AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@okie,

okie, this is why nobody takes you seriously...

"And the difference is Bush was clearly telling the truth"

clearly how. why. where. sheesh.

if you want debate and dialogue, yer gonna have to step it up a notch or ten...

(or are you just a cheerleader?)

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

I think lots of people take me seriously, the ones that count anyway. In regard to Bush, he was talking about Social Security running out of money unless it was reformed. Do you doubt that? I hope not. Contrast with Obama, he makes all kinds of claims, like he won't sign a bill that adds one dime to the deficit. Thats just one of dozens of claims he makes, that he expects us to swallow, and its a joke frankly. And oh, to start with, he talks about "his plan," but he has no plan as far as we know or can read, currently, does he. I just don't take him seriously, he twists the truth, but he tries to stay in generalities, but his generalities are even pretty far fetched. Rocky, I am not a voice crying in the wilderness, there are tens of millions of us, and a few hundred thousand or million or two were in D.C this past weekend. And for every one in D.C., there are dozens more that did not or could not go. That includes me.

3 Replies

@okie,

did you watch the protests, and the really over the top, ugly signs.

do you support win at all costs, and say whatever hateful thing you think will get coverage for the cause?

0 Replies

@okie,

okie, Your memory always fails you; Bush made it sound that social security was on the brink of bankruptcy, but the OMB said social security was safe until 2042.

Can't you remember anything?

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

I think lots of people take me seriously, the ones that count anyway.

T
K

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

David Walker has also been on MSNBC and CNBC. He appeared on both shows within days of my email to Joe Scarborough. I started a thread here hoping to discuss the points he made in the PGPF video but it didn't go very far. It's an important discussion to have.

0 Replies

@JamesMorrison,

JamesMorrison wrote:

Would you be willing to have different levels of health care? If so how would this be determined? Would those who have health care be able to really keep it if they chose? Can you tolerate rationing? Can you envision a plan w/o rationing? We have rationing now, not only in health care but just about any good or service one can imagine (other than utilities). Presently that rationing is done by price. If one can envision a commodity or service that is not rationed by price what determines how it is distributed?

I must agree that HC insurance availability should be attached to an individual/family and not his place of employment. The role for government here is in tax credits. How about being able to buy HC insurance on an interstate level? Guaranteed Issue and Community Rating have to be addressed as does the third rail (for democrats at least) of health care Tort Reform. This of course implies a correct pricing of HC via the private sector.
Perhaps we can keep a system where 85% of those that like their HC can really keep it and just fix those parts that would make it better and include those that want it at a decent price.

Of course there will be those who can afford to purchase additional, private coverage over whatever base level is determined is affordable for all. I liken it to liability insurance on vehicles --- everyone is required by law to have liability insurance (it's for the protection of the other guy) but some folks choose to purchase collision, comprehensive, rental car replacement, medical coverage, towing/road-side service, etc. The same would work for local/individual/public HC. A base level of HC is "required" for all. That level includes preventative and catastrophic care (plus whatever else we can afford for everyone). These coverages are for the protection of everyone. They cover the individual from major medical expenses, they help prevent preventable diseases, and they help reduce the overall cost of HC for everyone.

Can I tolerate rationing? JM, I've been championing rationing from the outset. As I said on another thread, I sometimes think I'm the only American who believes that death is a natural consequence of being born. We can't afford to spend 26% of our HC dollars keeping people alive for an additional few months. "Death Panels" is a bit harsh, but I embrace the concept.

I'm with cyclo in that I don't see what "benefit" private insurance companies bring to the table in today's HC scenario. As with labor unions, they served a purpose in the past but that doesn't mean they continue to be an overall good thing today.

3 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Of course there will be those who can afford to purchase additional, private coverage over whatever base level is determined is affordable for all.

As long as this remains part of the plan. There are healthcare plan in other countries that do not allow people to have additional (better) insurance.

I understand that it's not being proposed here; but this should not be an understood or implied part of the plan; it needs to be explicitly spelled out.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

As long as this remains part of the plan. There are healthcare plan in other countries that do not allow people to have additional (better) insurance.

I understand that it's not being proposed here; but this should not be an understood or implied part of the plan; it needs to be explicitly spelled out.

You can get here what you want either via your mandatory health insurer or you choose a private insurer yourself. (Same/similar in most, if not all, other European countries .)

0 Replies

@JPB,

It's also a time when swine flu is expected to turn into a full blown crisis, and prevention would be worth billions of dollars more than its cost. Swine flu will impact our children; our future. It's an imperative that we protect our children - all children.

0 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Can I tolerate rationing? JM, I've been championing rationing from the outset. As I said on another thread, I sometimes think I'm the only American who believes that death is a natural consequence of being born. We can't afford to spend 26% of our HC dollars keeping people alive for an additional few months. "Death Panels" is a bit harsh, but I embrace the concept.

I'm with cyclo in that I don't see what "benefit" private insurance companies bring to the table in today's HC scenario. As with labor unions, they served a purpose in the past but that doesn't mean they continue to be an overall good thing today.

This is the crux of it. It isn't that government rationing of healthcare is necessarily any different than private rationing of healthcare by the insurance companies. If government healthcare goes into effect it will set limits on what is and is not covered, what we are and are not entitled to. Private insurance companies do the same. Your policy covers this but not that. Somebody paid by the insurance company decides if your particular procedure or whatever is covered by the policy.

There are differences however. The private insurance company cannot demand that you buy insurance somewhere or they will require you to have it with them. The insurance company cannot legally collaborate with other insurance companies as to what it will charge without violating anti trust laws, and the insurance company cannot long charge less than its costs without going bankrupt. The government can until it closes down all or most private competition. That is why it has long been a principle of conservatism that government should not have ability to compete with private enterprise. There is too much temptation to overstep authority and/or for major corruption.

As long as the insurance industry remains strong and widespread, no one company can manipulate the system to drive the others out of business. The government could make that a whole lot more competitive and bring costs down substantially simply by permitting competition across state lines. The government plan will be able to do that however while the insurance companies cannot. That alone will drive most of the smaller companies out of business and the few that will be left will cater to the most affluent. With national health insurance available to everybody, I think all the others will soon disappear.

The one single principle behind the great experiment that has been the United States is that the power is with the people and the government shall be limited in power, scope, and ability to interfere with the Constitutional, legal, civil, and unalienable rights of the people including the right for every citizen to whatever does not interfere with the rights of others. It might not be utter disaster for the goverment to have power to control and administer all healthcare in this country, but in the process we will lose still more of what has made the USA what it is and reduce us even more to the mediocrity that seems to be the goal of liberalism.

I think we all should think long and hard about that before we buy into the poorly explained, indefinite, and obscure massive program the government presumes to impose on us all.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

What value do these private insurance companies provide that requires a profit-making enterprise? I'd agree with you, fox, if we were talking about a commodity that is produced or manufactured but we're talking about a service. Fees are generated by a service provider and his/her/their fees are paid for by the insurance co/government/individual. Private enterprise rewards risk taking with profit. Fine -- I'm all over that concept. But, what risk is the insurance company taking that needs to be rewarded? NONE! They drop any high-risk individuals -- or refuse to take them on to begin with -- they ration services as if they were the one's determining need, they establish usual and customary charges, and I'm not at all convinced that there isn't collusion going on behind the scenes.

There was a day when insurance companies took on risk. Those days no longer exist, imo.

3 Replies

@JPB,

I agree. they just have enough money to broker the deals...

0 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

What value do these private insurance companies provide that requires a profit-making enterprise? I'd agree with you, fox, if we were talking about a commodity that is produced or manufactured but we're talking about a service. Fees are generated by a service provider and his/her/their fees are paid for by the insurance co/government/individual. Private enterprise rewards risk taking with profit. Fine -- I'm all over that concept. But, what risk is the insurance company taking that needs to be rewarded? NONE! They drop any high-risk individuals -- or refuse to take them on to begin with -- they ration services as if they were the one's determining need, they establish usual and customary charges, and I'm not at all convinced that there isn't collusion going on behind the scenes.

There was a day when insurance companies took on risk. Those days no longer exist, imo.

I am quite sure there is collusion going on behind the scenes; in front of them, actually. The insurance companies openly and unitedly fight any attempts at reforming them, which allows costs to continue spiraling... which increases their total profits at the same margins.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

BILLIONAIRES FOR WEALTHCARE

If we ain't broke, don't fix it.

Billionaires for Wealthcare is a grassroots network of health insurance CEOs, industry lobbyists, talk-show hosts, and others profiting off of our broken health care system.

We are not a political, religious or even particularly well-organized group. We're simple folk, thrilled profiteers pouring out of our corner offices to dance on the grave of "Change."

We'll do whatever it takes to ensure another decade where your pain is our gain. After all, when it comes to healthcare, if we ain't broke, why fix it?

BILLIONAIRES THANK TEABAGGERS FOR THEIR SUPPORT

It was a lovely day in DC as the Billionaires for Wealthcare gathered to survey our investments. After a few of our beautiful heiresses took proper tea at the Ladies Tea Party held by Americans for Prosperity, our gilded heroes headed off to greet the marchers with signs, chants and songs.

We set up our post on an elevated curb along Pennsylvania Avenue, proudly surveying the throngs we’d funded. The crowds mainly greeted us with cheers for the status quo. A few seemed confused; they were clearly in awe to be face-to-face with those who profit from their most manipulated fears.

As they passed we waved them on and serenaded them with our songs.

From our perch, your trusty billionaires thanked our hardworking teabaggers, rallying the crowd with rousing chants like “Money is freedom!”, “Freedom Works " FOR US!, “You Protest " We Profit!” and the big crowd favorite, “Bring Back Bush!!!”

http://www.billionairesforwealthcare.com/wp/wp-content/gallery/cache/4__280x_img_0858.jpg

From there we decamped and headed into the crowds toward the Capitol to mingle with those working so hard to ensure our right to raise rates and deny claims.

The crowd embraced us with their exuberant chants and signs. Ayn Rand was a favorite theme, of which we naturally approved, but some were a bit unique. Regardless, we’re proud of the teabaggers, and thrilled that they came out like good soldiers. After all, nothing says freedom like denying claims. And besides, OUR death panels turn a profit.

To close we popped some champagne, toasted our teabaggers and took our leave of the march.

Until the next rally, we remain yours in obscene wealth and the status quo "
Billionaires For Wealthcare.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

That's the conservative way: advocate for the rich - and continue to reduce their taxes as our federal deficit goes through the roof!

0 Replies

Billionaires for Wealthcare: FREE SIGNS

0 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

What value do these private insurance companies provide that requires a profit-making enterprise? I'd agree with you, fox, if we were talking about a commodity that is produced or manufactured but we're talking about a service. Fees are generated by a service provider and his/her/their fees are paid for by the insurance co/government/individual. Private enterprise rewards risk taking with profit. Fine -- I'm all over that concept. But, what risk is the insurance company taking that needs to be rewarded? NONE! They drop any high-risk individuals -- or refuse to take them on to begin with -- they ration services as if they were the one's determining need, they establish usual and customary charges, and I'm not at all convinced that there isn't collusion going on behind the scenes.

There was a day when insurance companies took on risk. Those days no longer exist, imo.

I disagree. Insurance companies are putting their capital and assets on the line every time they write a policy. A small business may pay say $4000/year in insurance premiums for work comp coverage. One injury can require the insurance company to pay that $4000 plus tenfold or a hundredfold or more. You can't tell me the insurance company is not assuming risk.

El Stud and I pay around $1,500 year for auto insurance on our cars. One small fender bender can wipe out all the premiums the insurance collected from us, and a major accident can wipe out all the premiums we will pay in a lifetime. That is not insignificant risk for the insurance company.

The average USA healthcare premium for maximum coverage for a family costs about $1,000/month. One emergency room visit by one member of the family can wipe out that month's premium. An illness or accident or surgery requiring just a few days in the hospital will easily wipe out two or three times the annual premiums. A major illness or accident can wipe out all the premiums the family will pay over a lifetime. That is not insignificant risk for the insurance company.

Because so many are dependent on the insurance company to remain solvent, who can quarrel with the insurance company turning down certain kinds of business for which there is unacceptable high risk and/or charging higher premiums for those that present much higher risk.

Most states have insurance pools or have made some sort of that kind of arrangement to provide insurance for those that present more risk than the acceptable risk that the insurance companies can safely take on.

But just as our government is not writing serous tort reform into its proposal or taking steps now to eliminate fraud and corruption from existing government programs, etc., it is also not even considering offering catastrophic insurance at an affordable cost and then letting the people arrange for their everyday needs. It won't even consider measures that would relieve the rest of us from being required to assume responsibility for the irresponsible.

Why is that do you think? Why is healthcare so much more critical than say housing or clothing or food? Why is the government presuming to require every citizen to pay for insurance for healthcare whether they want it or not, but do not require them to insure themselves for costs of other necessities of life?

2 Replies

BILLIONAIRES FOR WEALTHCARE

TALKING POINTS:

You Deserve the Healthcare you can Afford:

Healthcare is a service and those who can pay more deserve better service. For instance, if a school is burning down and my cat is stuck in a tree, the fire
department should get my cat out of the tree first because I can pay a higher premium for their time and effort.

Don’t give the government your money! We are happy to keep gouging you instead.

Government efficiency. Where’s the profit in that?

The current system works… FOR US!:

We like the current system: we get to insure the healthy and offload the sick to taxpayers.

How so? When any one of the 47 million uninsured Americans need care they go to the emergency room " at 5 times the cost of a doctor’s visit! " Taxpayers are already footing that bill nice and quietly everyday. And hospitals get to charge full market rates while we only insure wealthy, healthy customers. It’s a win-win! Well, maybe not for taxpayers…

Sick people are bad for good profits.

We’re a business. We have to cut the weak links in the chain. Sick people are those weak links.

Some people say the healthcare system is broken. But it works for us. Just like Congress.

Just imagine all of the new businesses or creative energy people would invest their time and true talents in if they weren’t chained to a job they hated just for “healthcare benefits”. My gawd, ask anyone at the country club " there are way too many nouveau-riche already!

Pre-existing conditions:

We’re happy to accept people with pre-existing conditions: health,
wealth, and youth.

Healthcare is a commodity, not a right.

You want insurance AND a house?! And you call ME greedy?

You think YOU’RE spending a lot on healthcare? Heck, we employ 6
lobbyists for every member of Congress.

Denying Claims:

We deny more claims before 8am than Medicare does all day.

Because nothing says “freedom” like denying claims.

We believe in a free market. We should be free to deny coverage at will.

Recision:

We’re hear to stand up for Freedom of Recision.

Some people might call these the real death panels, but its merely good business: we dump customers from our rolls when they become too sick to cover. Just last year three of our health care insurance companies saved $300 million by kicking out a mere 20,000 customers! And about that woman with breast cancer that President Obama mentioned? Are you trying to tell me that acne isn’t a preexisting condition to cancer? But make no mistake, people don’t want the gov’t deciding who should get care. They are happy to leave it up to us and our legions of anonymous temps using strict cost-to-profit ratios.

0 Replies

So given all that, Fox, tell me why single-payer healthcare systems in every other industrial economy run at costs per capita about half of what our system does, cover everybody high-risk or not, produce better health care metrics than the US does, cover catastrophic illnesses, and haven't gone broke in the sixty years or so they've been in existence. We now have a large sample size and a long time of operation. This is not pie-in-the-sky we're talking here. It's objective reality.They work. They work better than the US.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know