Conyers scoffs at the notion of having to read the bill before voting

[fossten]

These GOP campaign ads write themselves....

During his speech at a National Press Club luncheon, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Democratic Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.), questioned the point of lawmakers reading the health care bill.

“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.
“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

If the republicans are too lazy to READ the bill before they vote, then they should forfeit their vote. What kind of crybabies are they anyway that they need to have bills read to them? Just another way for them to slam on the brakes and keep congressional efficiency low, costing us taxpayers time and money. No wonder the GOP is losing supporters each hour they clog the gears of progress. It's totally transparent that their primary reason for holding up health care reform is political, to "kill the bill" so they can "hurt Obama". They don't give a damn about the american people, who are overwhelmingly FOR health care reform. Pathetic loosers.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

http://www.drudge.com/news/123491/gop-bends-over-insurance-companies

GOP Bends Over for Insurance Companies

When GOP hucksters line up to create soundbites slamming health care reform they frequently cite "data" in a study by "the Lewin Group." And what's the Lewin Group? It's part of UnitedHealth's subsidiary Ingenix that New York's attorney general and the American Medical Assocation blasted for using skewed data to shift medical expenses from insurers to consumers. The GOP's already bent waaay over for the insurance companies. Now they want you to follow suit. Smile and don't forget to say, "Cheese!"

 

[Calabrio]

If the republicans are too lazy to READ the bill before they vote, then they should forfeit their vote. What kind of crybabies are they anyway that they need to have bills read to them? Just another way for them to slam on the brakes and keep congressional efficiency low, costing us taxpayers time and money. No wonder the GOP is losing supporters each hour they clog the gears of progress. It's totally transparent that their primary reason for holding up health care reform is political, to "kill the bill" so they can "hurt Obama". They don't give a damn about the american people, who are overwhelmingly FOR health care reform. Pathetic loosers.

Do you really not understand this issue? You've presented it in a manner that demonstrates you don't.

They don't need the bills read to them.
However, these bills are being released and voted on in such a hurried fashion that it's not possible to have read the complete bill before the vote.

Would you agree that the congress, or at least the congressional staffers, should have a reasonable amount of time to COMPLETELY read a bill- particularly ones as massive and important as the "stimulus" or "cap & trade" - before voting on it? And should they release an additional 300-400 pages of paperwork hours before the vote?

That's what's going on.
There isn't physically enough time to even read, not to mention, analyze, what these people are voting on.

And without even addressing the issue of the legislative bloat creating these massive bills, the real question related to this topic is- Why do these bills need to be rushed through in the first place? Why can't they be released and subject to public and congressional review for a few weeks before being voted on?


But I'll agree, if ANY congress person fails to read the entire bill that they are voting on, they should refrain from voting on it.
Do you agree?

 

[Calabrio]

http://www.drudge.com/news/123491/gop-bends-over-insurance-companies

Drudge RETORT (how clever ) article aside-
what was your point?

You're desire for a single payer medical system aside, what does that have to do with John Conyers publicly and indignantly saying that not only does he not read the legislation he signs, that he doesn't feel any obligation to do so, nor does he have the ability to do so either?

 

[Calabrio]

2004 interview: Obama opposing legislation "rushed through without debate."

YouTube - Shocking Hypocrisy Audio found Obama didnt like it when Bush Rushed Through Legislation

 

[fossten]

Obama doesn't even read the bills before he signs them. So I guess he should forfeit his right to do so.

 

[shagdrum]

http://www.drudge.com/news/123491/gop-bends-over-insurance-companies

GOP Bends Over for Insurance Companies

When GOP hucksters line up to create soundbites slamming health care reform they frequently cite "data" in a study by "the Lewin Group." And what's the Lewin Group? It's part of UnitedHealth's subsidiary Ingenix that New York's attorney general and the American Medical Assocation blasted for using skewed data to shift medical expenses from insurers to consumers. The GOP's already bent waaay over for the insurance companies. Now they want you to follow suit. Smile and don't forget to say, "Cheese!"

This WaPo article was cited in the "comments" section of your little "news" blurb and it made some interesting points

• "Ingenix supplied its parent company and other insurers with data that allegedly understated the "usual and customary" doctor fees that insurers use to determine how much they will reimburse consumers for out-of-network care."
• UnitedHealth agreed to settlements with the NY att. gen and the AMA for conduct going back to 1994.
• The Lewin Group wasn't aquired by Ingenix until June 2007
• And then there is this quote from the WaPo article, "Lewin Group Vice President John Sheils said his firm had nothing to do with the allegedly flawed Ingenix reimbursement data. Lewin has gone through 'a terribly difficult adjustment' since it was bought by UnitedHealth in 2007, because the corporate ownership 'does create the appearance of a conflict of interest.'"

So, it seems that whatever supposed "skewed data" lead to the settlements with the NY Att. Gen and the AMA came from programs in place long before the Lewin Group was even owned by Ingenix.

Do you have any evidence that logically links the Lewin Group to this "skewed data", or are you going to stick with cherry-picked half-truths that obfuscate the truth and the flawed "guilt by association" logic necessary for the critique you cite to be in any way credible?

Also, as Cal pointed out, what is the relevance to the issue in this thread? Or are you simply trying to smear conservatives. again.

 

[fossten]

I can tell you firsthand that the attack on Ingenix by the Attorney General of NY (Andrew Cuomo, a.k.a. Mr. Shakedown) was bogus and nothing but a moneygrab, and many of us thought UHG was foolish to settle.

Ingenix' data is perfectly legit. Of course, only those of us in the company would actually know this. The media doesn't do a good job of reporting.

This actually illustrates the point of the thread - READ THE FACTS before commenting. I guarantee Drudge hasn't read the facts of the Ingenix case, and neither has Johnny the idiot loser.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

They don't need the bills read to them.
However, these bills are being released and voted on in such a hurried fashion that it's not possible to have read the complete bill before the vote.

Would you agree that the congress, or at least the congressional staffers, should have a reasonable amount of time to COMPLETELY read a bill- particularly ones as massive and important as the "stimulus" or "cap & trade" - before voting on it? And should they release an additional 300-400 pages of paperwork hours before the vote?

That's what's going on.
There isn't physically enough time to even read, not to mention, analyze, what these people are voting on.

And without even addressing the issue of the legislative bloat creating these massive bills, the real question related to this topic is- Why do these bills need to be rushed through in the first place? Why can't they be released and subject to public and congressional review for a few weeks before being voted on?


But I'll agree, if ANY congress person fails to read the entire bill that they are voting on, they should refrain from voting on it.
Do you agree?

No argument that voting on bills needs to be based on at least an understanding of the contents. But are you attempting to convincing me that it takes longer for their staff to READ a bill than it takes to WRITE one?? Hogwash.

If the GOP were going to spend their August recess reading the bills presented, and even offering their own ideas for these bills, I'd have no problem w/ them taking that time to do so. HOWEVER, the RNC intends to instead spend over $1M / DAY to campaign against ANY health-care reform bill during their August recess. For some reason, the party of NO can't get it through their thick skulls that the status-quo is NOT working and is UNACCEPTABLE to the majority of American voters. What the GOP and the RNC plan on doing next month is just wrong and does not serve the American people.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

This WaPo article was cited in the "comments" section of your little "news" blurb and it made some interesting points

• "Ingenix supplied its parent company and other insurers with data that allegedly understated the "usual and customary" doctor fees that insurers use to determine how much they will reimburse consumers for out-of-network care."
• UnitedHealth agreed to settlements with the NY att. gen and the AMA for conduct going back to 1994.
• The Lewin Group wasn't aquired by Ingenix until June 2007
• And then there is this quote from the WaPo article, "Lewin Group Vice President John Sheils said his firm had nothing to do with the allegedly flawed Ingenix reimbursement data. Lewin has gone through 'a terribly difficult adjustment' since it was bought by UnitedHealth in 2007, because the corporate ownership 'does create the appearance of a conflict of interest.'"

So, it seems that whatever supposed "skewed data" lead to the settlements with the NY Att. Gen and the AMA came from programs in place long before the Lewin Group was even owned by Ingenix.

Do you have any evidence that logically links the Lewin Group to this "skewed data", or are you going to stick with cherry-picked half-truths that obfuscate the truth and the flawed "guilt by association" logic necessary for the critique you cite to be in any way credible?

Also, as Cal pointed out, what is the relevance to the issue in this thread? Or are you simply trying to smear conservatives. again.

Not claiming a G-B-A to the Ingenix suit. Just stating the FACT that the GOP is relying on data from a group OWNED by an insurance company. A clear conflict of interest and reveals within who's pocket the GOP is getting cozy.

This little snippet from the WaPo article says it all....

But not all of the firm's reports see the light of day. For example, a study for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association was never released, Sheils said.

"Let's just say, sometimes studies come out that don't show exactly what the client wants to see. And in those instances, they have [the] option to bury the study -- to not release it, rather," Sheils said.

Selective fact-checking?

 

[Calabrio]

No argument that voting on bills needs to be based on at least an understanding of the contents. But are you attempting to convincing me that it takes longer for their staff to READ a bill than it takes to WRITE one?? Hogwash.

No- and it takes longer for a cook to make dinner than it does for me to eat it. That doesn't mean everyone at the table knows whats in the dish.

The person who WROTE the bill, or inserted the specific provisions, may well know what they've inserted, but that doesn't mean EVERYONE else does.

Do you agree that every bill, specifically massive, important bills that institute radical fundamental change throughout the country, should be read by all the congressmen voting on it, and made public with adequate time for the public to review them?

Be the proposal Republican OR Democrat.
I'm not speaking in partisan terms here, simply the principle.

And addressing the problems associated with health care in this country does not mean simply embracing the outrageous system that the Congress is putting forth right now. "Just doing something" isn't better than doing something thoughtful, wise, and public. This isn't an issue that needs to be passed within days.

If the health care bill being proposed right now, in it's various forms, is good for the country, it should be examined, studied, challenged, and then passed or fail on it's merits.

Do you agree?

 

[shagdrum]

Not claiming a G-B-A to the Ingenix suit. Just stating the FACT that the GOP is relying on data from a group OWNED by an insurance company. A clear conflict of interest and reveals within who's pocket the GOP is getting cozy.

the "conflict of interest" argument is also a flawed, fallacious argument; specifically an ad hominem circumstantial argument.

So either way, your argument doesn't logically discredit the GOP. It is simply a red herring.

This little snippet from the WaPo article says it all....

But not all of the firm's reports see the light of day. For example, a study for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association was never released, Sheils said.

"Let's just say, sometimes studies come out that don't show exactly what the client wants to see. And in those instances, they have [the] option to bury the study -- to not release it, rather," Sheils said.​

Selective fact-checking?

Maybe somewhat selective on the part of some clients of the Lewin Group, but that doesn't mean that the studies/findings made by the Lewin Group are in any way invalid, unobjective, non-empirical or in any way lacking in credibility. And it also doesn't show that the GOP is in any way being selective in the facts it cites from the Lewin Group. All this point serves as is another red herring.

No argument that voting on bills needs to be based on at least an understanding of the contents. But are you attempting to convincing me that it takes longer for their staff to READ a bill than it takes to WRITE one?? Hogwash.

You are assuming that the same person(s) are writing the bill. The truth is that the bill is made up mostly of various amendments added by numerous representatives in various committees. NO ONE who participates in the writing of the bill knows what all is in it unless and until they go back and read the ENTIRE bill because most of the bill was NOT written by them.

 

[Icedphoenix]

No- and it takes longer for a cook to make dinner than it does for me to eat it. That doesn't mean everyone at the table knows whats in the dish.

The person who WROTE the bill, or inserted the specific provisions, may well know what they've inserted, but that doesn't mean EVERYONE else does.

Do you agree that every bill, specifically massive, important bills that institute radical fundamental change throughout the country, should be read by all the congressmen voting on it, and made public with adequate time for the public to review them?

I agree that they should know what they are voting on they are paid to do that nothing else. they are paid to read these bills and vote on them thats all and im sorry but how much is adequate time for public review i have a 50 hour week plus job so it would take me a month to read a thousand page legal document at that rate it would take years to pass laws on top of the massive dragging of feet they do now.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Do you agree that every bill, specifically massive, important bills that institute radical fundamental change throughout the country, should be read by all the congressmen voting on it, and made public with adequate time for the public to review them?

Be the proposal Republican OR Democrat.
I'm not speaking in partisan terms here, simply the principle.

And addressing the problems associated with health care in this country does not mean simply embracing the outrageous system that the Congress is putting forth right now. "Just doing something" isn't better than doing something thoughtful, wise, and public. This isn't an issue that needs to be passed within days.

If the health care bill being proposed right now, in it's various forms, is good for the country, it should be examined, studied, challenged, and then passed or fail on it's merits.

Do you agree?

I agree voters should understand the content of the bills before signing, but they have staff to do the READING and summarizing, so it should't take forever. I also agree that both sides should be CONTRIBUTING to arriving at a solution to fix the BROKEN system we have. But that is NOT what the GOP is doing! They have NO interest in changing our current health-care system one iota, "status quo" is what they want. AND they are going to great lengths to disrupt and delay all efforts to arrive and a solution for one reason and one reason only, TO STOP OBAMA AT ANY COST, EVEN IF IT MEANS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GET SCREWED IN THE PROCESS. Given this clear message from the GOP, can you honestly fault the dem's attitude of "screw 'em, get 'er done"??

Answer me this: WHY is the RNC spending $1M/day to lobby against ANY bill put forth by the democrats, even BEFORE they have one on the table? And WHY are some elected republicans putting forth the completely false argument that ANY reform will result in the elderly being "killed off by the government"??

It seems you too would like both sides of the aisle to spend some quality time to come up with an optimized solution. If so, please explain the GOP's actions and message.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Maybe somewhat selective on the part of some clients of the Lewin Group, but that doesn't mean that the studies/findings made by the Lewin Group are in any way invalid, unobjective, non-empirical or in any way lacking in credibility. And it also doesn't show that the GOP is in any way being selective in the facts it cites from the Lewin Group. All this point serves as is another red herring.

Tell you what, you show me ALL of the Lewin Group's studies including the ones that got snuffed or edited, and I'll show you Obama's birth certificate.

 

[Calabrio]

I agree voters should understand the content of the bills before signing, but they have staff to do the READING and summarizing, so it should't take forever.

Your right. But it would take more than one or two days. And it's wrong to introduce an additional three hundred plus pages just two hours before the vote.

I also agree that both sides should be CONTRIBUTING to arriving at a solution to fix the BROKEN system we have.

What part of the system is broken?

But that is NOT what the GOP is doing! They have NO interest in changing our current health-care system one iota, "status quo" is what they want.

Of course, that's just not true.

AND they are going to great lengths to disrupt and delay all efforts to arrive and a solution for one reason and one reason only, TO STOP OBAMA AT ANY COST, EVEN IF IT MEANS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GET SCREWED IN THE PROCESS. Given this clear message from the GOP, can you honestly fault the dem's attitude of "screw 'em, get 'er done"??

Absolutely.
The Democrats and Obama have been attempting to put the framework for a single-payer system into place.

Answer me this: WHY is the RNC spending $1M/day to lobby against ANY bill put forth by the democrats, even BEFORE they have one on the table?

Because the Democrats have a 60 vote majority in the Senate.
And because the Democrat leadership has put forth committee rules that make is virtually impossible for them to introduce legislation.

And WHY are some elected republicans putting forth the completely false argument that ANY reform will result in the elderly being "killed off by the government"??

Because it's not a false argument, it's the inevitable consequence associated with rationing health care.

It doesn't mean that they are going to be taken out back and shot, but it means that the limited medical resources will have to be allocated by government.

Do you give an 85 year old man expensive surgery and allocate limited resources to him to fix his broken hip, or do you just give him pain killers and a wheel chair? How many more years does he have left? How much is each year worth spending?

It seems you too would like both sides of the aisle to spend some quality time to come up with an optimized solution. If so, please explain the GOP's actions and message.

There've been a number of free market solutions proposed. You seem to think that the solution needs to be managed by government. It doesn't.

Be they medical savings accounts, different tax policies regarding medical insurance, tort reform, lifting the mandatory coverage associated with some medical policies, or simply enabling insurance customers to shop in all 50 states, instead of having 50 separate small markets.

You don't embrace a policy that will further bankrupt the country, reduce the quality of care, and that deceptively puts the framework in place to thrust a single-pay system on the country without their knowing it because you want them to "just do something."

YouTube - Obama's Hearth Care Deception - "Public Option" will end up "Single Payer", per their Plan

 

[fossten]

No- and it takes longer for a cook to make dinner than it does for me to eat it. That doesn't mean everyone at the table knows whats in the dish.

The person who WROTE the bill, or inserted the specific provisions, may well know what they've inserted, but that doesn't mean EVERYONE else does.

Do you agree that every bill, specifically massive, important bills that institute radical fundamental change throughout the country, should be read by all the congressmen voting on it, and made public with adequate time for the public to review them?

Be the proposal Republican OR Democrat.
I'm not speaking in partisan terms here, simply the principle.

And addressing the problems associated with health care in this country does not mean simply embracing the outrageous system that the Congress is putting forth right now. "Just doing something" isn't better than doing something thoughtful, wise, and public. This isn't an issue that needs to be passed within days.

If the health care bill being proposed right now, in it's various forms, is good for the country, it should be examined, studied, challenged, and then passed or fail on it's merits.

Do you agree?

NO ONE PERSON WRITES THESE BILLS. They are pieced together by multiple people, and often amendments are slipped in at the last minute.

So, YES, it takes longer for ONE CONGRESSCRITTER to read a bill than it takes ONE PERSON to write one piece.

Funny, I never heard Johnny or any other Fiberal fussing about the Dem minority in the Senate being obstructionist before 2006.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Your right. But it would take more than one or two days. And it's wrong to introduce an additional three hundred plus pages just two hours before the vote.

You got your relief, no vote until after recess. So quitcherbitchen.

What part of the system is broken?

Any system where health care premiums increase 4x faster than wages is BROKEN.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/06/fact-check-no1-health-care-costs-versus-wages.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/23/AR2008032301770.html

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

Since 1999, employment-based health insurance premiums have increased 120 percent, compared to cumulative inflation of 44 percent and cumulative wage growth of 29 percent during the same period. (ref: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Employee Health Benefits: 2008 Annual Survey. September 2008.)

Any system where health insurance company profits outstrip wages by a factor of over 14x over the last 9-10 years (428% to 29%) is BROKEN.

http://vancouver.injuryboard.com/mi...h-insurance-profits-soar.aspx?googleid=230780

http://hcfan.3cdn.net/dadd15782e627e5b75_g9m6isltl.pdf

(also see graphs below)

There are many more ways the system we have now is broken, but these are the most glaring. But then again, if you listened to someone other than hate merchants and liars like Glen Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, you’d know that.

Of course, that's just not true.

:bsflag:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/20/AR2009072002273.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...sition_to_health_care_driven_by_politics.html
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/p...t-saying-health-care-will-be-obamas-waterloo/

Continuing down the path we are on, which is where the GOP wants to lead us, will destroy us as a nation.

Absolutely.
The Democrats and Obama have been attempting to put the framework for a single-payer system into place.

BS: Yes, some dems are pushing for a single-payer system, but Obama is pushing back and has proposed only a public option, and paying a political penalty as a result of that position!

http://www.examiner.com/x-1300-Detr...r-is-hurting-Obamas-health-care-reform-agenda

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/canadian-straw-man/

Because the Democrats have a 60 vote majority in the Senate.
And because the Democrat leadership has put forth committee rules that make is virtually impossible for them to introduce legislation.

Specifics? Source?

Because it's not a false argument, it's the inevitable consequence associated with rationing health care.

It doesn't mean that they are going to be taken out back and shot, but it means that the limited medical resources will have to be allocated by government.

Do you give an 85 year old man expensive surgery and allocate limited resources to him to fix his broken hip, or do you just give him pain killers and a wheel chair? How many more years does he have left? How much is each year worth spending?

BS. I love this “inevitable consequence” crap. You must have one heck of a crystal ball.

Obama has never proposed “rationing”, nor the elimination of the availability of private insurance, so your argument is unfounded. The only thing suggested is that people are encouraged (NOT REQUIRED) to begin planning for their end-of-life through the use of such things as periodic consultations with their doctors and use of living wills. In fact, by doing so, people will AVOID the exact scenario you fear which is the government telling you when you can or cannot die. Seems the GOP, by discouraging the use of living wills, is attempting to “play GOD” so that they can continue to intervene with our freedoms like they did w/ Terry Schaivo.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/false-euthanasia-claims/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hey-claims-end-life-counseling-will-be-requi/

Additionally, the system we have now, that the GOP wants to maintain, rations health care by the fact that if you aren’t rich, you don’t get any. If you are rich enough to afford insurance now, a public option will not reduce your ability to obtain health services. Even if we would end up with a single payer system (which is NOT being proposed, thus will not happen), who will stop you from obtaining any amount of health care that you can afford?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ationing-democrat-says-its-happening-already/

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/surgery-for-seniors-vs-abortions/

If anyone is pushing for shorter life expectancy, it would be the insurance companies and their GOP friends.

http://www.ianwelsh.net/lying-liar-...-americans-die-by-slandering-canadian-system/

There've been a number of free market solutions proposed. You seem to think that the solution needs to be managed by government. It doesn't.

Be they medical savings accounts, different tax policies regarding medical insurance, tort reform, lifting the mandatory coverage associated with some medical policies, or simply enabling insurance customers to shop in all 50 states, instead of having 50 separate small markets.

You don't embrace a policy that will further bankrupt the country, reduce the quality of care, and that deceptively puts the framework in place to thrust a single-pay system on the country without their knowing it because you want them to "just do something."

Your claim of HCR “bankrupting the country” is false. Obama has stated that it must pay for itself. Pulling that off will be a challenge, but if you don’t set that as a firm goal, you’ll never achieve it.

Your claim that HCR will reduce the quality of care is false. If you have insurance now, you will be welcome to keep it. Without a public option, there will be no incentive for the insurance companies and health care providers to become efficient or improve the level of care. I find it amazing that you right-wingers will kick and scream for a “free market” that allows competition to drive innovation, then turn around and claim competition from a public option is “unfair” and will inevitably result in the destruction of the private sector. What’s wrong? Afraid of a little competition from a “government run” system? You claim the government can’t run a quality healthcare system (despite evidence to the contrary: Medicaid, VA), if that is so, what is there to be afraid of? If the government is incapable of running a good public option for health care, the public will naturally gravitate to the more efficient more cost effective system offered by the private sector, and the free-market forces are allowed to rule. Right now the consolidation of health insurers have resulted in an effective monopoly in the market place. Doesn’t that go against your conservative ideology?

 

[Calabrio]

You got your relief, no vote until after recess. So quitcherbitchen.

If you have integrity, you should be pleased as well.
Aren't we both in agreement that all of these bills should be carefully reviewed by the Representatives voting on them, REGARDLESS the party affiliation?

Quitcherbitchen? I'm not sure how to take your comment. As sarcastic but jovial or just snide and catty.

Delaying this vote isn't some kind of personal political victory. My "team" didn't score a point or keep you from crossing the ten yard line. It has to do with basic issues of liberty and government responsibility.

Any system where health care premiums increase 4x faster than wages is BROKEN.

And why are premiums increasing? What is going to be done that will prevent this from happening?

Are premiums increasing because the care is getting more expensive? Is the care getting more expensive because technology is getting better and more expensive? Are we seeing an increase in the quality of life and the quality of care associated with those increased premiums? Are the premiums impacted by the insurance costs that medical providers are forced to purchase, or because medical providers need to recommend extensive and often needless procedures to reduce their liability?

And are the increased premiums also largely shaped by simple S&D concepts? People with insurance use medical services as though there was no cost associated with it. Prices are large, people consume large amounts.

Usually, high demand leads to higher prices, and that results in a reduced demand. But because of the government and insurance middle man, prices continue to rise, but the demand remains artificially high as well. This is only made worse by the increasingly aged population.

So how does a single payer system, and lets be honest, that IS the ultimate goal here, reduce those expenses? Fixed prices?
Then we'll have increased demand and a LOWER supply.
Rationing?

"Just do something" is not the answer.

And there's no reason why we should be compelled to rush something foolish or socialistic through before the fall. Unless you want to avoid scrutiny. Unless you think you know what is best for the public and should pass it DESPITE them.

Ultimately, why do you think that the cost of medical cares isn't going to continue to rise after this "reform?"
The cost will surely continue to climb, unless we see rationing, the bill will just be read by the federal government.
And the cost will be passed on to us, or our children, or our childrens-children.... so long as it can be artificially sustained.

There are many more ways the system we have now is broken, but these are the most glaring. But then again, if you listened to someone other than hate merchants and liars like Glen Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, you’d know that.

Hate merchants? Liars? I disagree with the characterization you've just presented. But more importantly, I'm again offended by the you're pathetic effort to try to insult or belittle me.

Fact is, johnny, you're not smart enough, nor are you clever enough, to effectively do that. And despite repeated efforts to engage you honestly and candidly, despite the effort in this thread to arrive at a some kind of principled common ground, you've instead decided to make this a personal attack.

Continuing down the path we are on, which is where the GOP wants to lead us, will destroy us as a nation.

I don't care where the GOP wants to lead us. I have no loyalty to that party.
I just to move in the direction of liberty, personal responsibility, and small government.
With or without the GOP. Some in the GOP don't share this commitment.
And unfortunately, the leadership of the Democrat party have demonstrated that they want to radical remake this country into something it was not intended to be as well.

Where do you want to go, Johnny?
A single payer medical system?
A system like in France? England? Canada? Which model works for you, Johnny?
Health care rationing? Doctors fleeing after their residency for more lucrative markets? A brain drain and the loss of innovation?

Or maybe we should just honestly examine the problems and come up with free market solutions?

And if nothing else, before committing to radical change like is being proposed, let's all collectively examine and debate it.
THIS DOES NOT NEED TO BE DONE OVER NIGHT.

The so-called stimulus didn't need to be rushed through.
The cap/trade bills don't need to be rushed.
And this radical change in health care doesn't need to be rushed either.

Do you know how long the country debated the constitution before it was ratified?
Have you read the federalist and anti-federalist papers?
Should they have just written and passed that before reading it? Without public debate?
Of course, they only established the system of government... that only took six pages.
This health care bill is 1,018 pages.

BS: Yes, some dems are pushing for a single-payer system, but Obama is pushing back and has proposed only a public option, and paying a political penalty as a result of that position!

The public option basically phases itself out over time.
It's right there on page 16 of the bill, as discovered by Investor's Business Daily:

The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers. [/quote]

I know that there are some single-payer advocates upset over this, you're saying it's a political liability- but that's only because those people are either ignorant of what's going on or impatient... You and I both know that in "private" Obama surrogates are going are and explaining how this works.

That they wouldn't be able to pass a Single Payer system through in one swoop, so in classic leftist fashion, they are going to LIE to the public and pass it in a stealth way.

Specifics? Source?

Are you serious?
You're not aware of the procedural rules that Pelosi and the Democrat Majority has put in place?

I find that hard to believe. I'm inclined to think that you're just trying to find busy work for me, looking up links. A task made more difficult by the fact that MSM sources rarely report that kind of thing.

Are you doubting what I'm saying? Saying I'm wrong or lying?

here's an example:
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000009012.cfm

BS. I love this “inevitable consequence” crap. You must have one heck of a crystal ball.

You don't need a crystal ball when you've studied history, or in this case, current events. I suggest you do that.

Other countries have single payer systems and other public medical systems. Go look at the consequences. Tell me which system you like best.

Obama has never proposed “rationing”, nor the elimination of the availability of private insurance, so your argument is unfounded.

Because doing so RIGHT NOW would be politically suicidal.
However he HAS FREQUENTLY spoken of his support for a single payer system, and those in his administration and his surrogates are actively speaking about how they are setting up the frame work to slide the country into a single payer system.

So you're 100% wrong to say that my argument is unfounded. Everything that I'm saying has been and can be supported.

Additionally, the system we have now, that the GOP wants to maintain,

First of all, what system is that?

The GOP and people who don't support this Democrat/Obamacare/singlepayer madness don't necessarily want to maintain the system as it is. That is simply untrue and it's a false choice your putting forward.

It's not socialized medicine or this twisted mess we have right now.
The 1000+ fiasco isn't the ONLY possible alternative or reform that can be applied.

There are sensible options available that DON"T involve the government taking over a 6th of the economy.

If you are rich enough to afford insurance now, a public option will not reduce your ability to obtain health services. Even if we would end up with a single payer system (which is NOT being proposed, thus will not happen), who will stop you from obtaining any amount of health care that you can afford?

You're not recognizing the reality here.
IT IS GOING TO LEAD TO A SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM. That is how it's designed. Do I need to post the videos again? Did you not read the IBD article? And with that designed move to single payer, we will then encounter all of the problems associated with single payer systems.

Not to mention, how are we going to pay for it?
And the basic constitutional principle asking "Where does the federal government get the power to involve itself in the medical industry?
By the way, when the government is "paying for our medical care" - what activity will they not be able to regulate? Fatty foods, general diet, risky behavior, race car driving, sky diving, sexual practices, what? Do we have privacy when the government has all of our medical files? Do you trust them with that info?

I mean, I understand, you might be delusional enough to trust this fascist administration- but I'm not. But what about the next administration? Or the one before this one?

Do you not see how all of these programs being advocated by the political left in this country are RESTRICTING our freedom?

If anyone is pushing for shorter life expectancy, it would be the insurance companies and their GOP friends.

Seriously, you're argument has been reduce to this?
I hope you're a little embarrassed.

Your claim of HCR “bankrupting the country” is false. Obama has stated that it must pay for itself. Pulling that off will be a challenge, but if you don’t set that as a firm goal, you’ll never achieve it.

I guess you just have to have "HOPE."
But, can you explain where the money will come from to cover this huge expansion of government spending? Simple economics, and history, demonstrate that "increased efficiency" aren't going to save enough money... so where will the money come from?

Cost will have to be reduced through Rationing.
And funds will have to be raised by increasing taxes and fees.

Your claim that HCR will reduce the quality of care is false. If you have insurance now, you will be welcome to keep it.

Again, you're wrong here. The system is being set up to eliminate private insurance. I've demonstrated that already.

Without a public option, there will be no incentive for the insurance companies and health care providers to become efficient or improve the level of care.

Actually there is.
It's called a profit motive.
It's one of the reasons why the private sector is so much more productive that the public sector.

But if this is really about competition, why not pass laws that increase the competition in the private sector. Allow out of state companies to compete. Allow people in Tennessee to buy policies from companies in New York and vice versa. Stop forcing insurance companies to bundle needless, unnecessary, and excessive coverage into every package to keep the price down.

Why is the only answer nationalizing the industry?
Why do people like you always think that the answer to a problem is limited to handing over to the incompetent and corruptible federal government and, in turning over such a responsibility, handing over our liberty at the same time.

I find it amazing that you right-wingers

read: constitutionally minded capitalists.

will kick and scream for a “free market” that allows competition to drive innovation, then turn around and claim competition from a public option is “unfair” and will inevitably result in the destruction of the private sector. What’s wrong? Afraid of a little competition from a “government run” system?

The government doesn't compete in a free market system because it's subsidized by TAX MONEY. It also makes decisions based on political expediency. You're fundamental understanding of economics is pathetic and it's on display again.

And just as importantly- the bill regulates the private industry out of existence. Read the damn bill... or at least read the article I mentioned. Or talk to the administration surrogates who will tell you- the goal of the proposed medical reform is to move the country to a single payer system.

YouTube - Obama on single payer health insurance

Do you think Obama abandoned this principle?
And don't you think that he, and the people he's surrounded by, are cunning and thoughtful enough to orchestrate this to achieve their end goal?

You claim the government can’t run a quality healthcare system (despite evidence to the contrary: Medicaid, VA),

Are you kidding me?
I would use those two examples to demonstrate the governments inability to run a quality health care system.

The VA system is only responsible for a FRACTION of the number of people that a public system would include. And Medicaid is going bankrupt.

if that is so, what is there to be afraid of? If the government is incapable of running a good public option for health care, the public will naturally gravitate to the more efficient more cost effective system offered by the private sector, and the free-market forces are allowed to rule. Right now the consolidation of health insurers have resulted in an effective monopoly in the market place. Doesn’t that go against your conservative ideology?

You're making the mistake of presuming that this system will encourage competition. It doesn't.

You're making the mistake of believing that consumers will actually have choice in perpetuity. They won't.

If you honestly believe that competition and choice are designed into the system being proposed, then you're truly been mislead. And that was their political intention.

A single payer solution would not be accepted by the public. To get around that, and to avoid that debate, they're putting the frame work in place and disguising it. It'll take a few years, but this proposed health care reform is designed to radically change the system and implement a single payer system in the coming future.

I think we need fundamental changes to the way we pay for health care in this country. The systems that are in place right now are largely the result of the private sector reactions to bad government policy.

I've stated before, there are a number of steps that can be taken to fix this. And noting that this is a federalist system, individual states are certainly able to engage in bold reforms to their medical systems. It doesn't necessarily need to be undertaken by the federal government.

But we need to refuse the false choice that being presented-
it's not Obama/Pelosi care or the status quo.
all solutions do not need to come from the federal government.
And it does not need to be rushed through without adequate review, debate, and revisions.

 

[fossten]

^^^^Once again, a diamond clear example of talking points shredded by reason and facts.

Not that Johnny will bother to read any of it.

But thanks Cal, you've done a good job of laying out the argument for the rest of us.

And PWNING Johnny in the process.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Are premiums increasing because the care is getting more expensive? Is the care getting more expensive because technology is getting better and more expensive? Are we seeing an increase in the quality of life and the quality of care associated with those increased premiums?

You just can’t seem to connect the dots.

As I’ve shown above, Health insurance PROFITS for the 10 largest insurers averaged an increase of 428% from ’00 to ’07.

As I’ve shown above, insurance PREMIMUMS increased 120% over approximately the same timeframe from ’99 to ’07.

Meanwhile, Heath care EXPENDATURES by private insurance increased only 59% over the same time period (’00-’07).

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf

Another way to look at this is the Medical Loss Ratio:

http://www.pwc.com/us/en/healthcare/publications/popups/medical-loss-ratio.jhtml
(also see graph below)

http://gnunews.take88.com/medical-loss-ratio/

Bank in the early ’90s, Potter said, “Ninety-five cents out of every dollar … was used by the insurance companies to pay claims. Last year, it was down just slightly above 80 percent.”

More: http://www.pnhp.org/news/2006/march/medicalloss_ratios_.php

The bottom line: Premiums increased at a FASTER rate than COSTS since the beginning of this century. Where do you think that excess revenue went? INTO THE POCKETS of the INSURERS as PROFITS.

There is no dispute that COSTS have increased, and if PREMIMUMS increased at the same rate (or less), no one would be upset. However, “increased costs” has been a convenient excuse for the insurers to jack up their profits. I have NO PROBLEM with any company making a profit, but to jack-up their profit margins by lowering their Medical Loss Ratios WHILE REDUCING coverage is despicable. Is it a coincidence that most of this highway robbery has occurred under BuSh’s and the GOP-controlled congress’ watch?

WRT the quality of health care in the US, we rank 50th in life expectancy (longest would be 1st):

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

In infant mortality rates, the US is 150th of 224 (lowest rate would be 224th):

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

Yet we spend more per capita on health care than any other country.

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm

So not only is your argument misleading, this is more proof that we in the US are NOT getting our money’s worth.

Hate merchants? Liars? I disagree with the characterization you've just presented.

I’m not surprised you disagree with those factual descriptions of those clowns, but YOU DID link to a video to Beck and have on numerous occasions supported their views. So it’s easy to conclude you are one of their sheeple. It has been well documented how they spew hate and spread lies, but that is another topic for another thread.

The public option basically phases itself out over time.
It's right there on page 16 of the bill, as discovered by Investor's Business Daily:

Dude, you’ve been duped by that IBD article:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m.../private-health-insurance-page-16-house-bill/

We read the section of the bill to which Investor's Business Daily referred, as well as a summary of the legislation provided by the House Ways and Means committee. While the quotation is correct, it's taken out of context.

Individual private health insurance means coverage that someone buys on his or her own from a private company. In other words, it's for people who can't get coverage through work or some other group, and the rates tend to be much higher.

Under the House bill, companies that offer insurance to individuals will do it through an exchange, where the government sets minimum standards for coverage. The new regulations require insurance companies to accept people even if they have previously existing conditions and to provide a minimum level of benefits, among other things.

To be sure we were reading the bill correctly, we turned to an independent health care analyst at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. The foundation has analyzed the major health care proposals, including those of the Republicans, providing point-by-point analysis .

Jennifer Tolbert, the foundation's principal policy analyst, told us that Page 16 doesn't outlaw private insurance. "There will be individual policies available, but people will buy those policies through the national health insurance exchange," she said.

The House bill allows for existing policies to be grandfathered in, so that people who currently have individual health insurance policies will not lose coverage. The line the editorial refers to is a clause that says the health insurance companies cannot enroll new people into the old plans.

The IDB editorial has caught the attention of some of the bill's most direct supporters. Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who is guiding the legislation through Congress, wrote a letter to the publication saying the editorial was "factually incorrect and highly misleading."

The conservative Heritage Foundation also said the editorial misread the legislation, writing on its Foundry blog, "So IDB is wrong: individual health insurance will not be outlawed." Heritage believes that the new regulations will be so onerous as to drive private insurance out of business "which is effectively the same thing." But that is a substantially different argument than what the editorial said.

I’m not advocating single payer system either, it smacks of monopoly. But I’m not believing the fear-mongers that a “private option” will get phased out as you claim. If the final bill provided a public option while guaranteeing private insurance can’t get “phased out” over time like you claim it will, would you accept having a public option?

Are you serious?
You're not aware of the procedural rules that Pelosi and the Democrat Majority has put in place?

Excuse me for not reading every line of every bill passed by our congress.
While you have a point on increased hurdles for the minority party, seems like these new rules were put into place to prevent abuse and probably would not have been required had the GOP not exploited this MTR with their shenanigans in the past:

http://www.majorityleader.gov/docUploads/MTRFactSheet010509.pdf

And this certainly won’t PREVENT the GOP from making constructive contributions to the process. So your excuse is weak. But again, we are further digressing from the topic.

By the way, when the government is "paying for our medical care" - what activity will they not be able to regulate? Fatty foods, general diet, risky behavior, race car driving, sky diving, sexual practices, what? Do we have privacy when the government has all of our medical files? Do you trust them with that info?

I mean, I understand, you might be delusional enough to trust this fascist administration- but I'm not. But what about the next administration? Or the one before this one?

Do you not see how all of these programs being advocated by the political left in this country are RESTRICTING our freedom?

More false “big brother” scare tactics. Where was this alarmism when BuSh was directing the NSA to invade our privacy with his warrant-less wiretapping policies? Your faux concerns ring hollow.

But, can you explain where the money will come from to cover this huge expansion of government spending? Simple economics, and history, demonstrate that "increased efficiency" aren't going to save enough money... so where will the money come from?

A good start would be cutting out the middle-man, the consumer raping insurance companies, and allowing them the power to cut into their own huge profit margins to stay competitive.

Again, you're wrong here. The system is being set up to eliminate private insurance. I've demonstrated that already.

Your “demonstration” flopped (see above).

This is what Obama is proposing:

http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/Obama_Health_Care_Reform_Proposal.pdf

Creation of insurance pooling mechanisms:

- Create a National Health Insurance Exchange through which individuals could purchase the public plan or qualified private insurance plans.

- Require participating insurers to: offer coverage on a guaranteed issue basis; charge a fair and stable premium that is not rated on the basis of health status; and meet standards for quality and efficiency.

- Require plans of participating insurers to offer coverage at least as generous as the new public plan.

- Exchange would evaluate plans and make differences among them transparent.

Actually there is.
It's called a profit motive.
It's one of the reasons why the private sector is so much more productive that the public sector.

OK, you’ve lost it here. As I’ve already demonstrated, the health-care industry (insurers and providers) have had the free reign of “profit motive” for decades and where has it gotten us WRT improved care or efficiency? NOWHERE! All that has increased is the insurer’s PROFITS while the patients’ ROI has decreased.

You are dead WRONG that “profit motive” is what is missing. “Profit motive” has been present in the health care industry forever and it has FAILED at providing consumers with high-value services. What is missing is COMPETITION with a public option or the heavy hand of regulation. I’d prefer the public option and let the market forces of competition play-out. I can’t believe you’d be worried that the little old insurance industry would crumble against the competition presented by a public option. If the private sector will be “so much more productive than the public sector” as you claim, then your worries are false.

But if this is really about competition, why not pass laws that increase the competition in the private sector. Allow out of state companies to compete. Allow people in Tennessee to buy policies from companies in New York and vice versa.

Seems like too little too late, and like replacing a complex system w/ one that is even more complex for the consumer. Right now most policies cover only certain providers within a local network. Are you suggesting I be able to buy insurance from 3 states away and then TRAVEL there for care? How would that be regulated? By the states, or the Fed? How is that going to address those who have lost insurance and can’t afford it? The only way that’ll work will be to require policies to cover ANY care provider. How do you expect to get the insurers to do that? If you can propose a plan that is simpler and more efficient, I’d be all ears. However, you’d have to show how 50 little bureaucracies will be more effective than one big one. In fact, this sounds eerily similar to Obama’s proposed National Health Insurance Exchange.
HSAs have also been around for a long time. If those are supposed to be so effective, why haven’t those worked their miracles by now?

The government doesn't compete in a free market system because it's subsidized by TAX MONEY.

And what do you call the tax exclusion for employer provided health insurance? Health insurance is already subsidized by our tax money.

Are you kidding me?
I would use those two examples to demonstrate the governments inability to run a quality health care system.

Wrong: VA Outranks Private Sector in Health Care Patient Satisfaction

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=14560

And Medicaid is going bankrupt.

And why is Medicaid/care going bankrupt? Funding has not kept pace with the same cost increases that have affected the private sector. Gee, I wonder when that started happening? (see graph at end)

So the GOP held White House and Congress castrated the funding of Medicaid/care resulting in sending it towards bankruptcy and now they hold it up as an example of a failed government run health care. How convenient.
Yet when given the opportunity to kill Medicare, not one GOP leader voted to kill it. So it must not be so bad after all.

http://weiner.house.gov/news_display.aspx?id=1334

And noting that this is a federalist system, individual states are certainly able to engage in bold reforms to their medical systems. It doesn't necessarily need to be undertaken by the federal government.

Don’t the individual states regulate the insurance companies and policies offered in their states NOW? How do you hope to get 50 different state governments to agree on a “standardized” process & packaging for offering insurance across state lines without some central guidance? Leaving this up to the individual states will only prolong the reform process and entangle it with more bureaucracy, incompatible systems and complexity for the consumer to navigate.

But we need to refuse the false choice that being presented-
it's not Obama/Pelosi care or the status quo.
all solutions do not need to come from the federal government.
And it does not need to be rushed through without adequate review, debate, and revisions.

Again, the message being shouted at the top of the GOP/conservative lungs is “Stop Obamacare” with the stated goal of killing ANY health care bill to score a political win. The message being heard from the GOP/conservatives is NOT the offering of ideas and solutions to formulate a bipartisan bill. This is NOT a MSM thing, the GOP leadership is saying this:

"If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo. It will break him," - South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint

In retrospect, I too am glad the vote was delayed until after the recess. Not only will more discussion on the topic get accomplished, but Obama has also given the GOP as much ammunition as they need to shoot themselves in their foot. All the lies, distortions and misinformation will be allowed percolate to the surface so that they can be roundly debunked, AND the perpetrators of these lies will be exposed so that voting Americans can see what fools they are. The GOP is shooting themselves in the foot by allowing their extremists’ loud opposition drown-out the few voices of reason who are legitimately working towards a bi-partisan solution.

 

[MonsterMark]

The federal "public" option is a trojan horse.

The Obama administration and his media supporters have already admitted that if you choose the "public" option and can't afford the premiums, the government will make those premium payments for you.

Just a transfer of wealth scheme.

Johnny, do you plan on signing up for the public option right out of the gate?

Be honest lest your hypocrisy showeth.