New U.S. Healthcare Reform, No New Business for Insurance Co

[Intangelon]

Any hint on who put that provision in?

Some democrat asshat, no doubt. Why the hell do liberals and democrats hate private enterprise and personal responsibility so much? Thanks again Obamabots... your messiah is turning the USA into a corrupt dictatorship

Which one? You need a name before you can make pronouncements like that. Otherwise, YOU look like the asshat.

[Intangelon]

I went digging and found a copy of the bill online just in case anyone wants to read page 16 themselves

http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/ ... 071409.pdf

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
COVERAGE.
(a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV-
ERAGEDEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov-
erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance
coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) LIMITATIONONNEWENROLLMENT.—
(A) INGENERAL.—Except as provided in
this paragraph, the individual health insurance
issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
any individual in such coverage if the first ef-
fective date of coverage is on or after the first
day of Y1.
(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER-
MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect
the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an
individual who is covered as of such first day.
(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR
CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except
as required by law, the issuer does not change any
of its terms or conditions, including benefits and
cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be-
fore the first day of Y1.

[Muravyets]

Here are some links for free-market healthcare solutions

Finally, thank you.

http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/summary/archive/2008/health-policy-galen.html

Not a plan. This is a list of opinions/positions in Q&A form. (double posted below)

http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/summary/archive/2008/health-policy-galen.html


http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279

Not a plan. Just another opinion piece. Further, this one contains some of the most idiotic extreme-fake-libertarian bullshit I have ever seen (and it's not the first time I've seen it). It amounts to nothing more than a call for a free-for-all.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34816.html

Not a plan. Another opinion piece, this one promoting the do-nothing approach along with some favored toys of the insurance industry, and basing its argument on the grounds that the deaths suffered due to lack of care are at levels the writer finds acceptable. Yeah, well, bully for that writer, but it's still not the plan you promised.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/a_real_free_market_health_care_1.html

Not a plan. This one comes a little closer to looking like a plan because it is written in the form of a bullet-point outline of discussion points for working out a possible plan, but that doesn't make it a plan. Also, when you look at the bullet points and realize that they're just more ideology-driven "let's do nothing" talking points, it falls short of "plan" even more.

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/10333/Heartlands_Health_Care_Issue_Suite.html

And now you're just making fun of us. This isn't even pretending to be a plan. It's the Heartland group's statement of its position on the issue, not a plan for how to address the issue. It refers to some of your own sources linked herein, but gives us no information about them, let alone taking their content anywhere further. Also, Heartland is a business group specifically organized to lobby against business regulation of all kinds. It is not a medical organization, knows nothing at all about health care, does not claim to be expert in that area, and does not claim to have a plan to offer.

Admit it, you just googled for anything mentioning health care reform from any conservative/rightwing group and posted the nicest looking links from the first three google result pages without actually reading them yourself, didn't you?

http://healthcare.cato.org/free-market-solutions

Not a plan but another insult to your readers. This is another position statement, this one attached to a reading list, and it's from the Cato Institute, a rightwing thinktank that only promotes extreme conservative and neocon policies on absolutely everything, but is in no way an expert on or active in health care.

http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/2009/06/14/safeway-ceo-on-free-market-health-care-solutions/

Not a plan. A blog. A blog from some random internet people who offer no credentials on anything, let alone health care systems analysis. And this blog does not pretend to be offering a plan, either, but rather merely quotes one CEO of one company telling what his company does. That's not a plan.

http://urethaneblog.typepad.com/my_weblog/2009/06/milton-friedmans-free-market-solution-to-the-healthcare-problem.html

Not a plan. Another blog -- this one from a trade organization of the polyurethane industry -- noted experts on health care systems. Oh, wait -- damn. And they're not offering a plan, either. They're just quoting Milton Friedman, who is not offering a plan, but just expressing his opinions.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2009-07-17.asp

Blog Number 3 -- utterly free of plan.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/98812

Wait -- IS RON PAUL GOING TO PAY ALL MY MEDICAL BILLS????? Well, hot damn, Sibirsky, now THAT'S a plan I can get behind. Just forward me Mr. Paul's credit card info and I'll sign right on.

Or...not. That is Ron Paul's website, and it does not contain a health care system plan. However inspiring you may find Ron Paul, his mere existence does not constitute a health care plan.

http://aleksandreia.wordpress.com/2009/03/23/healthcare-reform-in-defense-of-the-free-market-solution/

Not a plan. Random internet person's blog number 4, totally plan-free.

http://www.jpands.org/hacienda/ferrara.html

Not a plan. This is just talking about a plan. And it doesn't actually talk about the plan at all. It just mentions the plan and then goes on to sing the praises of HMOs. Why don't you go and find the plan it mentions, since you said you were going to find us some plans?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_driven_health_care

Not a plan. A wikipedia explanatory article about a KIND OF PLAN but not an actual plan. I did not need a link to tell me you support a consumer-driven health care model. Now show me a plan for one that is better than what we have now or what Obama is proposing or what the Congress is working on.

http://www.freemarketproject.org/articles/2009/20090513142625.aspx

And finally, not a plan. Just another opinion piece criticizing Obama's approach and saying they like another kind of approach better but not actually telling us what such an approach's plan would be.

So... you went to quite a lot of trouble to show us what we already knew. You have no alternative plan. You never did. You never knew of any. You never made and were never going to make any real effort to find out if there was one (or you would have googled the plan mentioned in that one link, above). You have been bullshitting us from word one.

[Treznor]

I don't suppose any of you "free market thinkers" would find any of this applicable to our current situation, would you? A man who felt it essential to avoid making people dependent on solutions by the Federal government, who urged volunteerism to correct economic problems and repatriated millions of Mexicans, denouncing them as illegal immigrants and the cause of our financial woes? Any of this sound familiar to you?

Your leaving out the Tariff act passed in 1930.
Your source says 500,000 Mexican Americans not millions.
Your also leaving out that he never fixed the Federal reserves stupidity, or even tried too.

All that is in the link. And I apologize for overstating the repatriation act. Still, anti-immigration sentiment, protectionism and all the stupid rhetoric you're giving us now was in his policies, with the exception of blaming the Federal Reserve. In the end he ended up instituting a program of government deficit spending to create investment projects, a program that Roosevelt picked up and continued. That is when economists track the growth of GDP and the beginning of recovery. Not World War II, not the end of deficit spending, but the beginning of deficit spending. Hoover's policy was to block legislative attempts to end the Depression and encourage free market solutions.

So all you're left with is the Federal Reserve to blame for the Depression, which means the Federal Reserve is the only logical reason why the nation recovered. That's an awful lot of power to the Federal Reserve.

[The PeoplesFreedom]

Not a plan. Just another opinion piece. Further, this one contains some of the most idiotic extreme-fake-libertarian bullshit I have ever seen (and it's not the first time I've seen it). It amounts to nothing more than a call for a free-for-all.

I'll focus on this but this relates to all your other points. I am not sure what you definition of a 'plan' it but every alternative suggested you simply say " This isn't a plan.", or announce is as "diotic extreme-fake-libertarian bullshit I have ever seen", ignoring completely that it comes from a genuine group of prominent economists.

[Muravyets]

I don't remember the government doing anything to help in the early 20s.

Well, there's your problem right there. You're relying on your memory, when clearly you were not present for the events and have never read anything about them (obviously) since then. And if you had ever bothered to learn about what your topics, your memory is clearly not reliable, since you have forgotten what your own point was from just a few posts ago.

[Muravyets]

Source from my post
The Unbound Prometheus by David S. Landes
also Globalizing capital by Barry Eichengreen.

And do you expect me to run right out, buy the books and read them -- and presumably agree with your (suspect) understanding of them? Or do you actually want to find sources that back up your claims?

I will get pages numbers later when I am not withdrawing from Oxycontin if you like.

Rush! Can I have your autograph?

[The PeoplesFreedom]

I don't suppose any of you "free market thinkers" would find any of this applicable to our current situation, would you? A man who felt it essential to avoid making people dependent on solutions by the Federal government, who urged volunteerism to correct economic problems and repatriated millions of Mexicans, denouncing them as illegal immigrants and the cause of our financial woes? Any of this sound familiar to you?

Your leaving out the Tariff act passed in 1930.
Your source says 500,000 Mexican Americans not millions.
Your also leaving out that he never fixed the Federal reserves stupidity, or even tried too.

All that is in the link. And I apologize for overstating the repatriation act. Still, anti-immigration sentiment, protectionism and all the stupid rhetoric you're giving us now was in his policies, with the exception of blaming the Federal Reserve. In the end he ended up instituting a program of government deficit spending to create investment projects, a program that Roosevelt picked up and continued. That is when economists track the growth of GDP and the beginning of recovery. Not World War II, not the end of deficit spending, but the beginning of deficit spending. Hoover's policy was to block legislative attempts to end the Depression and encourage free market solutions.

So all you're left with is the Federal Reserve to blame for the Depression, which means the Federal Reserve is the only logical reason why the nation recovered. That's an awful lot of power to the Federal Reserve.

You seem to be under the impression that Hoover was an advocate of the free market and non-interventionism which, from your own words, is clearly not the case.

[Ashmoria]

Not a plan. Just another opinion piece. Further, this one contains some of the most idiotic extreme-fake-libertarian bullshit I have ever seen (and it's not the first time I've seen it). It amounts to nothing more than a call for a free-for-all.

I'll focus on this but this relates to all your other points. I am not sure what you definition of a 'plan' it but every alternative suggested you simply say " This isn't a plan.", or announce is as "diotic extreme-fake-libertarian bullshit I have ever seen", ignoring completely that it comes from a genuine group of prominent economists.

no really. if it isnt a plan it cant cover the "show me a better plan" post.

volume of links is not the same as being on point.

[Intangelon]

None of those waits were for broken legs. Nice try moving those goalposts though

The broken leg part was the first thing I could think of, but hey, leave it to you guys to hold fact to just a post for an example.

Also, another point as to why UHC is a bad idea;

Now the way it works is people fund it through their taxes right? Now, not only would taxes go up considerably, but, you would also be funding people who did things to themselves. Such as, some idiot alcoholic, needs a new kidney, guess what you pay for it through your tax money, now forgive me for seeming cold, but he did it to himself, it's not up to me, to have to give my money to the government which pays for what he did to himself.

Alcoholism and drug abuse are two very large reasons that you DO NOT get to the top of the organ recipient list. You're just making shit up at this point, and you need to get a grip on reality.

[Muravyets]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-World_War_I_recession

A very short article. Nothing about government intervention.

That still isn't the point I challenged. See, I am choosing to assume you are so confused by your own BS that you have forgotten how the conversation went, rather than assume you are again desperately deflecting in an attempt to avoid having to admit your claim was nonsense.

[Treznor]

All that is in the link. And I apologize for overstating the repatriation act. Still, anti-immigration sentiment, protectionism and all the stupid rhetoric you're giving us now was in his policies, with the exception of blaming the Federal Reserve. In the end he ended up instituting a program of government deficit spending to create investment projects, a program that Roosevelt picked up and continued. That is when economists track the growth of GDP and the beginning of recovery. Not World War II, not the end of deficit spending, but the beginning of deficit spending. Hoover's policy was to block legislative attempts to end the Depression and encourage free market solutions.

So all you're left with is the Federal Reserve to blame for the Depression, which means the Federal Reserve is the only logical reason why the nation recovered. That's an awful lot of power to the Federal Reserve.

You seem to be under the impression that Hoover was an advocate of the free market and non-interventionism which, from your own words, is clearly not the case.

Hoover was an advocate of free market solutions and non-interventionism in dealing with the Depression, which is why shanty towns were nicknamed "Hoovervilles" in his honor. It wasn't until in his last months in office that he began deficit spending, which was ultimately responsible for ending the Depression.

[The PeoplesFreedom]

Not a plan. Just another opinion piece. Further, this one contains some of the most idiotic extreme-fake-libertarian bullshit I have ever seen (and it's not the first time I've seen it). It amounts to nothing more than a call for a free-for-all.

I'll focus on this but this relates to all your other points. I am not sure what you definition of a 'plan' it but every alternative suggested you simply say " This isn't a plan.", or announce is as "diotic extreme-fake-libertarian bullshit I have ever seen", ignoring completely that it comes from a genuine group of prominent economists.

no really. if it isnt a plan it cant cover the "show me a better plan" post.

volume of links is not the same as being on point.

Right, but neither is saying 'This isn't a plan' and refuting the points by calling them bullshit or 'right-wing' rather than refuting the points or presenting an alternate plan.

[Ashmoria]

Not a plan. Just another opinion piece. Further, this one contains some of the most idiotic extreme-fake-libertarian bullshit I have ever seen (and it's not the first time I've seen it). It amounts to nothing more than a call for a free-for-all.

I'll focus on this but this relates to all your other points. I am not sure what you definition of a 'plan' it but every alternative suggested you simply say " This isn't a plan.", or announce is as "diotic extreme-fake-libertarian bullshit I have ever seen", ignoring completely that it comes from a genuine group of prominent economists.

no really. if it isnt a plan it cant cover the "show me a better plan" post.

volume of links is not the same as being on point.

Right, but neither is saying 'This isn't a plan' and refuting the points by calling them bullshit or 'right-wing' rather than refuting the points or presenting an alternate plan.

when a plan is presented, we can discuss it. until then, bullshit is bullshit.

[Greed and Death]

I don't suppose any of you "free market thinkers" would find any of this applicable to our current situation, would you? A man who felt it essential to avoid making people dependent on solutions by the Federal government, who urged volunteerism to correct economic problems and repatriated millions of Mexicans, denouncing them as illegal immigrants and the cause of our financial woes? Any of this sound familiar to you?

Your leaving out the Tariff act passed in 1930.
Your source says 500,000 Mexican Americans not millions.
Your also leaving out that he never fixed the Federal reserves stupidity, or even tried too.

All that is in the link. And I apologize for overstating the repatriation act. Still, anti-immigration sentiment, protectionism and all the stupid rhetoric you're giving us now, with the exception of blaming the Federal Reserve. In the end he ended up instituting a program of government deficit spending to create investment projects, a program that Roosevelt picked up and continued. That is when economists track the growth of GDP and the beginning of recovery. Not World War II, not the end of deficit spending, but the beginning. Hoover's policy was to block legislative attempts to end the Depression and encourage free market solutions.

So all you're left with is the Federal Reserve to blame for the Depression, which means the Federal Reserve is the only logical reason why the nation recovered. That's an awful lot of power to the Federal Reserve.

There is a problem with the GDP of the 1930's. Namely that it largely is not making products. The government would pay people for non productive labor. roads to no where and 10 people picking up trash on the same block is not really productive, even if it makes the GDP appear larger. Neither really is WWII as what we made would be sent over to Europe and destroyed. To be productive it really has to be trade able. Otherwise it does not make a society richer because society can not trade the good or service for other goods and services. Recovery didn't really occur until the Bretton woods system went into effect post WWII.

[Intangelon]

I broke my hand last November. Waited an hour, my hand get plastered. Went back a week later to get my plaster removed, waited half an hour. Went into anyphylactic (sp?) shock last Summer, waited 10 minutes before they saw me. Broke my toe November 2007, waited an hour and 45 minutes to get seen toe. That's not horribly inefficient.

I'm speaking of the Heart Surgery and Hip Replacement referenced in the article. Both very important, not something you can wait weeks for.

Which article? The source for his italicized tirade was never given, nor a link provided. For all we know, he wrote it himself.

[The PeoplesFreedom]

All that is in the link. And I apologize for overstating the repatriation act. Still, anti-immigration sentiment, protectionism and all the stupid rhetoric you're giving us now was in his policies, with the exception of blaming the Federal Reserve. In the end he ended up instituting a program of government deficit spending to create investment projects, a program that Roosevelt picked up and continued. That is when economists track the growth of GDP and the beginning of recovery. Not World War II, not the end of deficit spending, but the beginning of deficit spending. Hoover's policy was to block legislative attempts to end the Depression and encourage free market solutions.

So all you're left with is the Federal Reserve to blame for the Depression, which means the Federal Reserve is the only logical reason why the nation recovered. That's an awful lot of power to the Federal Reserve.

You seem to be under the impression that Hoover was an advocate of the free market and non-interventionism which, from your own words, is clearly not the case.

Hoover was an advocate of free market solutions and non-interventionism in dealing with the Depression, which is why shanty towns were nicknamed "Hoovervilles" in his honor. It wasn't until in his last months in office that he began deficit spending, which was ultimately responsible for ending the Depression.

Incorrect. The crash of 1929 was cause dby reckless expansion of the money supply from the Federal Reserve among other reasons, and it was only after WW2 with the abolishment of price controls and millions of men ready to work again that we finally emerged from it.

[Muravyets]

Not a plan. Just another opinion piece. Further, this one contains some of the most idiotic extreme-fake-libertarian bullshit I have ever seen (and it's not the first time I've seen it). It amounts to nothing more than a call for a free-for-all.

I'll focus on this but this relates to all your other points. I am not sure what you definition of a 'plan' it but every alternative suggested you simply say " This isn't a plan.", or announce is as "diotic extreme-fake-libertarian bullshit I have ever seen", ignoring completely that it comes from a genuine group of prominent economists.

Genuine and prominent according to you. And you might even think that that obviously moronic BS is not quite so obvious, and you are entitled to your opinions, such as they are. But that does not change two things:

1) The linked-to piece is nothing but a list of those ideological suggestions about what **should** happen in the writer's preferred kind of system; and

2) That does not make it a plan. A PLAN includes specific descriptions of all the various parts of the proposed system; how they will be implemented; by whom; on what timeline; in what order; for how much money; and a detailed analysis of how this plan will differ from the current system and how it will be better.

The linked source is NOT an alternative health care plan.

[Muravyets]

Right, but neither is saying 'This isn't a plan' and refuting the points by calling them bullshit or 'right-wing' rather than refuting the points or presenting an alternate plan.

He said he knew of alternative plans that were better than Obama's. He was asked to provide links to them. He posted those links and said they contained information about the alternative plans he has mentioned. They do not. Their "points" (whatever those might be) are not relevant to that.

As for me offering an alternative plan -- I don't have to. I'm backing (reluctantly) the plan that is the main focus of the topic -- Obama's plan. Sibirsky was the one who claimed to have alternatives to that, which he failed to provide.

[Treznor]

[
All that is in the link. And I apologize for overstating the repatriation act. Still, anti-immigration sentiment, protectionism and all the stupid rhetoric you're giving us now, with the exception of blaming the Federal Reserve. In the end he ended up instituting a program of government deficit spending to create investment projects, a program that Roosevelt picked up and continued. That is when economists track the growth of GDP and the beginning of recovery. Not World War II, not the end of deficit spending, but the beginning. Hoover's policy was to block legislative attempts to end the Depression and encourage free market solutions.

So all you're left with is the Federal Reserve to blame for the Depression, which means the Federal Reserve is the only logical reason why the nation recovered. That's an awful lot of power to the Federal Reserve.

There is a problem with the GDP of the 1930's. Namely that it largely is not making products. The government would pay people for non productive labor. roads to no where and 10 people picking up trash on the same block is not really productive, even if it makes the GDP appear larger. Neither really is WWII as what we made would be sent over to Europe and destroyed. To be productive it really has to be trade able. Otherwise it does not make a society richer because society can not trade the good or service for other goods and services. Recovery didn't really occur until the Bretton woods system went into effect post WWII.

In other words, you disagree with pretty much every peer-reviewed economist of the last eighty years. I'm sure you the academic credentials to establish your bona-fides, or at least a wealth of data to back up this assertion.

[The PeoplesFreedom]

Right, but neither is saying 'This isn't a plan' and refuting the points by calling them bullshit or 'right-wing' rather than refuting the points or presenting an alternate plan.

He said he knew of alternative plans that were better than Obama's. He was asked to provide links to them. He posted those links and said they contained information about the alternative plans he has mentioned. They do not. They're "points" are not relevant to that.

As for me offering an alternative plan -- I don't have to. I'm backing (reluctantly) the plan that is the main focus of the topic -- Obama's plan. Sibirsky was the one who claimed to have alternatives to that, which he failed to provide.

I'll concede to you that. However, your definition of a 'plan' is very precise I guess is the word. Whereas those linked may not be as detailed as you like, most plans aren't as detailed as Obama's because it has gone through committees. In addition, a free-market 'plan' would arguably have much less "substance".

[The PeoplesFreedom]

[
All that is in the link. And I apologize for overstating the repatriation act. Still, anti-immigration sentiment, protectionism and all the stupid rhetoric you're giving us now, with the exception of blaming the Federal Reserve. In the end he ended up instituting a program of government deficit spending to create investment projects, a program that Roosevelt picked up and continued. That is when economists track the growth of GDP and the beginning of recovery. Not World War II, not the end of deficit spending, but the beginning. Hoover's policy was to block legislative attempts to end the Depression and encourage free market solutions.

So all you're left with is the Federal Reserve to blame for the Depression, which means the Federal Reserve is the only logical reason why the nation recovered. That's an awful lot of power to the Federal Reserve.

There is a problem with the GDP of the 1930's. Namely that it largely is not making products. The government would pay people for non productive labor. roads to no where and 10 people picking up trash on the same block is not really productive, even if it makes the GDP appear larger. Neither really is WWII as what we made would be sent over to Europe and destroyed. To be productive it really has to be trade able. Otherwise it does not make a society richer because society can not trade the good or service for other goods and services. Recovery didn't really occur until the Bretton woods system went into effect post WWII.

In other words, you disagree with pretty much every peer-reviewed economist of the last eighty years. I'm sure you the academic credentials to establish your bona-fides, or at least a wealth of data to back up this assertion.

No, you agree with Keynesian economics, which is the current economic view held by the majority, it is by no means the only one.

[Intangelon]

I wouldn't be surprised at all -- especially if you're a conservative so incapable of supporting your own position that you cannot even present it without scaffolding it 'round with logical fallacies. Latest example, above: No True Scotsman, in which you attempt to dismiss evidence against you by claiming that said evidence doesn't fall within your claimed sample group. You don't get to define "socialism" narrowly just so it will fit your argument. The nations named all implement socialist systems, especially in regards to health care, and none of them has been or is being destroyed by it. Your claim falls flat.

Actually all of them are quite real, but it's yours and everyone else's right to deny them. But personally, I really don't have the time nor patience to hunt down the couple hundred articles of proof, just so you and everyone else who disagrees with me, to go 'GOP PROPAGANDA!'.

Anyway, this thread is more pissing me off than anything else, and life it really too short, so I'm done with it.

Then where are they?

Actually, you were done a while back. Your claims are groundless and sourceless. You should be pissed off at your own inability to defend your argument, not the child-like simplicity of any argument that shreds your points.

[Intangelon]

Why do I have to back up random numbers, but you don't?

It seems likely we'll save money in the longterm, so I'll take my figures over yours.

Well the $12 trillion is well known so I'll leave that alone, the "in 5 years" is Team Obama's projections on the low end and I added a bit to the high end in case the economy hits some road bumps. The 10 year numbers are obviously even more iffy. Your numbers (especially the 10 year numbers) are not reasonable. Not plausible (well, perhaps if we end up like Zimbabwe they are).

I love how "well known" actually equals "I have no source for this apart from blogs or YouTube."

[Intangelon]

Current: $11.4 trillion http://www.usdebtclock.org/

In 5 years, White House projection $18.35 trillion http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/classic.html#usgs302

They do not have projections past 5 years. I admit I came up with that $30-$36 number on my own. However the $18-$20 five year number is reasonable, considering the White House says $18.35.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/about_gs.php

And just who is this blogger?