Y2HH

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 09:18 AM) While I generally agree, I think its not always that simple. You can't let the big banks, as they stand now, fail - at least not in a disorderly fashion. They'd have to be brought down carefully. And any really large company, like GM, I do think can and maybe should fail - but again, not without some assistance. When it comes to banks, it becomes more complicated, yes. But I'm not talking about banks.

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 09:15 AM) And their prices are still not low enough for most Americans to afford. I have yet to hear of a plan anywhere that someone making $20,000 to $25,000 can afford. Should it really cost as much as a rent payment to have health insurance? And that doesn't even included co-pays and deductibles once you need the insurance. People only making 20,000 have other issues altogether. They'd be better of going on welfare and having free health care as it is...not to mention they'd make more than 20k.

QUOTE (Tex @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 09:06 AM) Our government sucks! Enron GM Lehman Brothers Walmart saves. And where is Enron now? Private companies should be allowed to fail, just like Enron failed. I'm not for bailing out private companies. Let them die, someone else will rise up and take the business. The Government, however, cannot die...or the country folds. The Government can run in the red for an indefinite amount of time until a revolution overthrows them and uproots everything the country was. A regular company can operate in the red until they can't continue to operate, then someone else takes the business.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 09:09 AM) This is exactly why some of us wanted a national public plan as an option. It immediately creates a competitive market in every market in America, most of which, as you note, currently border on being monopolies. It creates a government monopoly, and that's bad. The current semi-monopoly's only exist because of the laws preventing out of state competition. When I want to buy a TV, I'm not FORCED to buy it only in IL...insurance should be no different. There are MANY insurance companies out there, a lot of them non-profits, that many of you would love to be able to negotiate with.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 08:57 AM) So...here's my question, especially to Y2HH...how exactly do we accomplish this without completely blowing up the entire current insurance system? A big part of the reason why shopping around is impossible is that once you're affiliated with an insurer, especially an HMO, you're basically locked in to their network. There's never going to be a price advantage to going outside of their network once you're insured, thus, the only way to get actual competition I see would be to get insurance companies to massively expand their network, at great cost to them. From the start, I've maintained I'm fine with reform if it is, in fact, comprehensive. What I see right now is nothing more than changing who pays for the care, and how it's paid for -- it does nothing to lower the cost of the care whatsoever, because the same people creating the arbitrary bills will continue to create them -- it's just offset by someone else helping to pay for it. HMO's can easily be changed to allow you more choice -- rather than having to need a referral from a PCP, you allow the person to go wherever they want so long as their PCP says they need to see that sort of specialist. Simple and done. Right now, you're PCP not only has to approve the specialist, but they basically pick them, too. This has ALWAYS been poor practice. Anyone NOT on a HMO gets to choose now, like myself, however the choice is still limited as all I get to know is where the doctor was educated and if they're board certified in that specialty. I still have no idea what they're going to be charging me. The problem remains, however, that there isn't much choice when it comes to insurance providers -- there are a few main health insurance providers in IL, and that's the choice you have for insurance. And if you're company has BCBS, you get BCBS...you have no choice other than to go out on your own. You should have choice in that, also. There should be MUCH more choice on that front. Then, choice needs to be opened on the other end, too. PCP's shouldn't be picking who you see, just that you NEED to see them. PPO's don't have to deal with that...if you want to see a specialist, you can, anytime you want. But the basic choice of who cares for the insured should be THEIR decision, so long it's in their insurance companies network, which are HUGE networks, by the way.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 08:21 AM) The Federal Reserve's job according to Wikipedia is: I think you could make a legitimate argument that taking a loss on those securities falls under any of those. Yeah, there's likely some corruption built in that we need to correct, don't bother lecturing me about that, i'll be the first to admit it. I want to know a priori why I should worry if the Fed loses money. Because their first job is: 1. Conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. If they begin losing money, they're failing at everything listed there. The influence, in an of losing money, would be detrimental to the value of the dollar, it would destabilize prices, and force them to have to increase interest rates to make up for their own blunders, which has to be illegal 500 ways to Sunday.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 08:22 AM) What sort of consumer choice are you referring to? The ability to shop around before going in for surgery to see who has the lowest price? For non emergency medical care, yes. Why not? It's the ONLY industry on the planet that performs services BEFORE they tell you how much said services cost...and they can NEVER quote how much a service costs. Take eye exams for example, they will tell you EXACTLY how much a eye checkup costs BEFORE it's performed. Now take a yearly physical exam...they have no idea...it's some arbitrary amount and you don't have to worry about it, they'll tell your insurance company how much it was AFTER it's performed.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 08:05 AM) And that more granular point I agree with as well. This plan, and others Congress have toyed with, try to artificially reduce costs charged by insurers, but do nothing to change the bizarre billing methods of doctors and hospitals. I've said many times before... the fundamental flaw here is that the presence of insurance companies, whose rates are basically flat per service, removes the normal capitalistic controls in place in other consumer-provider relationships. You have to find a way to get that consumer CHOICE back into play, or you will never be able to properly control costs. It's impossible to get consumers choice when consumers have no idea what they paying for or why they need it. When you're car engine dies, you shop around, find out the cost of the new engine and labor to install it properly...for non emergency care/non emergency surgery, you can't ask a doctor or hospital, how much is that going to cost so I can shop around at other hospitals and see if I can get a better deal from an equally skilled surgeon. They perform the procedures first, THEN tell you how much it cost...it's backwards. So the only method the patients have to shop around right now is different insurance companies.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 08:13 AM) More specifically, if the Federal reserve buys up a toxic asset at an inflated price and every mortgage in it goes bad such that it becomes essentially worthless, why should an average taxpayer care? Is that the federal reserves job?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 16, 2010 -> 07:53 AM) As a great example of how psychotic the discussions of this topic have gotten, even among those voting on it, here's a great moment... So... it doesn't go far enough... and it tries to do too much... too soon. Buh? I could see his latter point, if he hadn't oddly combined it with the former. He could have meant many things by saying this -- I agree with his point that it does nothing to control costs from the source...the doctors and hospitals are still allowed to continue charging any arbitrary amount they want, such as they do now. Which solves nothing except who pays for it and who can pay for it. He may have meant too many less important things to into effect right away, while more important things don't go into effect for years.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 15, 2010 -> 03:31 PM) Depends on what you mean by, does it matter... Also depends on what you mean by "lose money". It's a pretty vague question.

In the 80's the broke up Ma Bell. Because Ma Bell was a monopoly and was bad. Smashing it into pieces would promote competition, albeit artificial competition. Throughout the late 90's and into the 00's, they slowly reconstructed most of Ma Bell, only they no longer call it that and the same government that broke it up allowed it to be reconstructed, which I really love. Consumers won nothing, costs continued to rise, and now we have a ton of extra taxes, government surcharges and other ridiculous things such as "entertainment fees", which cost upwards of 20$ a month (check your Comcast/DirecTV bills for that one). I'm all for Nationwide Wireless Broadband -- I think it's the way to go, wired is dead, not to mention costly and cumbersome to install. Wireless is the telcom medium of the future, no doubt about it. That said, Mr. Government isn't going to just snap it's fingers and suddenly the entire infrastructure exists. This has to be rolled out...which will take years, and a lot of money. That's fine, I'm still all for it...get it going. But I can tell you where this leads. Internet fees for national/state/local (a tax), increased federal and state taxes, surcharges and usage tier fees. That's where. This is their entry point into the regulation of the Internet. ** Keep in mind DARPA created the internet (arpa) and actually attempted to give it away to AT&T, who said they weren't interested. In the history of company blunders...people always point to HP rejecting the personal computer...but no. The biggest blunder of them all was when DARPA asked AT&T to take ownership of arpanet AKA the Internet...and they refused. AT&T could have owned it all. To anyone interested in reading of the true history of the invention now known as the Internet, read this book, you'll like it: Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins Of The Internet by Katie Hafner

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 15, 2010 -> 01:43 PM) Because the unemployment rate has stabilized, we've avoided deflation (temporarily at least) and the economy is actually threatening to show signs of being declared to be growing again. I'll be the first to admit it could have been done better. Fewer tax cuts, more directed spending, 1.5 to 2 times as large. But it did pretty much exactly what it was supposed to do given its size; avoid a second "Great Contraction" and give the Fed ammunition to keep pushing the effective interest rate down. I don't think it's over yet.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 15, 2010 -> 01:39 PM) Do you find fault in my statement? Let's look at this from a really basic point of view... TARP: $700B authorized (give or take), $300B actually used, $200B returned so far with interest, ~$50B to be returned with interest in near term, leainvg ~$50B as true cost, minus whatever interest is received (which is well above opp cost in this case). STIM: $787B authorized, all to be spent, to give us what? Temporary construction jobs, and other stuff not sustainable? How can you not see the STIM bill as a much greater failure than TARP? And again, I am not talking about the abject regulatory failure that is going on now, which I completely agree on. I am talking about TARP. Allow me to add: STIM: $787B authorized, all to be spent -- and every penny they can possibly skim/steal, will be skimmed/stolen.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Mar 15, 2010 -> 01:37 PM) Anyone else here get the feeling that this will wind up in the Supreme Court? Where it gets shot down in the standard 5-4 supreme court vote? If its a liberal issue -- it fails 5-4, and it if it's not -- it passes 5-4. If the justices were 5-4 liberals, the opposite would happen. I, for one, and deeply troubled by the fact that our highest court has been infected with the idealism on either side. I find this to be as big of an issue as anything else in this bought and paid for country.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 15, 2010 -> 09:17 AM) I posted, in a Dem thread, some info on what a popular Dem congressman said and you replied: If that's not trolling than I don't know what is regardless if you threw in a mini dig at Palin or not. I threw in the SAME dig at Palin, not a mini dig. And it wasn't trolling. Trolling is if you do what you just did, copy and paste only the part that is anti dem and saying that's all I said...it wasn't.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 15, 2010 -> 08:44 AM) This is the Dem thread but thanks for trolling. Yes, I understand that saying Grayson and Palin are equally douchy is trolling. Looks like someone needs to go look up what trolling actually is. Fail.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 15, 2010 -> 07:14 AM) Alan Grayson's response to Palin's visit to his district in Central Florida. Alan Grayson is one of the biggest douche bags to ever get into any sort of office...ever. He's not worth listening too. Hell, he's not even worth this comment... Same for Palin.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 14, 2010 -> 01:41 PM) Really? Okay. Better get that government to step in and take over the car companies, then. Oh, wait a minute... Actually, what we need to do since everyone *needs* a car is have the top 5% of income earners buy cars for the bottom 50%...really nice ones, like Porsche 911's or something...they deserve the same kind of car with the same speeds/amenities since it's necessary for everyday life and all...why should the rich people be the only ones capable of going faster? The % in between the bottom 50% and the top 5%...well, f*** them...they'll be fine in their rusted Pintos. Then, we make it mandatory for everyone to buy a car and car insurance, too. If they can't afford it, we'll just print some money and subsidize them...

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 07:14 PM) Ok, that's pretty much a given. The majority of Americans do not want a comprehensive government bill. As I've said over and over, the bill is a government takeover of health care whether it's called "public option", "dumbass supercalifragiliciousexpelodocious screw you Americans", "eat s*** Republicans", or "Democrats know what's best no matter what". Call it anything you want, but people know enough to understand that it's a government takeover in a place where it doesn't belong. When the government MANDATES you to buy a specific good or service, it has gone too far. Finally, someone said it. Surprisingly, I agree with this 110%.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 12:59 PM) Should I give you a similar list of things the Dems wanted but which are dumbed down or gone rather than in there 100%? Or does only 1 side get that priveledge? Nope, no need...I know the republicans pull that crap too, and that was part of my rant above. Screw them for doing it, too. I'm tired of that kind of politics, and as I stated earlier, it's getting worse and worse.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 12:43 PM) Because the remarkable thing is how many of the things in the bill the Republicans supported until they were in the bill. An individual purchase mandate? That was a proposal from Grassley last spring. Allowing small businesses to band together to use combined purchasing power to negotiate rates with insurance companies? Republican idea, in there. Allowing states a ton of leeway in finding cheaper ways to implement things? Section 1302 of the Senate bill, they can literally junk the entire bill if they think they can do better. Republican idea. Allowing selling of insurance across state lines? It's in there. Lawsuit reform? In there. Additional private investigations of medicare spending abuses? That's Senator Coburn's idea. Capping the value of the tax break you can get on more expensive insurance plans? Hell, Senator McCain's campaign plan was to eliminate the tax break entirely. Of course...each one of them makes it longer. They're in there, but not entirely like the republicans wanted. The lawsuit reform for example, isn't quite like what the republicans were talking about. It's a massively dumbed down version of it just so they can do what you just tried to do -- say it's in there. Same with the rest of those...they're in there, but not quite what the republicans were talking about. And you're post proved you knew what I was talking about, so don't play politics and ask what you already know next time.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 12:31 PM) Care to give a few examples? No, I really don't feel the need. You should already know the many examples by now, and if you don't, I don't need to bother.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 11:45 AM) This I agree with. Getting rid of earmarks is good, but it won't help with all the B.S. that gets slapped into unrelated bills, which is bad on multiple levels. I don't know how we could do it, but I'd love to see some sort of truth-in-legislation work done, so that a Health Care bill is 100% about... you know... Health Care. Can't disagree with you. I've maintained from the start, I'm not against HC reform, I'm simply against what they're doing here, which is health insurance reform. People keep saying it's a start, but it's not...this is a start and a finish. If this even gets through in it's current form, and that's a big if, it's all that will get through, as there will be no future reforms in any meaningful way in the foreseeable future (at least a decade), as the balance of power in the both houses will undoubtedly shift back to the GOP by then. Things only seem to get done when one side controls enough votes to get things done, and it's obvious by now that the democrats are losing their majority, and will continue to lose more and more of it as time goes on during Obama's tenure. And even then, when one side has such control, they only tend to get things done that they want done and how they want them done. Another thing I dislike about the entire conversation of the HC debate is that from the start, republicans are against it -- any of it, all of it...no matter the reason, be it via lobbyists swaying their vote or their own actual options. On the flip side, any suggestions the republicans do have are largely ignored by the democrats and or simplified to almost a meaningless state when they are included. Neither side wanted a serious debate, or a serious discussion focused on resolution to this issue. What both wanted was to have it done their way, right away...and anything the other side says is wrong or just outright ignored. This is fundamental problem at the core of this country and what the two party system has come to bring the people. Party voting is bringing this country to it's knees, because the people voting have no idea what the people their voting for even stand for these days. And it's getting worse and worse.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 12, 2010 -> 10:29 AM) How do you make it shorter and target substantially larger issues? If they rip out all their back room deals and other such nonsense, the bill would be half the size, and largely more understandable. Nothing should be in this bill EXCEPT matters concerning the reform of health care. That would be a good start at cutting down the size of the bill in an of itself.