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

[Greed and Death]

[
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.

Umm I didn't realize David S. Landes has not published a peer reviewed article. Harvard must be having some lax standards for their economic professors.
And Barry Eichengreen he didn't published a peer reviewed article ever. Funny whats this book I am holding in my hand right now. It seemed to be peer reviewed.
Lets not leave out the Historians OMG its Paul Johnson.
Normally when you make an appeal to Authority you name some names.
So who are these Economic historians in this "consensus" your talking about ?

[Greed and Death]

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.

Chicago Economist are more common in Academia. Keyseains are just more common in government. Governments by their nature like to think the economy is controllable by the government.

[Intangelon]

Fair enough. Come up with an alternative way to cover every American.

I don't have to. People that actually know these things better than me already have come up with solutions. Although, not every American would be covered, all those that wish to be covered would. Some people, for whatever reason choose to not get covered. About one third of those without insurance make $50,000 or more. They can afford private insurance, but choose not to get it.

I'm sorry, but from where are you getting that "fact"? And no, blogs and editorials aren't acceptable sources for something you're claiming to be a "fact".

[Intangelon]

Do you see what's happening It's for the poor people you know the ones that carry america my mother and are poor and we can't afford healthcare but the repubs don't want to help cut the cost cause they care about the ceo's only it sucks

Firstly the majority of Americans ARE insured, and its the majority that carry America. The Republicans don't want to help cut cost, because they don't feel that someone else should be paying for your healthcare. Its not my job to pay for your healthcare and you have no right to steal money from me or any other American to pay for your health insurance. I feel bad that your mother is uninsured, but she is not my responsibility.

Uh...what now? What else is insurance but me paying for others' care? If I'm paying a premium and I'm not getting sick, someone else is using that money. Or do you honestly think that your premiums are for you and you alone? Also, do you agree that paying a premium for decades without dipping into insurance beyond a yearly physical means that you will only be insured up to the amount you paid in (no matter how the insurance company used your money), and after that, you're screwed?

You bet your ass it's your job to pay for others' health care, right up to the point where you start to be a net drain on the company. Then you're done.

[Intangelon]

11 million of the uninsured are illegal immigrants who do not qualify for insurance
21.8 million are kids who choose not to have insurance but can afford it

Do you ever read what you post?

Kids can choose insurance now?

Also, can you or ANYONE show me a link for a source to that "fact"? You're the second person to post something like that and assume it's a universal truth or something. It isn't.

[Muravyets]

I'll concede to you that. However, your definition of a 'plan' is very precise I guess is the word.

My definition is precisely the description of what a plan is.

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.

Wrong. It was detailed when it was sent to Congress by Obama. The various committees are now rewriting those details and adding more. But if Obama had sent them the press-release-type talking-point blather that Sibirsky linked to, they would have tossed it back at him and told him to come back with a plan they could work on and have hearings about.

Oh, and you really should try reading the posts you criticize. In amongst all my "not a plan"s, there was a quite prominent mention that one of Sibirsky's links mentioned but did not explore a supposed alternative plan that had been drafted by a conservative Congressman. Remember? It was the one I scolded Sibirsky for not googling instead of all the nonsense he chose to post. How many committees do you think that one might have gone through?

In addition, a free-market 'plan' would arguably have much less "substance".

Oh, on THAT I agree completely.

[The PeoplesFreedom]

And you think that plan was given to Obama before it went through the various committees I suppose.

[Muravyets]

And you think that plan was given to Obama before it went through the various committees I suppose.

Are you taking this opportunity to demonstrate that you don't know how the US government is organized? "Committees" in US Gov speak refers to the committees of the two houses of Congress that are officially in charge of drafting policy and legislation before it is submitted to the committees' respective houses for voting. In the executive branch, they do not use committees. They use staffers and consultants working under the secretaries of the various offices to draft detailed plans which are then submitted to the president for approval before being sent to the Congress to be put into the committee vetting/rewriting process.

So, no, that plan did not go through "the various committees" before it went to Obama. It went through lots of hands, but no committees. It's going through committees NOW. In Congress.

[Greed and Death]

I just hope the Blue dogs kill it over budget concerns.

[Muravyets]

I just hope the Blue dogs kill it over budget concerns.

I'm sure they will do their best.

[Greed and Death]

I just hope the Blue dogs kill it over budget concerns.

I'm sure they will do their best.

The 52 in the blue dog coalition + the republicans would be a majority.
Don't know how tight that coalition is though.

[Ryadn]

It's this society job to help each other because if the poor and mid class go down the whole economy will collaspse and don't tell me that majority maybe insured but most of them have to pay the majortity of the bill cause the greedy companies use the money we give for vacations and treatments at the spa not to pay off someones helth expenses like they should.

No one should be forced to help someone else. As Sibirsky an Opola have stated a large portion of the uninsured can obtain health insurance. Everyone uses at least some of the money they make at work for luxuries such as vacations not just the ''greedy'' corporations. And no it is NOT their job to pay off anyone's health expenses unless its their own.

I want to live in the world in your head where everyone can find employment and everyone gets paid a living wage and everyone can afford to take a vacation. That must be awesome.

Except, in the world in your head, working women like me are probably meant to tend house and make babies, so on second thought, nevermind.

[Ryadn]

*sigh*

I'm not wading through the ideological bickering, so I'll just ask: Has anyone even tried to tie the actual language of the bill to the absurd allegations made in the OP and IBD editorial?

See, e.g., viewtopic.php?p=254703#p254703; viewtopic.php?p=254937#p254937

Yes. A number of people pointed out that it was taken from a definition of those eligible for the grandfather clause, and I pointed out page 5 of the bill which states that the NHS is meant to operate alongside private insurance, but we were roundly ignored.

[Muravyets]

The 52 in the blue dog coalition + the republicans would be a majority.
Don't know how tight that coalition is though.

Be sure to let me know how your bet goes. Catch me up on it next month, maybe.

[Greed and Death]

The 52 in the blue dog coalition + the republicans would be a majority.
Don't know how tight that coalition is though.

Be sure to let me know how your bet goes. Catch me up on it next month, maybe.

I said hope not bet.

Though the blue dogs have slowed down legislation of health care. Mostly over funding concerns.
Though the august deadline is already considered a no go. In large part because senators don't like when the president gives them deadlines.

[Ashmoria]

anyway

instead of starting a new thread on "favorite ammendments to the health care plan" ill just start the idea here.

my favorite ammendments so far include the republican submitted one that would require congressmen and their staff to be covered by the government health care plan if a public option is included. giving congress a personal stake in making sure the plan works is a brillian idea.

and dennis kucinich's ammendment to allow states to run their own single payer plans.

[Muravyets]

anyway

instead of starting a new thread on "favorite ammendments to the health care plan" ill just start the idea here.

my favorite ammendments so far include the republican submitted one that would require congressmen and their staff to be covered by the government health care plan if a public option is included. giving congress a personal stake in making sure the plan works is a brillian idea.

and dennis kucinich's ammendment to allow states to run their own single payer plans.

I approve of both of those, very much so.

In fact, I have not been understanding why the federal plan has not been addresses as a sort of fed/state plan in which the states run their plans, meeting base federal standards and using funds provided by a combination of federal and state taxes.

[Greed and Death]

anyway

instead of starting a new thread on "favorite ammendments to the health care plan" ill just start the idea here.

my favorite ammendments so far include the republican submitted one that would require congressmen and their staff to be covered by the government health care plan if a public option is included. giving congress a personal stake in making sure the plan works is a brillian idea.

and dennis kucinich's ammendment to allow states to run their own single payer plans.

Given I don't think the republicans intended it that way.
I think they intended for it to sidetrack the bill.

[Ryadn]

What about education? Why should I pay for some other kid's education? Hmm?

Don't give them ideas!

[Ashmoria]

anyway

instead of starting a new thread on "favorite ammendments to the health care plan" ill just start the idea here.

my favorite ammendments so far include the republican submitted one that would require congressmen and their staff to be covered by the government health care plan if a public option is included. giving congress a personal stake in making sure the plan works is a brillian idea.

and dennis kucinich's ammendment to allow states to run their own single payer plans.

Given I don't think the republicans intended it that way.
I think they intended for it to sidetrack the bill.

all the better. it is a truly inspired idea.

[Muravyets]

Given I don't think the republicans intended it that way.
I think they intended for it to sidetrack the bill.

I would agree on that. Such a shame they suck at their jobs so bad.

[The PeoplesFreedom]

Given I don't think the republicans intended it that way.
I think they intended for it to sidetrack the bill.

I would agree on that. Such a shame they suck at their jobs so bad.

Just curious, what political ideology would you subscribe too?

[Eugene Zolo]

It's this society job to help each other because if the poor and mid class go down the whole economy will collaspse and don't tell me that majority maybe insured but most of them have to pay the majortity of the bill cause the greedy companies use the money we give for vacations and treatments at the spa not to pay off someones helth expenses like they should.

No one should be forced to help someone else. As Sibirsky an Opola have stated a large portion of the uninsured can obtain health insurance. Everyone uses at least some of the money they make at work for luxuries such as vacations not just the ''greedy'' corporations. And no it is NOT their job to pay off anyone's health expenses unless its their own.

I want to live in the world in your head where everyone can find employment and everyone gets paid a living wage and everyone can afford to take a vacation. That must be awesome.

Except, in the world in your head, working women like me are probably meant to tend house and make babies, so on second thought, nevermind.

The world in my head isn't one where everyone can find employment and everyone gets paid a living wage and everyone can afford to take a vacation, however no one in my world is forced to pay for vacations for the people that don't have them.

By the way thanks for assuming that, because I am economically conservative I am also conservative on social issues. Women in the world in my head do in fact work and aren't judged based on their gender, but on their intelligence. Though you probably wouldn't have a good job anyways, because people that just assume things about other people aren't considered very intelligent in the world in my head.

[Ryadn]

47 million uninsured.
9.4 million ILLEGAL immigrants
15.6 million make over $50,000 per year, they can afford their own coverage.
22 million uninsured

And you make that determination...how? A family of---how many? Let's say four, that's about average. Making $50,000/year---gross or net? I'm betting the former. Living---in a small town in the midwest? In a suburb in Northern California? In Manhattan? This hypothetical family can afford health coverage for every member.

Is that your claim?

[Muravyets]

Given I don't think the republicans intended it that way.
I think they intended for it to sidetrack the bill.

I would agree on that. Such a shame they suck at their jobs so bad.

Just curious, what political ideology would you subscribe too?

Take a big blind guess.