[finboy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

At no point in time do you ever see a bill, get told you cant have something because insurance wont pay for it. The only restrictions to scans, drugs, tests are from the doctor themselves.

That you know of. That's what we're trying to tell you. Some things just "aren't available" or "not medically necessary" but they're done on people who come over the US every day. By choice. And paid for out-of-pocket I'd bet.

Also, under Medicare (and any other proposal I've seen) it's illegal to negotiate a side-payment for any services that you might want from the Dr. but which aren't approved.

For example, Medicare wouldn't approve a stent for my elderly but otherwise healthy father, and he had a massive stroke within a few days and eventually died within a few months. Now, without Medicare, services would be cheap enough for my elderly mother to shop around and get a second opinion, find someone to do the surgery, and take a chance (given a little tort reform here and there). WITH Medicare limiting competition, and with payment caps and side-payment restrictions, it's not affordable to have it done outside of the system (there's the fallacy to the "government option" idea).

So, again, what we have is a lot of hot air from folks (not you in particular Athens) who've never had to actually deal with a government-run healthcare system. Those of us who HAVE had to put up with it know better. Medicare lowers the average health care outcome in order to cover EVERYONE. Why is something that covers people below 65 going to be different from that? The basic economics are irrefutable and the same for all of us. If you want to cover everyone, you will end up with less. There's no way around it. No bookkeeping method will save us, no "requirements" will save us, no "employer option" will save us. It will, however, concentrate even more power in the hands of the morons who gave us S&Ls, FreddieMac and the Community Reinvestment Act.

As for all the stuff about behavior and age/viability, there's no way around that either. We'll HAVE TO regulate fat intake and obesity (or not) or the system will collapse. We'll HAVE TO make decisions on whose child lives and whose grandmother can't get a new kidney. We'll HAVE TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS -- but instead of the family doing it, which is always hard, it will be some government bureaucrat. And they'll have to set up rules to follow, whether they tell us or not. And those rules will be based on cost/benefit ratios. They HAVE TO BE. And you will not be allowed to operate against those rules, even if you can't know what they are. Again, look at Medicare.

[Athens]

My only reply to that is thats not the case in BC. MSP isnt a limiting factor here for care. The doctors are the ones that make the choices if something is done or not. No prior consultation with MSP required for procedures. If you want something you think you need and your doctor thinks otherwise, your free to go to any other doctor for a second opinion. If all the doctors you see say no, chances are you dont need it. But its not really any different from the way it is in the US either. Insurance companies limit care and approval more directly then MSP does.

[ironknee]

yeee haw!

the hicks are out in force!

[el chupacabra]

yup unfortunately you're one of them.

On a side note none of these plans they're talking about address the problem with health care; the shortage of doctors, and excessive regulation. Which is what sets the demand and price. Simply trying to put more money in the system won't change that...Wont remove the monopoly. It will just cause inflation within the industry.

I would say that our leaders are ignorant about the basic laws of economics but likely they know exactly what they're doing. Just finding more ways to tax; using the ignorance of an uneducated populace that spends more time drinking and watching sports when they should be watching cspan, fox news or reading the paper.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

yup unfortunately you're one of them.

On a side note none of these plans they're talking about address the problem with health care; the shortage of doctors, and excessive regulation. Which is what sets the demand and price. Simply trying to put more money in the system won't change that...Wont remove the monopoly. It will just cause inflation within the industry.

I would say that our leaders are ignorant about the basic laws of economics but likely they know exactly what they're doing. Just finding more ways to tax; using the ignorance of an uneducated populace that spends more time drinking and watching sports when they should be watching cspan, fox news or reading the paper.

While I appreciate your contribution el chupacabra, you realize invoking the 'fox news' recommendation will get you lambasted here.

The limitations people claim don't exist under a nationalized plan is called attenuation. Simply put, you have to prioritize how the collective resource is used. Others are correct when they say there's no way around it. Too many also fail to realize that the robustness of coverage provided by the nationalized system will ebb and flow in accordance with the national economy. In times of crisis, a great many adjustments/attenuation will be required to sustain the program. There is no exit strategy if this plan fails us or as others have mentioned; there's no way to put the genie back in the bottle. There's no reason why the US healthcare system needs an end-to-end shakedown and there's absolutely nothing to suggest that an overhaul of the healthcare system will end the desire for reform.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

yeee haw!

the hicks are out in force!

You know, it takes an effort for me to be civil sometimes…and I don't always succeed I admit. In the end I recognize that we are all just people with their own ideas, opinions, priorities perspective etc., no matter how much those things may irk me.

Usually when I offend someone it is because of my irrational or impassioned response to something, but today I can say that I say this honestly, calmly and rationally: man you're an asshole. Not just an asshole, but a useless one. You are in the top three people that I wish would just disappear off of this forum. not because I can't stand seeing you here, if that were the case i would just put you on ignore, but because I think that this place would be better off without you overall. You add nothing of value. Your posts here are like walking outside and finding the neighbors dog **** in my yard again.

I really don't understand why you are even here.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

You know, it takes an effort for me to be civil sometimes…and I don't always succeed I admit. In the end I recognize that we are all just people with their own ideas, opinions, priorities perspective etc., no matter how much those things may irk me.

Usually when I offend someone it is because of my irrational or impassioned response to something, but today I can say that I say this honestly, calmly and rationally: man you're an asshole. Not just an asshole, but a useless one. You are in the top three people that I wish would just disappear off of this forum. not because I can't stand seeing you here, if that were the case i would just put you on ignore, but because I think that this place would be better off without you overall. You add nothing of value. Your posts here are like walking outside and finding the neighbors dog **** in my yard again.

I really don't understand why you are even here.

lol

did i touch a nerve?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

yup unfortunately you're one of them.

On a side note none of these plans they're talking about address the problem with health care; the shortage of doctors, and excessive regulation. Which is what sets the demand and price. Simply trying to put more money in the system won't change that...Wont remove the monopoly. It will just cause inflation within the industry.

I would say that our leaders are ignorant about the basic laws of economics but likely they know exactly what they're doing. Just finding more ways to tax; using the ignorance of an uneducated populace that spends more time drinking and watching sports when they should be watching cspan, fox news or reading the paper.

you do know insurance companies will not pay you for shilling for them?

[Laminar]

The American Medical Association has weighed in on the new Obama health care proposals.

The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.

The Gastro-enterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.

The Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception.
Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted.

Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the Pediatricians said, "Oh, Grow up!"

The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it. Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing.

The Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the Plastic Surgeons said,
"This puts a whole new face on the matter....."

The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea. The Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and the Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no.

In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the a$$holes in Washington.

[Big Mac]

Very clever!

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

lol

did i touch a nerve?

You sir, are my hero! Keep up the good work!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

You sir, are my hero! Keep up the good work!

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

You sir, are my hero! Keep up the good work!

i knew it... you love me... thanks sweetie

[ebuddy]

Conversation from Crowley/Gates-gate;

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Why do they have to be right-wing wackos OAW? The largest source of increasing opposition to nationalized healthcare are among independents with now a substantial majority of Americans opposed 53% to 42%. What on earth do you suppose a townhall meeting is, a photo-op for support of nationalized healthcare?

Originally Posted by OAW

See that's the problem right there. People who insist on saying "nationalized healthcare" .... when no one has even proposed that. Not President Obama. Not Congress. It is not even on the table in any sense of the term. No one is proposing a single-payer system ... where the government would provide public insurance and eliminate private insurers from the market of providing basic healthcare coverage. No one is proposing a single-provider system .... where all the doctors and hospitals would work for the government and no longer be privately owned entities. No one is proposing a combination of the two.

I love this argument. I'm supposed to believe of course that by this logic George W. Bush would've had to have said; "Ladies and Gentlemen, we're invading Iraq for oil."

I can see why you'd assume the concern is an overnight move from our current healthcare system to a nationalized system, but I'm guessing Stalin would more shrewd than this. You're not looking any deeper than the soundbite you've latched onto. Let me give you a much better soundbite to latch onto;

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” (applause) “I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

~ Obama speech-2003

Go ahead and tell me how he didn't mean it OAW. Tell me how much he's learned about the free market in the past six years and how sympathetic he is to it now. Please don't patronize me by claiming that no one has suggested a single-payer system. You know better.

So are there polls showing that independents are increasing their opposition to "nationalized healthcare"? Indeed. The problem is that they are opposed to something that hasn't even been proposed.

What's been proposed OAW? What are they traveling across the country selling; "a nice little program that'll help everybody"? Give me a break. Why don't you explain to the group what this Administration's proposal of "greater healthcare options and competition" means to the 80% who are happy with their own healthcare? What does it mean to those required to carry a plan? What does it mean to the businesses required to provide the care? We already know from the CBO what it'll cost, who it will and will not cover, who it will move from private insurers. They didn't push this measure until after recess because it's not contentious enough.

I suppose someone will bring up the folks on his side of the aisle that are upset with him because we're not going to an exclusively public system overnight. I'm not impressed given the above. For fun, do you support a single-payer system OAW?

In any event, the people who show "increased opposition to nationalized healthcare" in response to a poll and the people who are acting a complete fool in these townhall meetings are not cut from the same cloth. The news reports have nearly universally said that the latter are the right-wingers ... not the independents.

The news reports eh? Please cite them.

It was the "right wing wackos" holding those ridiculous "tea parties" b*tching about higher taxes when the Obama administration had just delivered payroll tax cut in the amount of 1/3 of the 787 billion dollar stimulus package.

You mean a slightly more clever means of distributing wealth than Bush handing stimulus checks out to everyone including those who didn't pay income taxes? I'll give you that, but I didn't think this was the "change" we were talking about.

It's the "right wing wackos" that constitute the "birther" movement.

Wrong again. A lawsuit was filed by Philip J. Berg (former chair of the PA democratic party) with the complaint that Obama's candidacy for President should be denied without proper documentation. This was the "birth" of the "birther" movement my friend. This scoop spent an awful lot of time on the well known bastion of conservative news; CNN. WIth all due respect, this sounds a lot like uninformed apologetics or worse; zealotry.

And it's the "right wing wackos" that are disrupting the healthcare townhall meetings.

There certainly may be a few "right wing wackos" disrupting healthcare townhall meetings, but there are also a lot of folks, concerned about the future of their healthcare, expressing themselves in the townhall format. Unless of course the townhall format was intended to be nothing more than a publicly-funded local press grab.

Same people. Different avenues to express their foolishness.

The good news is if one's eyes are always moving to and fro looking for foolishness, they will find it. They might find it coming from the loudmouths at townhall meetings and if they're looking hard enough they'll even find it coming from their own keyboards on internet forums. Ugly is ugly.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

While I appreciate your contribution el chupacabra, you realize invoking the 'fox news' recommendation will get you lambasted here.

The limitations people claim don't exist under a nationalized plan is called attenuation. Simply put, you have to prioritize how the collective resource is used. Others are correct when they say there's no way around it. Too many also fail to realize that the robustness of coverage provided by the nationalized system will ebb and flow in accordance with the national economy. In times of crisis, a great many adjustments/attenuation will be required to sustain the program. There is no exit strategy if this plan fails us or as others have mentioned; there's no way to put the genie back in the bottle. There's no reason why the US healthcare system needs an end-to-end shakedown and there's absolutely nothing to suggest that an overhaul of the healthcare system will end the desire for reform.

True but its not really any different from how Insurance companies prioritizes based on money. During economically bad times Insurance companies will also limit more to save more. Different reasons same results. One is based on profit, one is based on budget.

[Athens]

Obamas plan will fail unless its a nationalized health care system. No country can support a private model and a national model side by side. What will happen is those who are healthy will be cherry picked by the Private companies and those less healthy will be on the tax payer system. The tax payer system will go broke with out the contributions of the healthy people. End result, Insurance companies get rich, more profits, while the tax payer burdens the entire cost of medical.

[kylef]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Obamas plan will fail unless its a nationalized health care system. No country can support a private model and a national model side by side. What will happen is those who are healthy will be cherry picked by the Private companies and those less healthy will be on the tax payer system. The tax payer system will go broke with out the contributions of the healthy people. End result, Insurance companies get rich, more profits, while the tax payer burdens the entire cost of medical.

The UK has both the NHS and several private health companies. Bupa, to name one.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Obamas plan will fail unless its a nationalized health care system. No country can support a private model and a national model side by side. What will happen is those who are healthy will be cherry picked by the Private companies and those less healthy will be on the tax payer system. The tax payer system will go broke with out the contributions of the healthy people. End result, Insurance companies get rich, more profits, while the tax payer burdens the entire cost of medical.

I see this the other way around. A nationalized system will not have to be competitive in the market place. It will be able to function at a substantial loss because it has the perpetual funding of tax payer dollars; both those who participate and those who do not participate by the way. This means you will do more than compete against private insurers, you will low-ball private insurers while operating at an unsustainable loss not unlike the postal service. You cannot "change" the insurance industry away, but you can chip away little by little with regulations (such as requiring them to assume higher risks as well as a host of other regulations against them) until the desired outcome is achieved. They need to allow the existing private insurers to be more competitive IMO by easing State restrictions. The Self-employed need to be able to pool together and the uninsured need to be able to pool together to spread risk among a wealth of other ideas that do not constitute a complete upheaval of healthcare in the US.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

True but its not really any different from how Insurance companies prioritizes based on money. During economically bad times Insurance companies will also limit more to save more. Different reasons same results. One is based on profit, one is based on budget.

An insurance company that "prioritizes based on money" will either raise their premiums or break their contractual obligation of coverage. Either way, if they were in a more competitive market place (among other private insurers, not alongside a government program that will operate at a substantial loss because it can. Again, not unlike the postal service) they may face any number of lawsuits against them and the consumer has some recourse up to and including choosing a different insurer. Insurers who want to remain in business are going to have to be competitive, but this marketplace is absolutely hamstrung by regulation as it stands today and there is little choice. Yet even in the status quo of stifled options, most are happy with their care.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by kylef 

The UK has both the NHS and several private health companies. Bupa, to name one.

I thought the private companies where supplemental care to the NHS, also even if you use a private health company your still paying into the NHS via taxes.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I see this the other way around. A nationalized system will not have to be competitive in the market place. It will be able to function at a substantial loss because it has the perpetual funding of tax payer dollars; both those who participate and those who do not participate by the way. This means you will do more than compete against private insurers, you will low-ball private insurers while operating at an unsustainable loss not unlike the postal service. You cannot "change" the insurance industry away, but you can chip away little by little with regulations (such as requiring them to assume higher risks as well as a host of other regulations against them) until the desired outcome is achieved. They need to allow the existing private insurers to be more competitive IMO by easing State restrictions. The Self-employed need to be able to pool together and the uninsured need to be able to pool together to spread risk among a wealth of other ideas that do not constitute a complete upheaval of healthcare in the US.

I've always said the current system could be fixed by a few laws that do not drastically change to many things.

[ironknee]

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

Cletus is a slack jawed yokel, not a redneck.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I can see why you'd assume the concern is an overnight move from our current healthcare system to a nationalized system, but I'm guessing Stalin would more shrewd than this.

With due respect, ebuddy, this is just more FUD. Are you saying that politicians in Congress should be responsive to some generalized fear that, while the specifics of his proposals don't actually advocate for communism, you never know when that charlatan Obama could turn out to be Stalin? There's no place for honest disagreement on that level, just ideological posturing. If we're not debating what's actually being proposed, then what's the point? Obama advocated for a single-payer system in an earlier period, but has modified his position in the face of the political "facts on the ground," same as any other politician. Whether his long-term goal is completely nationalized health care is irrelevant to the merits of what's being proposed now.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Go ahead and tell me how he didn't mean it OAW. Tell me how much he's learned about the free market in the past six years and how sympathetic he is to it now. Please don't patronize me by claiming that no one has suggested a single-payer system. You know better.

I'm not going to tell you that. Because I think President Obama did mean it. He's said numerous times that if we were building a healthcare system from scratch a single-payer plan would be the best way to go. But we are not. And consequently, trying to move to a single-payer system would be too disruptive. Which is a nice way of saying that the employer based system of private insurance companies is too entrenched to realistically eliminate.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What's been proposed OAW?

First of all, there is no single proposal. There are various bills working their way through committees in the House and Senate. And they are not identical. However, there are areas of commonality. In any event, NONE of the bills are proposing a single-payer system.

The highlights of the common features in these bills are as follows:

- Elimination of the ability of insurers to deny coverage based upon pre-existing conditions.

- The establishment of health care exchanges that would function nationally in order to expand the pool of the insured. This would result in small businesses and individuals to purchase insurance at a much more competitive rate than they can now.

- The establishment of a requirement to obtain health insurance. A subsidy for those who presently can't afford it.

- $80+ billion in lowers costs for prescription drugs. The ability for Medicare and other plans to negotiate for better prices.

- Must be deficit neutral.

The major source of differences in these bills are as follows:

- Some bills call for a public option for insurance. This would be a publicly run and administered insurance plan. However, it would not be subsidized. That is, it must collect premiums and payout claims like any other insurance company. It is not designed to operate at a loss and be propped up by general tax revenues.

- Some bills call for a co-op instead of a public option. This would be a non-profit organization that would provide an alternative to private insurance. However, it would not be administered by the government.

- How to pay for the expansion of coverage. Some bills call for imposing a surtax on those making more than $250K per year. Others call for eliminating the tax exempt status of certain private health plans. Others call for eliminating the ability of those making more than $250K per year to claim a higher itemized deduction on charitable giving than middle class individuals can. Etc.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Why don't you explain to the group what this Administration's proposal of "greater healthcare options and competition" means to the 80% who are happy with their own healthcare?

It means lower costs in terms of premiums for the coverage they currently have and are happy with. The fact of the matter is that the uninsured do utilize the healthcare system. However, they tend to use the emergency room when a health issue becomes a crisis rather than see the doctor long before. This in and of itself costs more money. Moreover, everyone who currently has insurances already pays for the cost of healthcare for the uninsured who seek medical attention. That cost is spread out among those who are insured and increases the premiums that they pay. Do they itemize it as such? No. But the healthcare providers build it into their costs of doing business. And these costs then are passed on to the insurance companies. And those costs are then passed on to the insured as part of their premiums.

I mean ... this is simple mathematics. If the people who are currently insured don't have to cover the costs of those who are not insured but still utilize the system (because such individuals would be paying premiums themselves) ... then that reduces their out of pocket expenses for their own insurance.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What does it mean to those required to carry a plan?

It means they have to purchase health care insurance. People who own a car have to carry auto insurance in most states. This would be no different. And there would be a subsidy for those below a certain income level.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What does it mean to the businesses required to provide the care?

It means reducing the angle of the incline of the costs they are currently incurring to cover their employees. By expanding the pool of the insured, expanding competition among insurers, providing the ability to negotiate for lower drug prices, reducing the amount they have to pay to cover those who are uninsured by utilize the system ..... this all works to reduce the rate at which their costs increase year after year.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I suppose someone will bring up the folks on his side of the aisle that are upset with him because we're not going to an exclusively public system overnight. I'm not impressed given the above. For fun, do you support a single-payer system OAW?

Actually I do. I believe in the free market. But like all good rules there are exceptions. IMO there are certain things that shouldn't be organized around the profit motive. And at the top of that list for me are education and healthcare. The reason being is that unlike a typical good or service, these are things that you must have. So the normal market forces that regulate price as a function of supply and demand are skewed way out of whack in these areas. This is why you see the costs of higher education and healthcare spiraling out of control at several times the rate of inflation. When your life depends on a medication then the pharmaceutical company has a lot more pricing power than a merchant trying to sell you a shirt. The US pays much higher prices for the same prescription drugs than any other developed country? Why? Because they can! Simple as that.

In my view, we could significantly reduce the cost of health insurance by eliminating the profit motive out of the equation. Now I'm not talking about the health care providers. I'm talking about the health care insurance. A publicly run, single payer plan would undoubtedly do the following:

1. Create the largest possible insurance pool. A larger pool means lower premiums for all because the risk is spread around further.

2. Reduce costs because premiums don't have to cover the profit taking of the insurance company. A single payer plan would still have to collect premiums and cover its costs for sure. But it would essentially be a "not-for-profit" entity.

3. Reduce costs because healthcare coverage is provided "cradle to grave". Regular doctor visits and exams would be covered. So more expensive emergency room treatment can be avoided. No more "pre-existing condition" BS that the private insurance companies presently do to deny coverage.

However, all of these benefits can only go so far without measures being taken to control healthcare costs. Any health care insurance system .... private or public .... will eventually collapse if health care costs continue to soar out of control. Something has to be done to regulate this. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. And there is precedent for it. Utilities are regulated in a much more restrictive manner than other companies because you have to have it. The normal forces of supply and demand don't apply to electricity, and natural gas, and water. The same logic applies to health care IMO.

Now do I think this will happen? Probably not. Definitely no time soon. Again, the employer based system is too entrenched, the private insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are too powerful to allow a change of this magnitude. I don't believe that private insurance companies would even go for a system where a public plan provided basic coverage and they would compete in a "supplemental" insurance market that went above and beyond that. There's simply too much money in the status quo for them.

At a minimum though, there needs to be comprehensive insurance regulation reform to expand coverage pools, increase competition, restrict the ability to deny/drop coverage, and restrict the ability to deny claims ... even if the system remains based in private insurance companies. That along with strong measures being taken to regulate and control health care costs would be significantly better than the system we have now.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Wrong again. A lawsuit was filed by Philip J. Berg (former chair of the PA democratic party) with the complaint that Obama's candidacy for President should be denied without proper documentation. This was the "birth" of the "birther" movement my friend. This scoop spent an awful lot of time on the well known bastion of conservative news; CNN. WIth all due respect, this sounds a lot like uninformed apologetics or worse; zealotry.

The fact that the originator of the "birther" movement was a Hillary Clinton supporter (and a 911 conspiracy theorist) does not negate the fact that the participants in the "birther" movement are overwhelmingly right-wingers. Also, just because Lou Dobbs works for CNN by no means negates the fact that he is substantially right-of-center in his views.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There certainly may be a few "right wing wackos" disrupting healthcare townhall meetings, but there are also a lot of folks, concerned about the future of their healthcare, expressing themselves in the townhall format.

Indeed. But why are you arguing a point that is not in dispute?

OAW

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

With due respect, ebuddy, this is just more FUD. Are you saying that politicians in Congress should be responsive to some generalized fear that, while the specifics of his proposals don't actually advocate for communism, you never know when that charlatan Obama could turn out to be Stalin?

No. I'm saying that politicians in Congress should be responsive to policy that is hostile to the private sector; particularly while granting themselves the right to "compete" against it in the marketplace. Granted, invoking Stalin may have seemed dramatic, but I've think you've mistaken frustration for FUD. I mean I'm listening to Rep Sheila Jackson Lee talking about "a robust public option" right now. She's hosting townhall meetings to promote it. I fail to see what's so uncertain or doubtful here.

There's no place for honest disagreement on that level, just ideological posturing. If we're not debating what's actually being proposed, then what's the point? Obama advocated for a single-payer system in an earlier period, but has modified his position in the face of the political "facts on the ground," same as any other politician. Whether his long-term goal is completely nationalized health care is irrelevant to the merits of what's being proposed now.

You seemed to have taken approximately .05% of my post and seized upon it. I can appreciate that, but I've got a problem with framing this .05% as the beginning and end of the legitimate concerns raised by myself and others.

What is conviction without a posture?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Cletus is a slack jawed yokel, not a redneck.

sorry if i offended

[torsoboy]

I went to a town hall meeting yesterday about the health care reform, and it was ridiculous. The organizers were 100% for the current version of the reform bill, but they had no clue as to what the reform would entail. Basically every questioned asked to them was responded with "I don't know about that specifically, but here is another story about a family that can't currently get health insurance. " When people would bring up specific wording and pages from the current bill, they had no responses other than, "I'm sure that is just being taken out of context, and it probably means xxxxx." It would have been laughable if it was a less serious subject. It was a waste of time to go to the meeting, and nobody learned anything from being there.

It seems like all of the debates and town hall meetings should be put on hold until the new bill/document is released on September 15th.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No. I'm saying that politicians in Congress should be responsive to policy that is hostile to the private sector; particularly while granting themselves the right to "compete" against it in the marketplace. Granted, invoking Stalin may have seemed dramatic, but I've think you've mistaken frustration for FUD. I mean I'm listening to Rep Sheila Jackson Lee talking about "a robust public option" right now. She's hosting townhall meetings to promote it. I fail to see what's so uncertain or doubtful here.

Well I guess that's the question that's up for debate. I mean, I'm all for the philosophy that the government should avoid interfering in the private sector when it's not necessary, but when you deem it to be necessary? I think there's a valid argument to be made that the private insurance industry in the United States is broken. And you again seem to have conflated "a robust public option" (my emphasis) with fully nationalized health care.

You seemed to have taken approximately .05% of my post and seized upon it. I can appreciate that, but I've got a problem with framing this .05% as the beginning and end of the legitimate concerns raised by myself and others.

What is conviction without a posture?

I don't think it's the beginning and end, but it seems to be the pivot point around which many of the concerns raised by critics of health care form revolve. Specifically, they have a philosophical problem with the government "interfering" with the status quo of health care at any level, which legitimizes in their mind using scare tactics like equating health care reform with Stalinism, "death panels," etc. (or at the very least, makes them uninterested in learning the details of what has actually been proposed in the various Congressional committees). You seem to be giving this kind of person a pass because of their philosophical position. That kind of debate, in my mind, is not productive because it can never lead to a compromised agreement.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I'm not going to tell you that. Because I think President Obama did mean it. He's said numerous times that if we were building a healthcare system from scratch a single-payer plan would be the best way to go. But we are not. And consequently, trying to move to a single-payer system would be too disruptive. Which is a nice way of saying that the employer based system of private insurance companies is too entrenched to realistically eliminate.

Of course. If you have a goal and you're met with an obstacle, you have to address the obstacle.

First of all, there is no single proposal. There are various bills working their way through committees in the House and Senate. And they are not identical. However, there are areas of commonality. In any event, NONE of the bills are proposing a single-payer system.

Again, of course not. I've already addressed this point. So did Obama in 2003 when he said it would likely not occur immediately.

The highlights of the common features in these bills are as follows:

- Elimination of the ability of insurers to deny coverage based upon pre-existing conditions.

Correct. As the result of an immediate threat to free cash flow, they will raise premiums. This is the very beginning of what becomes a damning combination of regulations and price-fixing.

- The establishment of health care exchanges that would function nationally in order to expand the pool of the insured. This would result in small businesses and individuals to purchase insurance at a much more competitive rate than they can now.

These exchanges are among the more contentious provisions of healthcare reform. A brilliant way of including the language; "qualified plans". All insurers will sell only qualified plans which absolutely hamstrings their ability to be competitive and eliminates a wealth of options for the current, over 90% insured who tailor their plans to their unique situations for holding down unnecessary costs. These exchanges will be set up and administered at the State level which does nothing to address the problem of lacking options through the status quo of denying robust interstate commerce. I find the notion that all are required to participate in the exchange (including those larger corporations who self-insure) with strict basic coverage requirements within 5 years very disturbing. This is a very aggressive move and will cause some of the immediate "disruptions" you claim we're trying to avoid by acknowledging how entrenched the system of "employer based system of private insurance companies" is. Obama acknowledges this and has cited the desire to transition away from this employer-based system within 10-15 years. The verbiage under the exchange provision also includes the assurance that no incentives will be paid for small and mid-size employers to self-insure. This is no way of controlling costs. There are other interesting proposed provisions including a medical loss ratio set by the Secretary in which insurers must return a portion of the premium collected to the insured contingent upon a ratio to the insurer's loss in benefits payout. While I don't expect you shed a tear for insurers, it certainly makes the venture less attractive. The employer-based system of private insurance is certainly an obstacle that is being addressed in relatively short order.

- The establishment of a requirement to obtain health insurance. A subsidy for those who presently can't afford it.

It'll be interesting to see how this requirement is enforced. It will be interesting to see where the cut-off is for those who "can't afford it". Personally, I think this provision is DOA. It will not exist in a finalized version. I could be wrong. When you break down the uninsured, you have a substantial portion of those earning over $50k a year opting out of having health insurance, instead saving/investing for their healthcare needs. Another large chunk of the uninsured are eligible for Medicaid or Medicare yet remain unenrolled. There's simply no reason to have this requirement.

- $80+ billion in lowers costs for prescription drugs. The ability for Medicare and other plans to negotiate for better prices.

You mean the Administration forced the hands of PhRMA who can see a much harsher intrusion into their bottom line than $80 billion long-term. I also see that you've included the "+". Obama has let this "+" slip in recent townhalls and this could be another DOA portion of the proposed healthcare reform. Remember, this money is coming directly from PhRMA and toying with the agreement will kill it. Why? Because there will be language in the bill that denies government the ability to negotiate directly with pharmaceuticals. PhRMA is hedging the cost of losses in revenue by the government strong-arming individual pharmaceuticals. This BTW, a continuation of Bush policy. Add to this the fact that we're not talking about $80 billion, we're talking about $30 billion over 10 years with another $50 billion on stand-by.

- Must be deficit neutral.

Through tax increases, imposing legislation on PhRMA, taxing employer-based plans, capping donations for charitable contribution, decreasing farm subsidies in which a great many representatives are beholden all lead to the impossibility of a deficit neutral plan. As Baucus himself puts it in the white paper on health reform he released just weeks after the election, “In the short term, healthcare reform would cost taxpayers more than the government can achieve in savings from all reforms and financing changes. Congressional leaders and the public must be realistic about the timeframe in which the fiscal success of reform is measured.” What you have in reality is a shell-game of verbiage that actually tries to suggest deficit neutrality over a 10 year span. i.e. pass it and deal with the fact that it's not deficit neutral in reality during another Administration. We'll see if the legislators are as committed to the deficit neutral goal as Obama claims to be. I'm skeptical. I'm even more skeptical at Obama's recent townhall banter on "you can't have something for nothing". I don't think the overwhelming majority of Americans are asking for anything.

The major source of differences in these bills are as follows:

- Some bills call for a public option for insurance. This would be a publicly run and administered insurance plan. However, it would not be subsidized. That is, it must collect premiums and payout claims like any other insurance company. It is not designed to operate at a loss and be propped up by general tax revenues.

I've not seen where the public option is required to have proven reserves just like any other State-regulated insurance company. The public option is still not required to make a profit. They can thus offer a much lower premium. This is not competition, this is setting up a healthcare monopoly. Medicare is already running on long-term bankruptcy and I'm not sure what basis people have for suggesting that a public option will not likewise run long-term on bankruptcy. Most businesses (other than those chosen as "winners" by the government) cannot function this way in a competitive marketplace.

- Some bills call for a co-op instead of a public option. This would be a non-profit organization that would provide an alternative to private insurance. However, it would not be administered by the government.

The President would pick, upon Senate confirmation, the people who run the national chartering and financing organization. Taxpayers fund the initial capital, government regulates all aspects of the charter, and the government chooses who manages the organization. This allows the charter to bypass "for-profit" State insurers that are required to offer "qualified plans" and because they will function as a non-profit entity, they can most certainly low-ball private insurers driving many off of their current employer-sponsored plans. I don't think it's acceptable for the government to use the collective resources of the entire country to compete against it in the free market.

- How to pay for the expansion of coverage. Some bills call for imposing a surtax on those making more than $250K per year. Others call for eliminating the tax exempt status of certain private health plans. Others call for eliminating the ability of those making more than $250K per year to claim a higher itemized deduction on charitable giving than middle class individuals can. Etc.

None of these provisions (including the other very unpopular notions I presented above) can offset the cost of the proposals presently on the table and there's nothing to suggest Congressional Democrats are beholden to the "deficit neutral" desire. Worse, "deficit neutral" does not mean "out of the gate deficit neutral" it means, "optimistically deficit neutral hopefully over a span of 10 years, but we'll address the fact that it's not later."

It means lower costs in terms of premiums for the coverage they currently have and are happy with.

No it doesn't. It sets up a system employers can't refuse because they either relent to the exchange or face a penalty. Employers are not going to pay higher expenses from their bottom line and let their employees pay higher premiums because of philosophical or political differences. The proposal is specifically geared towards creating a tilted playing field in which private insurers can't compete.

The fact of the matter is that the uninsured do utilize the healthcare system. However, they tend to use the emergency room when a health issue becomes a crisis rather than see the doctor long before. This in and of itself costs more money. Moreover, everyone who currently has insurances already pays for the cost of healthcare for the uninsured who seek medical attention. That cost is spread out among those who are insured and increases the premiums that they pay. Do they itemize it as such? No. But the healthcare providers build it into their costs of doing business. And these costs then are passed on to the insurance companies. And those costs are then passed on to the insured as part of their premiums.

One of the major, unspoken problems here is broken immigration policy, but aside from that you can address all of this without these major proposals. You can allow interstate commerce that bolsters competition between insurers and pool the self-employed and pool the uninsured among a wealth of other free market proposals that do not create government monstrosity.

I mean ... this is simple mathematics. If the people who are currently insured don't have to cover the costs of those who are not insured but still utilize the system (because such individuals would be paying premiums themselves) ... then that reduces their out of pocket expenses for their own insurance.

The entire scheme is designed to have you pay for the health expenses of those who currently don't have health insurance. There is absolutely nothing simple about the mathematic littered throughout 1,019 pages of healthcare reform. Nothing.

It means they have to purchase health care insurance. People who own a car have to carry auto insurance in most states. This would be no different. And there would be a subsidy for those below a certain income level.

An automobile is property. You have liability that protects others' property and you have comprehensive to cover the bank's investment. This is entirely different. I don't want to purchase my automobile insurance through the government either.

It means reducing the angle of the incline of the costs they are currently incurring to cover their employees. By expanding the pool of the insured, expanding competition among insurers, providing the ability to negotiate for lower drug prices, reducing the amount they have to pay to cover those who are uninsured by utilize the system ..... this all works to reduce the rate at which their costs increase year after year.

This all sounds good on paper, but the painful truth is... well it's not true. The CBO has already weighed in by finding an overall increase in healthcare expenditure across the board while accomplishing virtually none of the stated objectives.

Well, because you support a single-pay option ( I asked out of politeness as I already knew) I can completely understand your support of proposals that ultimately spell the end of the employer-based private insurance system.

I believe in the free market. But like all good rules there are exceptions. IMO there are certain things that shouldn't be organized around the profit motive. And at the top of that list for me are education and healthcare. The reason being is that unlike a typical good or service, these are things that you must have. So the normal market forces that regulate price as a function of supply and demand are skewed way out of whack in these areas. This is why you see the costs of higher education and healthcare spiraling out of control at several times the rate of inflation. When your life depends on a medication then the pharmaceutical company has a lot more pricing power than a merchant trying to sell you a shirt. The US pays much higher prices for the same prescription drugs than any other developed country? Why? Because they can! Simple as that.

Couple of problems here. Pharmaceuticals sell their drugs abroad for 30-50% less than they sell them in the US because Federal law gives these manufacturers a monopoly over prescription drug importation. Also, it takes 5 years to develop a drug and another 5 on average to study its safety and effectiveness and another 1-2 years for FDA approval. This is one drug and does not take into account the number of drugs that go through a similar process unapproved. Another major problem is the notion that prescriptions are free. As long as people aren't paying for their own drugs (Medicare/Medicaid) they are not shopping for cheaper drugs. Shopping encourages lower pricing. It'd be nice if the Federal government could maintain consistent prescription drug expenditures between Medicare and the VA alone. It's all over the place.

In my view, we could significantly reduce the cost of health insurance by eliminating the profit motive out of the equation.

Unfortunately, this is how human nature functions naturally. Tweaking it has caused nothing, but trouble evidenced by a healthcare industry already 46% managed by the Federal government. If the government can give you everything you need, it can take everything you have.

Now I'm not talking about the health care providers. I'm talking about the health care insurance.

I'm not sure how profitable the industry could possibly be for providers.

A publicly run, single payer plan would undoubtedly do the following:

1. Create the largest possible insurance pool. A larger pool means lower premiums for all because the risk is spread around further.

Wrong. Plans will be administered at the State level contingent upon the varying needs of the State. Risk is not spread around, health insurance is. High risk will simply be excluded and the option to purchase coverage from a private industry to cover your particular risk will eventually be gone. Worse, the State will spend what it receives if nothing more than to ensure it will get at least as much the next fiscal year. This lends itself to rampant waste and fraud as evidenced by the 46% already managed by the Federal government.

2. Reduce costs because premiums don't have to cover the profit taking of the insurance company.

Again, this assumes the government somehow has more integrity than the private sector. This is a fundamental disagreement between us. Increasing premiums will have to cover minimum "qualified coverage" increasing costs for all and will no doubt cover the ever-expanding profit-taking of government. Again, these would be good arguments if didn't already have CBO estimates on the table. Because this coverage is not possible with the proposed cuts, we will either face inflation due to printing more money or we will face tax increases starting with those that employ people as you've outlined above with the income quintiles affected.

A single payer plan would still have to collect premiums and cover its costs for sure. But it would essentially be a "not-for-profit" entity.

A "not-for-profit" entity will sustain itself with tax revenue in tandem with premium collection and will be nothing more than a political football every election year for decades to come. Corporations that do not function from the profit motive have little motive for innovation. Federal funds will be doled out unevenly leaving some states with surpluses and many states crying for more funding. A governor will still have to be a governor.

3. Reduce costs because healthcare coverage is provided "cradle to grave". Regular doctor visits and exams would be covered. So more expensive emergency room treatment can be avoided. No more "pre-existing condition" BS that the private insurance companies presently do to deny coverage.

Coverages will be "attenuated", there will be immense shortages in healthcare professionals because as much as you may find the notion distasteful, it used to pay well. There is nothing "cradle to grave" about single-payer health insurance. While other countries including Sweden embrace increasing privatization through cries of reform through an unstable system, we're getting ready to uproot the over 80% perfectly happy with their care.

The fact that the originator of the "birther" movement was a Hillary Clinton supporter (and a 911 conspiracy theorist) does not negate the fact that the participants in the "birther" movement are overwhelmingly right-wingers. Also, just because Lou Dobbs works for CNN by no means negates the fact that he is substantially right-of-center in his views.

How is Lou Dobbs substantially right of center? Frankly, I didn't hear a whole lot about "birthers" until Phil Bergman brought the lawsuit forth and I had forgotten about it entirely until CNN repeatedly aired it. Considering the country is predominantly "right of center", that's saying a great deal about the apparent discipline of the right.

Indeed. But why are you arguing a point that is not in dispute?

Because I patently reject your attempt to caricature those who are exercising their right to dissent. It wasn't clear to me from your tone that you respected their right as much as you felt compelled to label them.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Well I guess that's the question that's up for debate. I mean, I'm all for the philosophy that the government should avoid interfering in the private sector when it's not necessary, but when you deem it to be necessary? I think there's a valid argument to be made that the private insurance industry in the United States is broken. And you again seem to have conflated "a robust public option" (my emphasis) with fully nationalized health care.

Healthcare is not broken. Immigration policy is broken. The 46% of the system already managed by the Federal government is broken. Competition between insurers has been hamstrung by broken regulatory measures.

I don't think it's the beginning and end, but it seems to be the pivot point around which many of the concerns raised by critics of health care form revolve.

Really? I see elected officials unable to adequately speak to the program they're peddling. I see elected officials quick to label opposition, slow to address their opposing points.

Specifically, they have a philosophical problem with the government "interfering" with the status quo of health care at any level, which legitimizes in their mind using scare tactics like equating health care reform with Stalinism, "death panels," etc. (or at the very least, makes them uninterested in learning the details of what has actually been proposed in the various Congressional committees).

First of all, no one equated healthcare reform to Stalinism. What is it you find so bothersome about a layperson who uses scary terms like "death panels" while our leadership uses scare tactics to rack up unprecedented debt? Your focus of concern is misdirected IMO. If they bother you, don't pay attention to them. Let your legislators deal with their questions and let the measure pass on its merits. The problem here is that there is more agenda than merit and the more "proposals in the various Congressional committees" become public, the less popular they become.

You seem to be giving this kind of person a pass because of their philosophical position. That kind of debate, in my mind, is not productive because it can never lead to a compromised agreement.

I'm not giving anyone a pass, least of which the people that actually affect my livelihood. Perhaps you should reconsider your focus for a more productive outcome.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

First of all, no one equated healthcare reform to Stalinism. What is it you find so bothersome about a layperson who uses scary terms like "death panels" while our leadership uses scare tactics to rack up unprecedented debt? Your focus of concern is misdirected IMO. If they bother you, don't pay attention to them. Let your legislators deal with their questions and let the measure pass on its merits. The problem here is that there is more agenda than merit and the more "proposals in the various Congressional committees" become public, the less popular they become.

What I was responding to was your point to OAW that seemed to basically be defending people who are making false claims against the health care proposals because you seem to think there is a secret Obama agenda ("Stalin would be more shrewd than this") and this is what they are opposing. I don't see why I can't be against citizens who make false claims and use scare tactics, and also be against legislators who make false claims and use scare tactics. Both are unproductive. Both are "more agenda than merit." Both deserved to be called out and mocked for all they are worth. If elected officials are "slow to address their concerns," it's often because their concerns are incoherent.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

What I was responding to was your point to OAW that seemed to basically be defending people who are making false claims against the health care proposals because you seem to think there is a secret Obama agenda ("Stalin would be more shrewd than this") and this is what they are opposing.

I'm defending people that are questioning our elected officials on aspects of their healthcare proposal. Real tough questions like; "how are we going to pay for this?" Questions they cannot answer honestly. I'm not suggesting there's any secret Obama agenda, as I've indicated how he's been quite open about it. Only a tyrant not concerned about being elected would attempt an overnight upheaval of something as massive as this country's healthcare system when the majority of the public opposes it.

I don't see why I can't be against citizens who make false claims and use scare tactics, and also be against legislators who make false claims and use scare tactics. Both are unproductive. Both are "more agenda than merit." Both deserved to be called out and mocked for all they are worth. If elected officials are "slow to address their concerns," it's often because their concerns are incoherent.

You mentioned "death panels" as a fear tactic, but there is nothing new or reprehensible about referring to something in its most dramatic form to bring attention to the provision. It is dramatic speech not unlike referring to this as a healthcare crisis when in fact most are perfectly happy with their coverage. The difference of course is one affects you directly while the other is a layperson's voice at a townhall meeting.

There will in fact be a panel to define the attenuation of coverage as well as other basic provisions up to and including the contentious Advance Care Planning Consultation in Section 1233 of the Congressional Bill. Why contentious? After all, at the surface it's merely a payment by Medicare to medical doctors to counsel their patient on end-of-life options and care. This provision is referred to as the Physician's Quality Reporting Initiative and ties payments to doctors only in cases where the patient follows through with the initial order completed for end-of-life care. In short, if the patient changes their mind, the doctors are not compensated for the counseling. Why on earth would you tie payment to the healthcare professional on a patient's wishes? The provision is absolutely unnecessary, particularly when the share of Medicare spent on patients in their last year of life has not increased in over 40 years. It seems a senseless measure that if nothing more, indicates how bad it must suck to be a doctor when counseling your patient on their treatment options needs to be compensated by the government or it won't occur. This panel by the way measures both the creation of and adherence to orders for life sustaining treatment and lends itself to earlier sections regarding limits to care. You may not like the term "death panel", but word is it has been removed from the bill because of the potential for misinterpretation and improper implementation. BTW, it is my understanding that these were initiatives proposed by the GOP years ago. I don't think an increase in government oversight into personal healthcare is a good idea now and it wouldn't be any more appealing under a Republican administration. Remember, whatever you do today will be the policies under which the next Administration may function; an Administration you may not be nearly as sympathetic to.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I'm defending people that are questioning our elected officials on aspects of their healthcare proposal. Real tough questions like; "how are we going to pay for this?" Questions they cannot answer honestly.

Great. But the people with the lucid questions aren't the ones we are mocking. So no need to get defensive on their behalf.

Only a tyrant not concerned about being elected would attempt an overnight upheaval of something as massive as this country's healthcare system when the majority of the public opposes it.

Oh come on now.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Great. But the people with the lucid questions aren't the ones we are mocking. So no need to get defensive on their behalf.

There's no need to mock in the first place. You only invite a defensive response; particularly when it is apparent that you're only mocking those with whom you disagree.

Oh come on now.

What?

[Chongo]

The Gipper speaks from beyond the grave.
YouTube - Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The Gipper speaks from beyond the grave.
YouTube - Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

Well, he is a handsome DEVIL....

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The Gipper speaks from beyond the grave.
YouTube - Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

wonder what he thought about it when he had alzheimer's... what? who am i?

[ironknee]

amazing how many europe countries are fighting for america's healthcare system

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

wonder what he thought about it when he had alzheimer's... what? who am i?

Are you serious?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Are you serious?

hi buddy!

nice to see you around.

love ya

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Are you serious?

I've been watching this thread with great interest.

I'm not sure I really need to say what everyone is thinking, but man another page or two of that back and forth and we almost could have gotten somewhere! Oh well, maybe the next thread.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

hi buddy!

nice to see you around.

love ya

I lost my father in January of 2008 to Alzheimer's. I watched it render an otherwise brilliant man someone who knew little more than his own name.

Just wanted to let you know that you've hit rock-bottom. There's nowhere to go from here, but up.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

wonder what he thought about it when he had alzheimer's... what? who am i?

YouTube - Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

Can't attack the message, so attack the messenger.

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

YouTube - Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine

Can't attack the message, so attack the messenger.

It's a fundamental question of priorities. Tax dollars better spent providing healthcare to American citizens, or tossed in the blackhole for "national defense". Thanks to Bush and Iraq, MOST people see the foolishness of the latter. Lets help Americans, instead of defense contractors and/or foreigners we've invaded.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

It's a fundamental question of priorities. Tax dollars better spent providing healthcare to American citizens, or tossed in the blackhole for "national defense". Thanks to Bush and Iraq, MOST people see the foolishness of the latter. Lets help Americans, instead of defense contractors and/or foreigners we've invaded.

What level of defense spending would be acceptable for you? (defense spending falls under discretionary spending)

[Powerbook]

"Same" hysteric debate in the good ole UK...

[stumblinmike]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

What level of defense spending would be acceptable for you? (defense spending falls under discretionary spending)

Let's start with 1/5 of what it is now. When we send a pallet full of dollars to Iraq, and it "disappears", we are spending WAY too much money on defense. Our "defense dept" didn't do us much good on 9/11, correct? You must be in "the best defense is a good offense" camp.
ps: nice touch using heritage.org

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by stumblinmike 

Let's start with 1/5 of what it is now. When we send a pallet full of dollars to Iraq, and it "disappears", we are spending WAY too much money on defense. Our "defense dept" didn't do us much good on 9/11, correct? You must be in "the best defense is a good offense" camp.
ps: nice touch using heritage.org

They are using the White House Office of Management and Budget's numbers.

[stumblinmike]

Watching c-span right now, repeat of Tuesdays Commission on Wartime Contracting. It's all about waste, fraud and abuse. I would rather we waste money on healthcare, potentially helping PEOPLE, rather than throwing it at well connected defense contractors, who would like to start another crusade for Christianity.