Third Party & Independents Archives

Fact Check exposes more RNC lies, distortions, and misinformation in their NEW anti-health care reform advertisement.

David,
Why the Republicans can scream no public option all the way til 2010, I do believe that the People of America realize that the Health and Medical Industry is about to undergo a major Restructuring Phase with or without their help. Because once the Doctors and Patients begin to talk about how they can use their Community First Responders to offset the harm done by the Health Insurance and Medical Industries, I do believe that those Charalatans and Vagabonds struck in the 20th Century will be shocked to find themselve out in the cold by their own greed.

Especially since Home Care Services are already designed to meet some of the needs of many Elderly and Sick Citizens. As well as Retirement Communities are becoming a real alternative to the Warehousing Mentality of the Establishment.

David-

Here’s what I never understood about Public Option. In big round numbers, a family insurance plan costs about $1,000 per month. Let’s say that the profit rate is 10% (it’s more like 4%) and there’s another 20% in inefficiencies in the system. So the government starts selling comparable insurance policies at $700 per month in an effort to drive down both. Where will the demand come from for such a plan?

Will the currently uninsured who find $1,000 per month unaffordable now elect coverage because it is now $700 per month? I doubt it without further subsidy. That’s still more than $400 per month more than the $3800 per year no insurance fine.

More than likely the demand will come from employers who will push employees on to the new public plan. That helps employers but it doesn’t necessarily help employees like me. And how does it control health care costs? Because it’s not single payer there are still other sources (government plans, private plans, patients) of income that providers can shift the costs to.

I’ve just never seen a good argument for how public option is going to help control health care cost or address the problem with the uninsured. Maybe I just don’t understand math. Single Option I understand; you’ve got the gold (all of it) so you make the rules. But unless Public Option is designed to become Single Payer then what’s the use? And I think that’s why the idea is losing support- attacking Republican criticisms of the plan is fine (some of them are out there), but how about making a case that Public Option is the best solution? That’s where the support will come from and that’s what I think is missing.

Mr. Remer wrote; “So, what conservatives and blue dog Democrats are really fighting here, is competition. Some conservatives attempt to argue tax payer subsidized programs do not constitute true competition. But, their argument falls flat, in light of the relevant logical fact that any provider (private or public) offering a lower cost alternative will constitute competition for insurance subscribers.”

BALONEY…comparing a government subsidized program to a private enterprise as being equally competitive is nonsense.

I would ask, where are the government subsidized grocery stores to bring down food costs, government subsidized energy to bring down gasoline and fuel oil costs, government subsidized auto dealerships to bring down auto and truck prices, etc. thru competition?

Your comment would ask me and others to believe that government subsidies of anything carries no cost. If that were true, would Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid be trillions in debt?

George, the profit, and administrative overhead cost increases, result in an average 13% increase in costs over the Public Option. That is significant when talking about driving down the cost of all health care insurance.

Second George, with a population of 47 million uninsured, the difference between 1000 and 700/mo. insurance premiums will make the affordable difference for millions, though certainly not the majority. Which is why a comprehensive reform plan must be in the offing.

George said: “More than likely the demand will come from employers who will push employees on to the new public plan.”

Certainly some will. But, why is that a bad thing, if it increases American business competitiveness with foreign business, thereby strengthening our economy and in turn, generating greater federal income revenues to offset deficits? Which it will.

George said: “I’ve just never seen a good argument for how public option is going to help control health care cost or address the problem with the uninsured.”

I have to agree with you here. I too have not seen the numbers that will assure zero deficits for the health care reform over the next 10 years. That said, providing a 13% discount over private insurers for the same coverage WILL lower health care costs for those in the public option, and with increasing numbers of persons moving from private to public option affordability, pressure private insurers to rein in their administrative costs and profits somewhat to competitively retain their customer base. That one is a no brainer.

It does however, address the uninsured problem, by either insuring them, or extracting from the uninsured a tax penalty which will help cover their uninsured Emergency Room costs when and if incurred at 400% insured rates.

Royal Flush said: “BALONEY…comparing a government subsidized program to a private enterprise as being equally competitive is nonsense.”

Thank you for proving my point about the argument on the Right falling flat. No one is saying they are equally competitive. That is a straw man argument. They will not be equal, which is PRECISELY why the public option will provide affordable competitive pricing to the private insurers, drawing some of their customer base away unless the private insurers ALSO lower their costs. That is price competition no matter how you cut it with all the same predictable consequences of price competition in the private sector. Most of the health insurers have a monopolistic or oligopolistic presence in their States of operation literally setting whatever price they wish. The current health care reform measures with, or without the Public Option will put an end to that, thank Buddha. Because private insurers have not operated as competitive free enterprises for a very long time. Their choice, not the governments, now requiring government intervention on behalf of the American public.

David, I don’t buy your Catch-22 scenario. Despite the Obama grassroots campaign collection agency, the bulk of the Democratic Party funds come from corporations and wealthy contributors. These contributions are down because the Democrats are supposedly bashing corporations to much.

The problem that Obama and the Democrats have is, deliver for the corporations or face the people in the next election cycle with their competition having the bulk of those corporate dollars.

Obama will sign the Health Insurance Profit Protection Act of 2009. They will follow this in 2010 with the Global Warming Energy Corp. Profit Protection Act and the Banking Reform Profit Protection Act. In 2011, it will be the U.S./Iraq Mutual Protection Treaty.

Just to be safe, they will vote yea when the Republicans introduce the Free Market Amendment to the Constitution in early 2012.

One could argue that the Blue Dogs are saving the Democratic Party from destruction by corporate means.

The only Catch-22 that I see is the one the voters have self-imposed on themselves, do we vote for the corporate D or the corporate R.

Royal Flush, the government could run Social Security, Medicare, and medicaid effeciently and with proper oversite. They just don’t do it. Proper management procedures aren’t wrapped in a vail of secrecy so, there must be some external force or some human failure that prevents the government from running government programs and agencies properly.

jlw said: “The problem that Obama and the Democrats have is, deliver for the corporations or face the people in the next election cycle with their competition having the bulk of those corporate dollars.”

That is certainly one of many problems. Alone, however, it doesn’t explain the political situation Democrats or Obama face regarding health care reform, at all. It is just on facet of a very complexly faceted issue.

Sorry, but, I don’t necessarily buy your forecasting. It may play out as you forecast, but, there are other ways and unknowns which can determine an entirely different outcome, as my probability and statistics education amply demonstrated.

I fail to see how you can logically and so casually discount the political catch-22 given Obama’s insistence that reform must drive down future health care costs backed by reams of economics research and data, and the political consequences of vetoing the Democrats bill. But, we are each free to view the situation from our own perspectives and I appreciate the fact that there are many other perspectives.

Mr. Remer believes I offer a straw man argument and then says; “They will not be equal, which is PRECISELY why the public option will provide affordable competitive pricing to the private insurers, drawing some of their customer base away unless the private insurers ALSO lower their costs.”

The public option will provide lower cost health care because of government subsidies. Who will pay for those subsidies…WE the people who aren’t on the government dole. Very simple to understand unless one believes in fairy tales. Mr. Remer conveniently avoided addressing the trillions in debt those other great federal programs, SS, Medicare and Medicaid are experiencing.

jlw suggests that SS, Medicare and Medicaid could be run efficiently with proper management. How does one run a Ponzi Scheme efficiently without eventually running out of money?

O.k. so for lunch I did a little more digging.

The average annual family premium is $13,375.

According to Who’s Playin Dot Com:

Public Plan Premiums
Premium amounts will be geographically adjusted, and set at levels that fully finance the costs of care, plus administrative costs.

Individual Affordability Credits
Here is where the government comes in to help people who can’t afford their premiums.

If an individual is eligible for the Exchange and their income is below a certain level, but they are not Medicaid eligible, they will be able to apply for affordability credits. The amount of the credit is the amount by which the premium exceeds their ability to pay. The credit is paid directly to the insurance provider, and never in the form of cash to the individual.

The credit can only be used for the basic plan offering in the first two years, but in later years it can be applied to premium plans

The credit does NOT have to be used for the public plan, but can be used to purchase coverage under any of the plans

So again David, using your 13% the Public Option premium is going to average $11,886 per year in 2009 dollars to recover at the fully funded rate. Individual affordability credits are going to have cover the difference between the no insurance penalty, $3800, and the $12k. That’s a subsidy of up to $8k per year per family and that’s a lot of dollars to invent out of program efficiencies if you want to score the program as neutral.

As to why pushing employees to the plan is a bad thing, because it’s not choice for the individual. If my HR manager pushes me to the plan because it saves him money and I didn’t want to go, then what is my choice? To find another job? Not right now I don’t.

The problem with everything that I’ve seen is that the largest two blocks of Americans, those with employer provided coverage and those with Medicare/Medicaid, don’t gain a thing and stand to lose a lot. That’s why the seniors are turning out to the town hall meetings and why a huge portion of the society, 158m in the employer system, are skeptical at best.

I want the money my employer pays for my health care put in my pocket. I will find a better solution for my family then the one I get from them. And if the public option is the best choice for me then that’s where I will spend my dollars, just like I do when I use Priority Mail over Fed X.

George wrote; “The problem with everything that I’ve seen is that the largest two blocks of Americans, those with employer provided coverage and those with Medicare/Medicaid, don’t gain a thing and stand to lose a lot. That’s why the seniors are turning out to the town hall meetings and why a huge portion of the society, 158m in the employer system, are skeptical at best.”

George…that sums it up very well. And, Mr. Remer’s premise is that all the numbers being projected for savings are accurate. Medicare and Social Security were sold to the public using false and misleading numbers regarding cost…why would this be any different?

The public has no reason to trust any politician with numbers they throw around to gain support for spending plans.

Someone above is still using the 47 million uninsured figure that even the president himself has discarded. A simple relaxation of Medicaid to cover those who don’t qualify for health care because of medical history and those who can’t afford it based upon poverty levels could be covered under Medicaid for below $30 billion per year. With the savings projected by many in congress thru elimination of waste and fraud we could actually cost this out with a profit.

Of course, this simple and affordable remedy is not attractive to those who wish to grow government and control more of our private lives. And, it won’t buy many votes.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — “Most people think they pay too much to Uncle Sam, but for some people it simply is not true.

In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Some in that group will even get additional money from the government because they qualify for refundable tax breaks.”

One would have to be brain-dead to not understand that any country with nearly one-half of the working population not contributing something in the form of taxes will not last long.

Will the last 1,000 American taxpayers please turn out the light when they leave.

Royal Flush,
With the Conservatives so concerned about the roughly 47% of households that do not make enough to owe federal income taxes, were is the Republican Plan to increase their wages to deal with the problem. For why I won’t speak for others, but an extra $30,000.00/yr sounds good even if I would have to pay 36% in taxes.

Royal Flush, what disconnected island have you been living on? We just experienced one of the deepest recessions since the Great Depression, and the total unemployment including discouraged job seekers is above 20%, more than 50% amongst younger persons.

But, its temporary!

Isn’t it conservatives who love to say its cyclical so don’t do anything about it? Yet here you are, suggesting or implying those in government should be doing something about this, as if this is their fault alone.

Fact is, it was everyone’s fault, from the voters who voted Republican in 2000, 2002, and 2004 to the Democrats who knew what was happening and didn’t make a big enough stink about it, until 2006. Clinton’s fault for signing the GLB Act, and Greenspan’s fault for buying into Bush’s ‘ownership society’ even if you can’t afford to own.

Royal Flush offered the following propaganda from the Right: “The public option will provide lower cost health care because of government subsidies.”

Pure bullpucky, which denies the evidenced facts that the public option would not pass profits or high administrative costs on to their rate payers, dollar for dollar, providing lower health insurance premiums for the same coverage to their premium payers.

The subsidization of insurance for those in poverty or close to it, is the heart and soul of Democratic compassion for those less fortunate which the Right just won’t extend their pitifully small hearts toward. That would constitute being generous without getting credit, and the Right doesn’t believe in doing things without profiting in some way or another, Right?

Pitiful propaganda you are pandering there, which ignores the evidence and facts just like the Right’s position on global climate change, and the Ownership Society, and laissez faire toward Wall Street and the Banks, and Credit Rating Agencies, and SEC, which created the worst recession since the Great Depression.

And now the Right is going to have to choke on the reality that the Democrats actually made this worst recession a very short lived one, not only in the U.S., but globally, by following through on Hank Paulson’s and Ben Bernanke’s initial rescue efforts in a very non-partisan pragmatic way.

George said: “Individual affordability credits are going to have cover the difference between the no insurance penalty, $3800, and the $12k. That’s a subsidy of up to $8k per year per family and that’s a lot of dollars to invent out of program efficiencies if you want to score the program as neutral.”

Your numbers are correct on the subsidized difference, EXCEPT that the CBO is now scoring this 10 years out at a total cost of 239 billion in deficits, or 23.9 billion per year, assuming only a modest GDP over those 10 years. And yes, cost cutting, tax increases will be required and are in the bills, and (note this carefully), not all those uninsured will become insured requiring the subsidy. This is not universal single payer health care reform being proposed.

But, everyone who wants to be insured and needs to be insured, can be insured under the Public Option, which of course, conservatives don’t want to see that happen. The elephant in the room is that conservatives fear the public option’s success and overwhelming approval by the public, which is precisely what Grassley, Enzi, Boehner and others have said. Pretty sad that the Right has become ALL ABOUT preventing the American people from having what they want from their government and tax dollars. The public wants out of Afghanistan, the Right says NO. The public wants to be assured of having health insurance, the Right says NO WAY. Pretty scary for the disorganized Right when their opposition party is poised to provide the public with more of what they want from government than the Right was willing to even talk about when in power, let alone legislate.

Latest poll I heard reported 2 days ago has 65% now approving of the public option as the way to go. Probably a distortedly high end poll, but, when the questions are asked objectively across polls and the averages taken, the majority of Americans believe the Public Option is the better way to go than leaving citizens vulnerable to 400+ percent increases in Health Insurer’s profits as the number of uninsured in America grew and premiums increased 3 times faster than the rate of inflation, under Republican governance over the last 8 years.

Mr. Remer writes; “The subsidization of insurance for those in poverty or close to it, is the heart and soul of Democratic compassion for those less fortunate which the Right just won’t extend their pitifully small hearts toward.”

That’s a falsehood if applied to what I wrote; “A simple relaxation of Medicaid to cover those who don’t qualify for health care because of medical history and those who can’t afford it based upon poverty levels could be covered under Medicaid for below $30 billion per year. With the savings projected by many in congress thru elimination of waste and fraud we could actually cost this out with a profit.”

Mr. Remer doesn’t address this solution for reasons of his own. I believe that many on the liberal left don’t like the simple, workable, cost effective solution because it won’t grow government enough and won’t add votes for them at the ballot box.

Mr. Remer adds; “Pitiful propaganda you are pandering there…” If it is pitiful and propaganda why not address what I wrote. Is what I wrote not true, that being; “Medicare and Social Security were sold to the public using false and misleading numbers regarding cost…why would this be any different?”

And, please show me examples of a Government subsidy that has no cost to someone. If we use Medicare as an example, is it not true that my coverage is being subsidized by working taxpayers? Sure, it’s a great bargain for me, but that doesn’t mean that my savings aren’t paid for by someone else.

This is what the problem is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI

Royal Flush, your comment is pedantic, devoid of the overarching context. Health care reform is needed PRIMARILY because the nation and her people are going to bankrupt over the current system in future years. Hence, the primary objective of health care reform is to drive down the devastating health care inflation that is consuming ever more of our GDP, and taxing all of our other economic endeavors.

Sure, spreading Medicare out as an Umbrella will accommodate a more universal coverage, but, would do nothing to drive down health care inflation which is the foremost issue to be resolved by health care reform. This too, is why the Republican plan based on tort reform is wholly and completely devoid of any rational plan to drive down health care costs. Tort reform completely ignores all the other drivers behind health care inflation like administrative costs, duplicative testing and procedures, profitability rising at 3 times the GDP growth rate, and exclusion of the uninsured from premium paying which, if they are sick or injured puts them in the ER on the public rate payer’s dollars. It took Democrats to even get the GOP to come over to the idea of competition across state lines, adamantly opposed by Republicans in the past.

What you refer to as simple, is just that. Far too simple to even begin to address the complex nature of health care inflation in this country. But, then, the GOP has been all about simple, hasn’t it? As with: “You are for us or against us”. Or, ‘Debt and deficits are necessary when enacted by Republicans but, cataclysmic if undertaken by Democrats.’ And my favorite: ‘Saving the nation’s banking system was an abuse and waste of tax dollars’, despite its arrest of our plunge into a global depression.

Yes, I appreciate the simplicity of the approach you advocate, and reject it out of hand as wholly and completely inadequate to the challenges our nation faces regarding health care inflation and lack of affordability. To profit from another’s health misfortune when the alternative to remedy their misfortune is at hand through less profit, is ethically and morally an indefensible argument. But, that is precisely what Koch (energy industry), Americans for Prosperity, and the likes of Grassley, Enzi, Boehner and others defending corporate indefensible rising corporate profits on the back of a rising population without health care insurance, are about.