The Glade 4.0

Has the current bill changed in that once you lose your current private insurance, you can't go back (except for the conveniently grandfathered in union thugs) to another private insurance and you're forced onto the government plan? I fail to see how that creates any sort of competition. The health care proponents need to stop pretending like they want competition. If they truly did, they'd start by letting private insurance cross state lines.

_________________
The Dude abides.

More well poisoning. "Union Thugs". You know, for being champions of rational, level headed discourse, you guys sure do miss a lot of crap like that.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Problem is though, the people *won't* have the same choices as congress.

They keep theirs, we lose ours and have to go on the government medicare plan thing.

You talk about this "Public Option"... which in reality won't be an "Option" at all.

I'll reiterate. I do not want public health care. Do. Not. Want. For the government to *force* me to be on a plan of care that is substandard to what I already have, and will more than likely cost me more money in the form of taxes...

That's just unacceptable.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I dont want a socialized system either. How about this as an alternative, any thoughts on Steve Forbes ideas? I thought they were all at the very least a good start, I have also heard him say how much better it would be for the consumer to see a nice big choice of insurers laid out in an easily compared format for you to choose from. It would increase competition immensely and be easy for the consumer, putting the power in the individuals hands:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0511/ ... fight.html

_________________
“Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general”. - Mark Rippetoe

That's not actually the plan, as it stands. *I* would certainly love simply removing the age restriction on Medicare and have anyone under the current age pay a premium, but that's not what the President is proposing. Did you listen to him outline his proposal in his speech to the join session of congress?



What evidence to you have to support that assertion? The government wont be forcing anyone into any public insurance option. That has never been the Obama administration plan, anyway. The Public Option, as outlined in Obama's speech, was one of many options a person could chose within the scope of the overal exchange. Furthermore, that's only one way to do it. If someone finds a way to increase competition and choice without such a plan, he'll go for it.

That being said, I will be very upset if there is a mandate to buy health insurance and no public option. I'm on the polar opposite of you - I don't trust private health insurance companies *one bit*. Do.Not.Want. They don't have their insured's best interest in mind. They have no motive to make sure that my health is taken care of, no matter how much I pay in premiums. Their goal is to pay as little out as possible, and take as much in as possible. I don't want to pay for their profit margins, their losses in the stock market, their lavish executive compensation packages, or their administrative and overhead costs. I feel much more comfortable paying into a plan that is non profit, as efficient as medicare, and has the bargaining clout to drive prices down.





We know that the administration is not planning on forcing anyone to go into a government plan. There's a lot of misleading propaganda out there that says otherwise, but it's just not true. So, you'll have a choice - stay with your current plan, buy a new plan, or get the government plan, assuming one exists at all.

If the government plan is substandard, then people won't buy it unless that's all they can afford. No big deal, and no skin off your nose. The government plan will not be funded by your tax dollars, it will be funded through premiums. Again, no skin off your nose. And if the projected savings don't materialize, it will be paid for by spending cuts. Again, no skin off your nose.

No one is going to force you to buy public insurance plan. No one is going to make you leave your current insurance company.

You should watch the speech to the joint session and then make a call, in my opinion.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Except that at least one of the House versions explicitly forces you to leave you current plan in 5 years. So, while you can indeed keep your "current insurance company" it's pretty much moot since it defeats the spirit of "keeping your current coverage."



Why? The president is a liar and can be shown in his own words supporting single payer. To listen to him make a speech about how this won't be single payer, won't add to the deficit, and won't keep people from maintaining current coverage when passages in the bill and independent analysts both explicitly disagree is only a waste of time.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Can you point out exactly which bill and section that is? From what I understand, that was another bit of misinformation about the bill itself. I know there is one bill that simply expands medicare as I would prefer, but I have little hope that it will hit any floor. It will probably die in committee. And I doubt the president would sign it.



Forgive me, but I think you are poisoning the well. The president did not lie in his speech. He was very clear and concise about the plan he would like to see happen. Yes, he does support single payer, but in order to claim that's what he secretly wants, despite his very clear outline to congress, you're going to need to come up with some proof of his deception.

Your gut might tell you he's a liar, but that's not really evidence that he, in fact, lied. Is there anything you can post to back up this accusation?



I don't understand how it can be a waste of time to actually listen to what someone has to say in this case. I mean, if you already assume the worst, of course you might ignore it. But that's not a terribly rational act.

I know you have very negative feelings about the President. Do you really believe he's just lying to cover up some sort of hidden agenda to pass a single payer plan? If you have evidence to support that theory, let me know.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

I've already presented that information. Use "search." If you cannot find it, return having done so, and maybe I'll look it up again as it could have been on 3.0.



First of all, that isn't poisoning the well. It's a verifiable (or falsiable) statement of opinion. Second, him being a liar doesn't have to have anything to do with single payer, even within the context of that sentence. The point is that the mean is a liar and disingenuous. As such, listening to him is a purposeless endeavor. Should you listen to me talk for 40 minutes about how I want to give reparations to slaves, even if I'm "secretly" against that?



It's entirely rational to distrust somebody who is dishonest.



I've read the bill, and it's a giant **** trojan horse. So, yes, I do believe he's lying to cover up for his party's true agenda.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

You need to prove that he is dishonest, then, I guess. So far, you have only asserted it. How did he lie in his speech to the joint session of congress? Do you have any proof to show that he lied?

How is the bill an giant (blank) trojan horse? What about it, specifically, do you feel empowers it to sneak some unnamed "something" into law?

What is that something? In what section of the bill do you find this secret plan?

If you have something to show, please show it.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Please read what I wrote.

I said that he is a liar. As such, I don't believe anything he's saying in his speech. I haven't said that he lied in his speech. I've said that listening to a speech that makes claims X, Y, and Z when the bill and analysts disagree is a waste of time, but I didn't say he lied in his speech.

You know why I didn't say that? Because I haven't listened to it. Know why I didn't listen to it? Because he's a liar.



That fact that it's going to undermine private insurance, remove competition, and mandate individual coverage?

I mean, if you're looking for page numbers in the bill I'm not going to give them to you because I don't feel like re-reading the 1,000 pages again.



No. I've done it already. Use "search."


Edit:

Example of removal of competition: See HR 3200 Subtitle B, Sec. 113, 114, 121, and 122. Goodbye competition.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I did, which is why I'm currently confused.



And I am asking you to prove that he lied.



Do you have any evidence what so ever that what the President outlined in his speech was not in fact the plan he envisions for health care reform?




The President has not submitted a bill to congress yet. The only evidence of what he wants that we have is what he said to the joint session of congress the other night. He intentionally let congress craft the initial legislation, like he said he would.



Forgive me, but this sounds terribly irrational. You assume that the President is a liar, and therefore you refuse to listen to him speak. You have no evidence to show that he lied to congress during his speech, you simply assume that he did because you assume that he's a liar.

It just doesn't make any sense, DFK.



Again, how is that a trojan horse? He spelled that out very clearly in his speech. A trojan horse implies there is some sort of hidden agenda here. He is intended to regulate private insurance, but there is nothing in what he has said to indicate that he wants to remove competition. In fact, he sees a need for increased competition, given the increasing monopolies that insurance companies have gained over the years. The public option, in his opinion, is just one way to do that. But it is not the only way. Had you listened to the speech you would know that.



Well, I hope you will forgive me for not just taking your word for it. You seem to basing your opinions on a lot of pre-concieved notions about the President, and I don't find that to be a terribly compelling way to argue your case.



I did, on this board, and didn't come up with anything. Do you have some key words I might search on to make it easier?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Actually, you clearly either aren't reading or aren't understanding what I'm writing because I just told you that I haven't listened to his speech because the man is a liar so I have no personal desire to hear him speak.




You mean he intentionally let them follow the Constitution? How quaint.



I have no need to assume he's a liar. I know he's a liar.




Uh, I don't have to listen to him to have read the bill, know how economics work, and to know he'd be wrong.

You cannot get through Subtitle B of HR 3200 and end up with anything except less competition. It is literally impossible.



It's possible it was on 3.0. Look at the sections I listed in my edit. If you don't understand them, I might go through them, once. I'm not gonna hold your hand though, as I'm apparently having to do when it comes to me explaining the difference between referring to the President as a liar and saying he lied in his speech.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Now I am totally confused. I went back and read the sections you listed, and they have nothing to do with eliminating competition or private insurance plans. They set out regulations for those plans participating in the Exchange, near as I can tell, and those regulataions seem to be fairly in line with the Presidents outline to congress.

However, you are missing a very key point here - currently no bill has been submitted to congress by the President. In other words, this isn't his bill. You are looking a bill that he did not write, nor submit to congress, but instead one that was created in the House. So, I think you are mistaken on that level, at least.


anyway, on to the main point, are you sure you have those section numbers correct?

113 talks about rates, 114 talks about mental health and drug treatment parity, 121 and 122 lay out the kinds of things that would need to be covered for an insurance company in the exchange.

I don't understand how that eliminates competition. It sets minimum standards, and companies can certainly offer more, and would have to in order to compete. In my mind, that encourages competition.

But do you believe those sections constitute the Trojan Horse you mentioned above? Because in reading them, they seem pretty clear cut.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T SUBMIT BILLS.




Subtitle B, Sec. 113 says that all plans cannot compete on price except in the manner listed. Thus removing competition on price.
Sec. 114, 121, and 122 list the items that must be covered, thereby removing competition on services offered.

It therefore reduces any competition on those lines. For example, nobody can get a high-deductible, catastrophic-only plan anymore. That would be illegal under this bill.



Those contribute to the Trojan Horse but do not constitute the Trojan Horse. Meaning they are not the be-all and end-all, but when private plans cannot deviate from the public plan, that means their only means of competition is on efficiencies. When the government can use taxpayer money to shore up deficits that undermines (though doesn't remove) competition on efficiencies.


There are other contributory factors as to both why those are Trojan Horse elements and the other elements of the bill that contribute, but I don't have the inclination or time to go into them right now.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

There's really no reason to yell at me, DFK.

We know that in theory that's true, but we also know that presidents submit legislation to their party that then put it to the floor all the time. What's fairly unique about this current health reform effort is that the President *didn't* do that.




Not exactly. 113 lays out how those prices can vary, and it's pretty reasonable. The purpose of the legislation is to bring down runaway prices, so that shouldn't come as a shock. Currently, the insurance companies can and do raise their prices considerably because there is nothing preventing them from doing so.



Now, that's not true. Those companies are certainly welcome to cover more than the minimum.



I am not sure you have the right of that. I am pretty sure these regulations cover those insurance companies that would be a part of the exchange. Also, large catastrophic plans were something specifically mentioned by the President during his speech as something he thought would be a great thing to explore. He even gave a shout out to John McCain for promoting them during the campaign.




Again, what is concealed in the horse?



You still haven't shown what is in the horse? Where are the Trojans, waiting to strike?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Not yelling. Sorry if you took it that way.

People, including you, just say that a lot. I really hate it. I also don't like repeating myself, though admittedly last time I said it I wasn't as explicit.



Where do you get that it's reasonable? Geographic location, family enrollment, and a 2-1 restriction on age.

So the 80 year old who costs, say, 50 times as much per year as the 20 year old only gets billed twice as much... you consider that reasonable?



Only if they're a non-exchange participating plan or a premium-plus exchange-participating plan.

In other words, you still haven't dealt with the ability to create plans that cater to those desiring less coverage, and you've waved away equitibility for the poor because they will not receive subsidization for the non-exchange plans and no increased subsidy to afford premium-plus coverage.

As such, that's a huge element of Trojan Horse because it creates class-warfare. Class warfare is part of the original argument in favor of universal coverage. Therefore, but implementing this plan, not only would the class disparity go unresolved, it would be enshrined in law, demanding further action.



Qualified Health Benefit Plan is mandatory. QHBR-offering entity is all group health plans covered under ERISA, which is all group plans in the US except Federal plans.

Basically, HR3200 creates a national minimum floor in regards to services offered.




Talk is cheap, considering no room for such plans exist in HR3200.





What are you talking about, "what is in the horse?"

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

You claim there is a Trojan Horse. Well, what is the secret attack that comes when we bring the horse into the gates? What is in the horse?

Clearly you are familiar with the story, right?

You claimed this bill was a Trojan Horse, and I am attempting to understand how it functions as one. The parameters of the bill are clearly outlined. I don't see a lot of wiggle room, etc.

(and again, this is not the President's bill. I know you think President's don't submit bills, but in practice, they basically do. It's the House Bill)

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

The Trojan Horse is single-payer healthcare.... I thought that was clear. Apparently not.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Ok, so, to be clear -

Nothing in the house bill establishes a single payer system.

Nothing in the President's speech or his outlined vision for health care coverage in any way advocates or pushes for a single payer system.

And yet, you are still concluding that Single Payer is what the president secretly wants, what the congress is going to sneak past all the committees, then sneak past the senate *and* the house and then the president's desk. And you have no evidence of this, other than hearing that Obama supported single payer at some point in his career.

I guess I have to ask, what the heck? Where do you get that notion, given the preponderance of evidence that says, very clearly, otherwise?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Uh, yes, yes it does. That's what a Trojan Horse is.



All the evidence when viewed as an aggregate indicates a push for national single-payer care, including multiple speeches made by the president and various comments for such a plan by various congresspersons.

Therefore, the only items you have to support the idea that they don't want single-payer are:
1) The President said so
2) Single payer isn't explicitly established in the bill.


Now, since we also have the President on tape supporting single-payer, we can negate #1, and since independent analysts have stated that the thing is a Trojan Horse, and the evidence supports that conclusion, we can further negate #2.

What else have ya got?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Where is the push coming from? I want to know, because I *want* single payer health care. All I see is a bunch of democrats not even on board with a simple public insurance plan.

DFK, there is just no evidence to support your claim. When was your tape taken? What was the context?

On the tape, where does the President outline his secret plan to sneak Single Payer into the law through the house bill you quoted? Is it written in invisible ink or something?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

I'm pretty sure I'm done repeating myself to you. Just because you feel that argumentum ad nauseum is a viable tactic doesn't mean I need to enable you to use it.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Everybody keeps their private insurance now. When they change jobs, get fired, or whatever, they cannot repurchase private health insurance and are forced onto the public plan. Is everybody basically supposed to never change jobs or get laid off?

_________________
The Dude abides.

Eh? Where do any of the proposed bills say that you can't repurchase private insurance?

Page 118 or there abouts of HR 3200. It also mandates any grandfathered coverage expires in 5 years even if you keep your job. Or at least it did in the revision of three weeks ago.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville