat you well).
I think that's what is happening with this bill, at least in part. Many progressives see that they are getting very little, while the Liebermans and Nelsons of the Senate are getting whatever they want. Making the process even more unfair, in the eyes of many progressives, is the fact that a supermajority is required to pass anything.
I don't think this bill is very good. It's full of loopholes. And private insurers have shown little spine for constraining exorbitant costs imposed by Pharma, Hospitals and others.
A Medicare option for all could be passed through reconciliation. It's popular and it would certainly effect the budget. It also has the virtue of being relatively easy to understand (I know it would be extremely unlikely to get the 50 votes it needs; I'm just saying).
I can dream.
Filistro-
And I call you a cunt...cuz...well you are one.
And thanks for bringing us all down to fraternity boy level here. Again, rather than being sexist, I'd expect much better from the fairer sex. I hope you like cunt as much as I like teabagger....er the word I mean.
bian... all the thousands of words you've typed here (some of them even reasonably well-informed and cogent) defending your various right-wing positions, and with a couple of stupid posts you make yourself utterly irrelevant.
What a shame.
Those of you opposed to this bill... how are you going to react when it passes? Suppose the merged bills come out of conference just a tiny bit better than the Senate bill... are you going to stay mad after it's an actual fact, or do you think you'll just gnash your teeth for a while and then get back on board?
This is a tough one to call.
"Can we please retire the cliche "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". It's obnoxious. "
Second. No one is arguing for the perfect bill.
In reference to your other points Spud, this isn't a case of people acting irrationally in order to get a more fair result.
The rules of this game are pretty simple:
The Democrats will adopt the policies of anyone who they think is willing to shoot down the legislation with a filibuster [e.g. Lieberman, Nelson, Stupak, Snowe, etc., etc.]
So rationally, then best way for progressives to get their policies in the bill is to threaten to shoot down the legislation.
But the Democrats strategy in this case is to simply call their bluff and apply pressure against them to back down.
So what you have is not The Ultimatum Game, but a simple game of Chicken.
Note in my previous post I meant "those of you on the left."
Of course the righties are going to stay mad.
They're ALWAYS mad.
@brian
I don't get it. Just ignore the word. Going berserk is just going to lead to more people using the word you don't like. Believe me I've been called worse in many threads in which I've posted. It's meaningless. It's laughable.
You know:
I've been paying on Social Security for over 30 years, and have yet to get one dime back!
I've been paying for medicare for over 30 years, and have yet to get one dime back!
The point is, yes, if you are young, you may spend more for insurance while you or young, but, funny thing, most young people turn old sometime. So while you are young, you may have to spend more than the acutarial tables say you have to. But when you get old, you're going to be paying lower than you should, when your rates might be 3 times higher, and can less afford it.
shma
I agree with you, mostly. I don't like the bill, as I've said. In chicken, if no one flinches, everyone loses. In the Ultimatum Game, someone who offers very little is basically playing Chicken, daring you to turn down the pittance you're being offered.
@shrinker - You're essentially arguing a "trickle down" effect of mandating health insurance premiums. You may be right, to an extent, in the long-term, but you are still arguing for taking money out of the consumer economy in the short term. I do agree with you that money going to insurance company employee salaries and direct expenditures on health care is somewhat better than giving rich people tax cuts with the hope that they will create jobs with them at some vague and unspecified point in the future. But that's not saying much for it. The billions we're shoveling to Halliburton and KB&R are paying American salaries too. And you could argue that they're doing an important function.
Spud said: Believe me I've been called worse in many threads in which I've posted.
I don't get it, Spud. Why would anybody call you names? You seem like a very rational, reasonable kind of person.... and not at all a yanker of chains.
filistro
"Suppose the merged bills come out of conference just a tiny bit better than the Senate bill".
First, the Senate bill has already gotten worse today. Second, if it does improve either Joe or Ben will filibuster the bill.
filistro
It really depends on what site I'm posting at and on what the subject is that I'm addressing. It's not a big deal.
Those of you opposed to this bill... how are you going to react when it passes? Suppose the merged bills come out of conference just a tiny bit better than the Senate bill... are you going to stay mad after it's an actual fact, or do you think you'll just gnash your teeth for a while and then get back on board?
This is a tough one to call.
If it passes without any of the reforms I've outlined earlier in this thread, I'll be pretty pissed, but I'll get over it. I'm covered under my dad's employer-based plan until I graduate, and hopefully by 2014 when this kicks in I'll have employer-provided coverage of my own.
I'm not going to do anything stupid like refuse to vote, but in 2012 I very well might donate money to Lieberman's opponent in the primary (that goes for Nelson, too, whenever he's up for reelection).
I'll also keep pushing for the addition of a public option/medicare expansion/single payer, and possibly for the amending of this bill before it takes effect, but honestly, if we don't do that stuff now it's unlikely it'll happen for a very long time.
Spud... all kinds of things can happen in conference. I think we're still (God help us) in the early stages of this adventure. It's maddening. I keep wanting to push the Fast Forward button and see what happens.
filistro
"I keep wanting to push the Fast Forward button and see what happens".
Absolutely. The waiting IS the hardest part.
Post a Comment