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

[Surote]

The why must I pay doesn't work for healthcare neither

[Neu California]

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

Source?

This post seems to have been caught up in the shuffle, so I ask again

[Treznor]

I am not talking about who deserves what, though many of these CEOs may have worked hard to get to where they are. I am saying that they make what they make and no one has the right to steal their money. You can say the poor don't have that much money so we should just steal from the rich, but you won't get me to agree with you.

Fine. Let's talk about stealing. Over the past thirty years the wealth of the upper class has exploded, while everyone else's wages have stagnated. The Cost of Living index had power and food costs cut from it to make it look like the rise isn't so bad, so effectively everyone is making the same amount of money, and having to spend more of it for basic necessities.

So now we have a situation where all the wealth being created is concentrated at the top, while the cost of living overwhelms everyone else. So, who is stealing from whom?

What you described isn't stealing. I wasn't even saying anyone was stealing I was saying that you were advocating stealing.

It isn't? I guess a more politically correct term would be "exploitation." Well, we're not looking to steal from the rich either. We're looking to "exploit" their excess resources so that we can provided essential health care for everyone. After all, they're exploiting our labor to make themselves richer at our expense.

There, does that make you feel better about it?

[Sibirsky]

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.

The government exists to help people. It exists to serve the people. It has no other legitimate reason to be here at all. And it helps people via tax dollars -- in other words, all members of society cooperatively pay into a common fund to deliver common services that help everyone. If some people use the help more at some points in their lives than others, so what? The safety net is still there for all who need it, whenever they might need it. Just like the roads will be just as paved for the weekend driver as the daily commuter. I fail to see why a basic standard of health care expense coverage should not be among those common services provided to all Americans by all Americans.

The government exists to protect people's rights. The government CANNOT help anyone without hurting somebody else.

[Surote]

Fine. Let's talk about stealing. Over the past thirty years the wealth of the upper class has exploded, while everyone else's wages have stagnated. The Cost of Living index had power and food costs cut from it to make it look like the rise isn't so bad, so effectively everyone is making the same amount of money, and having to spend more of it for basic necessities.

So now we have a situation where all the wealth being created is concentrated at the top, while the cost of living overwhelms everyone else. So, who is stealing from whom?

This is stealing

[Surote]

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.

The government exists to help people. It exists to serve the people. It has no other legitimate reason to be here at all. And it helps people via tax dollars -- in other words, all members of society cooperatively pay into a common fund to deliver common services that help everyone. If some people use the help more at some points in their lives than others, so what? The safety net is still there for all who need it, whenever they might need it. Just like the roads will be just as paved for the weekend driver as the daily commuter. I fail to see why a basic standard of health care expense coverage should not be among those common services provided to all Americans by all Americans.

The government exists to protect people's rights. The government CANNOT help anyone without hurting somebody else.

If true hurt the rich not the suffering

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I am not talking about who deserves what, though many of these CEOs may have worked hard to get to where they are. I am saying that they make what they make and no one has the right to steal their money. You can say the poor don't have that much money so we should just steal from the rich, but you won't get me to agree with you.

Fine. Let's talk about stealing. Over the past thirty years the wealth of the upper class has exploded, while everyone else's wages have stagnated. The Cost of Living index had power and food costs cut from it to make it look like the rise isn't so bad, so effectively everyone is making the same amount of money, and having to spend more of it for basic necessities.

So now we have a situation where all the wealth being created is concentrated at the top, while the cost of living overwhelms everyone else. So, who is stealing from whom?

What you described isn't stealing. I wasn't even saying anyone was stealing I was saying that you were advocating stealing.

Taking unfair advantage of people by profiting excessively on their basic needs sounds like stealing to me.

[The_pantless_hero]

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.

The government exists to help people. It exists to serve the people. It has no other legitimate reason to be here at all. And it helps people via tax dollars -- in other words, all members of society cooperatively pay into a common fund to deliver common services that help everyone. If some people use the help more at some points in their lives than others, so what? The safety net is still there for all who need it, whenever they might need it. Just like the roads will be just as paved for the weekend driver as the daily commuter. I fail to see why a basic standard of health care expense coverage should not be among those common services provided to all Americans by all Americans.

The government exists to protect people's rights. The government CANNOT help anyone without hurting somebody else.

So are you implying the government should stop protecting people's rights so they don't hurt anyone?

[Eugene Zolo]

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.

Funny how that seems to only apply to healthcare but not police, education of fire protection. How would you feel about crime insurance? Hmm? You know, in case you need the police to come to your house to stop a burglar. Of course, if you don;'t have insurance, the police can just bill you. How does that sound? Why should I pay to protect someone else's belongings? Not to mention that free market forces and competition can help make law enforcement work much more efficiently.

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

Isn't it amazing how the 'Why should I pay for someone else?" argument only seems to healthcare? You know, disease also spreads from the poor to the rich.

Education should be privatized. Police and Fire Department are different than healthcare. I would be for universal healthcare if I had a say in how everyone lives their life, if I could tell them what to eat, drink, inhale, etc.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

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.

The government exists to help people. It exists to serve the people. It has no other legitimate reason to be here at all. And it helps people via tax dollars -- in other words, all members of society cooperatively pay into a common fund to deliver common services that help everyone. If some people use the help more at some points in their lives than others, so what? The safety net is still there for all who need it, whenever they might need it. Just like the roads will be just as paved for the weekend driver as the daily commuter. I fail to see why a basic standard of health care expense coverage should not be among those common services provided to all Americans by all Americans.

The government exists to protect people's rights. The government CANNOT help anyone without hurting somebody else.

Maybe I'm the nut, but taking 15 million from someone with 30 million sounds a lot less painful than taking 15 thousand from someone with 30 thousand.

[Sibirsky]

Ok. Well not ok, but we were not discussing your situation at the moment. We were saying how ILLEGAL immigrants should not be provided healthcare at the expense of American citizens.

Did anyone else read this as "I don't want to discuss legitimate reasons why we should have universal healthcare, I just want to initiate bigoted, sensational rants against immigrants."

*raises hand* I did.

I AM AN IMMIGRANT. BUT I AM LEGAL

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Funny how that seems to only apply to healthcare but not police, education of fire protection. How would you feel about crime insurance? Hmm? You know, in case you need the police to come to your house to stop a burglar. Of course, if you don;'t have insurance, the police can just bill you. How does that sound? Why should I pay to protect someone else's belongings? Not to mention that free market forces and competition can help make law enforcement work much more efficiently.

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

Isn't it amazing how the 'Why should I pay for someone else?" argument only seems to healthcare? You know, disease also spreads from the poor to the rich.

Education should be privatized. Police and Fire Department are different than healthcare. I would be for universal healthcare if I had a say in how everyone lives their life, if I could tell them what to eat, drink, inhale, etc.

How are police and fire protection different than healthcare?

[Muravyets]

I am not anti immigration. I am an immigrant. I am anti ILLEGAL immigration. And I am anti taxpayer funded healthcare for illegal immigrants. I already said that the main problem is rapidly rising healthcare costs.

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

Where are those better health care reform plans, please? That is so much more interesting than your attempted deflection/hijack.

And as to that, kindly provide evidence in support of a few major assumptions upon which your whole house of cards is dependent:

1) That the 47 million uninsured statistic overlaps the 9.4 million illegal immigrant statistic entirely. If it doesn't then it does not reduce the number of uninsured AMERICANS as much as you would like it to (or at all).

2) Whether that $50,000/year is individual income or family income. If individual income is that individuals with no dependents to support? If family, how big a family -- the statistical average of 4 persons, splitting a combined $50,000?

3) Compare your claimed $50,000/year income to average medical expenses -- individual and family.

Failure to establish this kind of real world context marks your argument as BS, so I would advise you to establish it.

[Sibirsky]

Aha. Tell that to the 21% unemployed. The way the government calculates inflation, is flawed. They underestimate it by about 7%. They do it so A) they save money on those social security payouts that are indexed to the CPI. And B) it makes them look better. That being said, with GDP contracting by over 6% (which is adjusted for inflation) if you add the 7% they overestimate it by, than GDP contracted by over 13%. That is a depression. Most other economic data also shows a deep structural contraction. That is not a recession, it is a depression. Of course you can listen to the politicians who said it would be contained to a maximum of $100 billion in losses, $14 trillion in bailouts ago.

We don't have 21% unemployment we national we have 9.5% last time i check are you reading the hanities files[/quote]

Do the underemployed and "discouraged" workers not count? That's cruel. They are people too. Just because they stopped looking, because they are unable to find work doesn't mean we should not count them. It is the Bureau of Labor Statistics data. It is called U-6. The "official" number is U-3 and doesn't include them.

[Surote]

Eugene Zolo wants to privatize all the things that should not be like healthcare and education then the poor can't go to school KEEP PUBLIC SCHOOL AND UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE ALIVE

[Sibirsky]

One that's probably just a meeting of officals talkin plus only a 1,000 no very much and two were in a reccesion pal

Aha. Tell that to the 21% unemployed. The way the government calculates inflation, is flawed. They underestimate it by about 7%. They do it so A) they save money on those social security payouts that are indexed to the CPI. And B) it makes them look better. That being said, with GDP contracting by over 6% (which is adjusted for inflation) if you add the 7% they overestimate it by, than GDP contracted by over 13%. That is a depression. Most other economic data also shows a deep structural contraction. That is not a recession, it is a depression. Of course you can listen to the politicians who said it would be contained to a maximum of $100 billion in losses, $14 trillion in bailouts ago.

How're you doing on those links to those better health care reform plans? I'm seriously interested because I'm seriously desperate.

Haven't even started looking. I'll get to it. Eventually.

[New new nebraska]

Its certainly a heated debate. I think there should at very least be some regulation on insurance companies so people can afford there medicine and see there doctors without being charged obscene prices. Let the government try and strike some sort of deal with insurance companies so that they don't ridiculously overcharge. I don't know what the solution is but I agree we do need to change health care. Its easy to criticize but coming up with results that please everyone is hard. I think some regulation and maybe what the government currently provides being expand is a good place to start or a good middle ground. I don't know if they go far enough ( too far for some?).

[Muravyets]

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.

The government exists to help people. It exists to serve the people. It has no other legitimate reason to be here at all. And it helps people via tax dollars -- in other words, all members of society cooperatively pay into a common fund to deliver common services that help everyone. If some people use the help more at some points in their lives than others, so what? The safety net is still there for all who need it, whenever they might need it. Just like the roads will be just as paved for the weekend driver as the daily commuter. I fail to see why a basic standard of health care expense coverage should not be among those common services provided to all Americans by all Americans.

The government exists to protect people's rights. The government CANNOT help anyone without hurting somebody else.

That is a false statement based on ideology, not fact. Unless you are under the impression that the government does not pave roads or hire police, or else under the impression that some people who pay for roads and police via taxes are denied the right to use those services. You pay for it; it's there; you can use it if you want to; paying for it did not hurt you.

[Sibirsky]

The government exists to help people. It exists to serve the people. It has no other legitimate reason to be here at all. And it helps people via tax dollars -- in other words, all members of society cooperatively pay into a common fund to deliver common services that help everyone. If some people use the help more at some points in their lives than others, so what? The safety net is still there for all who need it, whenever they might need it. Just like the roads will be just as paved for the weekend driver as the daily commuter. I fail to see why a basic standard of health care expense coverage should not be among those common services provided to all Americans by all Americans.

The government exists to protect people's rights. The government CANNOT help anyone without hurting somebody else.

So are you implying the government should stop protecting people's rights so they don't hurt anyone?

No. By not providing healthcare, it is not violating anybody's rights.

[Muravyets]

I AM AN IMMIGRANT. BUT I AM LEGAL

And yet, you still manage to talk like a Know-Nothing. Funny story -- the Know-Nothings were immigrants and the children of immigrants, too.

[Muravyets]

How're you doing on those links to those better health care reform plans? I'm seriously interested because I'm seriously desperate.

Haven't even started looking. I'll get to it. Eventually.

Well, until you do, I'll just put you down in the Baseless and Obvious Bullshit column, shall I?

[The_pantless_hero]

The government exists to protect people's rights. The government CANNOT help anyone without hurting somebody else.

So are you implying the government should stop protecting people's rights so they don't hurt anyone?

No. By not providing healthcare, it is not violating anybody's rights.

Neither is not providing education, police, or military protection.

[Muravyets]

No. By not providing healthcare, it is not violating anybody's rights.

Actually, it is, according to the UN, of which the US is a leading member and which classes access to basic medical care as a human right. *waits for yet another deflectionary hijack*

[Sibirsky]

So are you implying the government should stop protecting people's rights so they don't hurt anyone?

No. By not providing healthcare, it is not violating anybody's rights.

Neither is not providing education, police, or military protection.

If I throw a brick at your head the police are there to arrest me. Because I have violated your rights. The police exist to prevent me from doing that. Not that'd I ever do it, it's just an example.

[Free Soviets]

*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

i liked hilzoy's piece on the subject

It's nice to get definitive proof that some bloggers really don't bother to do basic research before posting something, and we got some today. Here's a scary article from Investment Business Daily:

blah blah blah

That sounds scary! It also sounds completely implausible. So I went and looked at the actual bill, and there that paragraph was, on p. 16, in a section defining the term "Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage". The fact that it's in a definition might lead readers to conclude that it doesn't mean that you can't buy individual insurance after the bill takes effect, but only that you can't buy such insurance and have it meet the bill's definition of "Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage". There is a difference.
...
Here are some bloggers who repeated IBD's claims: Instapundit (he updated after a reader pointed out his mistake), Meredith Jessup at Townhall, No Sheeples Here! (sic), Patterico, Gateway Pundit, theblogprof (sic), Ed Morrissey (he updates with a correction, but completely doesn't get why pooling individuals in an exchange lowers premiums. Hint: large risk pool), Say Anything, Michelle Malkin, Jules Crittenden, Right Wing News, Maggie's Farm, The Astute Bloggers (sic).

Since those claims are so obviously false to anyone who reads the actual bill, or even skims the relevant sections, I conclude that these bloggers did not bother to check them out before they posted. Which is to say: they didn't bother to do the most basic, rudimentary research that any blogger ought to do.

Tom Maguire, on the other hand, did, and spotted the mistake. Kudos.

This matters. One of the real mistakes many conservatives made, I think, was to dismiss people who disagreed with them. It's an easy thing to do: by definition, people who disagree with you say things that you think are false, and it's a short step from 'false' to 'obviously mendacious', 'intellectually irresponsible', 'flat-out insane', or something else that means that you just don't have to take the person in question seriously any more. If you want to keep yourself honest, you should listen to the people who disagree with you. But since life is short, it's nice to find an actual, objective test for things like intellectual irresponsibility, one that lets you just see that some people are, really and truly, intellectually irresponsible, and thus that you can dismiss them forever, and read them only for laughs, while saving your precious free time for others who deserve it more.

This is just such a test.