Obama's Health Care Speech - Creeping Government Takeover

Ronald Bailey | September 9, 2009

President Barack Obama's health care speech had a lot of -- how shall I say -- slippery assertions. One that particularly struck me is this:

In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down. 

Well, maybe Medicare has not been a complete government takeover of health care yet, but already about 46 percent of all medical care expenses today are paid for by federal, state, and local governments, e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). What we've experienced is a creeping government takeover of health care of which Obama's "plan" can be seen as the next slither down that path. 

Comments

Joe M|9.9.09 @ 10:34PM|#

In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down. Now those some have been proven right.

FTFY.

hmm|9.9.09 @ 10:35PM|#

BAM!!! circle jerk.

I guess I'm gonna have to watch his speech. Did anyone yell at him or throw tomatoes?

That census is a little disturbing.

obamaViva|9.9.09 @ 10:55PM|#

http://www.crispstyle.com

Our website wholesale for many kinds of fashion clothing,

such as nike,jordan,prama,, we also sell

jeans,shirts,bags,hat and many kinds of tiffany. All the

products are free shipping, and the the price is enticement ,

and also can accept the paypal payment.we can ship within 24

hours after your payment.

accept the paypal

free shipping

competitive price

any size available

our price: http://www.crispstyle.com


CA POLO EDHARDY GUCCI T-SHIRT $15;

TRUE RELIGION EVISU G-STAR COOGI JEAN $36;

bikini$25

(air jordan, air max, shox tn, rift, puma, dunk sb, adidas)

nike jordan shoes 1-24 $32

lv, coach, chane bag $35

COOGI(jeans, tshirts, hoody, jacket) $30

christian audigier(jeans, tshirts, hoody) $13

edhardy(shoes, tshirts, jeans, caps, watche, handbag) $25

Armani(jeans, tshirts,) $24

AF(jeans, coat, hoody, sweater, tshirts)Abercrombie & Fitch

$31

GUCCI COACH shoes DG shoes $33

coach chanel gucci LV handbags $32;

edhardy New Era POLO cap $15;

coach okely prada nike DG Sunglass $16;

http://www.crispstyle.com

thanks !!!

hmm|9.9.09 @ 10:58PM|#

Sweet. Do you sell Obama hoodies spambot?

|9.9.09 @ 11:01PM|#

Obama speeches lead to spamming. Who knew?

$|9.9.09 @ 11:08PM|#

Did anyone yell at him or throw tomatoes?

I heard that some no-name Republican did man up and shout "You lie!" or "You liar!" or something.

Of course, every Republican whose name anyone knows immediately ran to the nearest microphone to shit on the guy.

</|9.9.09 @ 11:11PM|#

Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina

GlenBarry Glen Ross|9.9.09 @ 11:13PM|#

That watch costs more than you car. I made $970,000 last year. How much'd you make? You see pal, that's who I am, and you're nothing. Nice guy? I don't give a shit. Good father? Fuck you! Go home and play with your kids. You wanna work here - close! You think this is abuse? You think this is abuse, you cocksucker? You can't take this, how can you take the abuse you get on a sit? You don't like it, leave. _I_ can go out there tonight with the materials you've got and make myself $15,000. Tonight! In two hours! Can you? Can YOU? Go and do likewise. A-I-D-A. Get mad you son of a bitches. get mad. You want to know what it takes to sell real estate? It takes BRASS BALLS to sell real estate. Go and do likewise gents. Money's out there. You pick it up, it's yours. You don't, I got no sympathy for you. You wanna go out on those sits tonight and close, CLOSE. It's yours. If not you're gonna be shining my shoes. And you know what you'll be saying - a bunch of losers sittin' around in a bar. 'Oh yeah. I used to be a salesman. It's a tough racket.' These are the new leads. These are the Glengarry leads. And to you they're gold, and you don't get them. Why? Because to give them to you is just throwing them away. They're for closers. I'd wish you good luck but you wouldn't know what to do with it if you got it. And to answer you question, pal, why am I here? I came here because Mitch and Murray asked me to. They asked me for a favor. I said the real favor, follow my advice and fire your fucking ass because a loser is a loser.

JB|9.9.09 @ 11:20PM|#

I found this pretty fucking scary:

"I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last."

|9.9.09 @ 11:22PM|#

Me too.

jasno|9.9.09 @ 11:28PM|#

In other news, more dispensary raids in California:

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2009/sep/09/law-enforcement-raids-marjuana-dispensaries/

alice bowie|9.9.09 @ 11:34PM|#

Well, maybe Medicare has not been a complete government takeover of health care yet, but already about 46 percent of all medical care expenses today are paid for by federal, state, and local governments, e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).


That's because insurance companies regularly weasal out of paying the benefit for these people.

alice bowie|9.9.09 @ 11:34PM|#

Do you think the Government is taking over because of it's attempt to cover un-insurancd children, old people, the poor, and the sick???

None of the carriers will insure these people.

Nate|9.9.09 @ 11:44PM|#

Is the consensus here really that the current system is tenable? Really?

Anyway, from a practical standpoint, if they're going to require you to get insurance, is there going to be a sensible high-deductable option? Or will you be forced to maintain a total coverage plan that will cost a grand a person a month.

This|9.9.09 @ 11:56PM|#

"Or will you be forced to maintain a total coverage plan that will cost a grand a person a month."

|9.10.09 @ 12:00AM|#

gee nate, what usually happens when the govt gets in bed with business. i'll give you a hint: someone gets screwed but no one in the bed.

hammeredHead|9.10.09 @ 12:05AM|#

Is the consensus here really that the current system is tenable? Really?

Actually it is nearly the consensus here that the government has fucked up the healthcare system and by providing more government will only worsen it.

For your other question, the grand a month insurance is going to be there only option as it will cover everyone and everything.

alice bowie|9.10.09 @ 12:10AM|#

I agree with Obama. People that can pay, and are not financially independent enough to bail themselves out of a catastrophic illness without declaring bankruptcy and not paying their doctors/hospitals SHOULD be force to pay for their own coverage.

|9.10.09 @ 12:14AM|#

Cuz the "forcing" part is the most fun. Liberals don't care what anyone does, so long as it's compulsory.

alice bowie|9.10.09 @ 12:15AM|#

What nobody is talking about (which I find very strange) is that over 90% of BIG CORPORATIONS (over 10,000 employees) are all self-insured. That is, they collect a premium from their employers, pay the insurance company an administration fee, and pay for the health benefits of their employees and families.

The ONLY reason that BIG CORPORATIONs do this is because it is profitable. Big Corporations have a lot to loose with reform.

Gilbert Martin|9.10.09 @ 12:15AM|#

I agree with James Madison:

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

James Madison


He was a hell of a lot wiser than Obama will ever live to be.

Gilbert Martin|9.10.09 @ 12:17AM|#

"The ONLY reason that BIG CORPORATIONs do this is because it is profitable"

Prove it.

Nate|9.10.09 @ 12:17AM|#

I am essentially forced to maintain such a plan now, as I have a typical corporate job. It covers everything from acupuncture to therapy to weekly massages if I want.

I think this is stupid, and I'm not really enamored with the current system. It is socialized medicine for some of us, essentially, with a few additional gotchas like preexisting conditions and whatnot. If you don't want a corporate job, or you want to pay cash for medical services, you will be fucked by a factor of two or three.

Personally, I would prefer a cheap high-deductable plan that made me pay the first 5 or 10 $k and covered the rest. Alas, somebody has got to subsidize these poor souls that need about 10 hours of various frivolous medical services a week.

through the cracks|9.10.09 @ 12:30AM|#

hmm. so what will this plan do for the long-term unemployed, who have no income, have spent all their savings on living expenses, and don't qualify for medicaid/social security disability?

hammeredHead|9.10.09 @ 12:37AM|#

hmm. so what will this plan do for the long-term unemployed

Take whatever job you can, lower your living expenses, buy a low cost $1000 deductible policy and contact local charities. also, Learn skills to better your employment outlook. It really is up to you to solve your own problems.

Jordan|9.10.09 @ 12:40AM|#

I agree with Obama. People that can pay, and are not financially independent enough to bail themselves out of a catastrophic illness without declaring bankruptcy and not paying their doctors/hospitals SHOULD be force to pay for their own coverage.

Well, I think you should be forced to pay for my Ferrari. What's the problem? That's just as Constitutional as what you're advocating.

alice bowie|9.10.09 @ 12:49AM|#

Gilbert Martin | September 10, 2009, 12:17am | #

"The ONLY reason that BIG CORPORATIONs do this is because it is profitable"

Prove it.


When was the last time u saw a BIG corporation do something year-after-year-after-year that was NOT ??

alice bowie|9.10.09 @ 12:50AM|#

Hey Jordon, I'm not paying for your Ferrari.

And, if you want, we can leave the system just the way it is. And, as insurance companies weasal out of paying benefits and people declare bankruptcy and go on medicaid...you can keep on paying as well.

alice bowie|9.10.09 @ 12:51AM|#

BIG Corporations are NOT mandated to be SELF-INSURERS. They do it because it's very profitable.

|9.10.09 @ 12:52AM|#

hmm. so what will this plan do for the long-term unemployed, who have no income, have spent all their savings on living expenses, and don't qualify for medicaid/social security disability?



because the premises of your question contradict themselves the question is meaning less. the long term unemployed qualify for medicaid based on their lack of income...

Jordan|9.10.09 @ 12:56AM|#

And, if you want, we can leave the system just the way it is. And, as insurance companies weasal out of paying benefits and people declare bankruptcy and go on medicaid...you can keep on paying as well.

Or we can introduce free market reforms, your false dichotomy not withstanding. Any more fallacies you want to toss out?

Enyap|9.10.09 @ 12:58AM|#

Randomly CAPITALIZING words to add SCARE value makes you look like a DUMBFUCK.

through the cracks|9.10.09 @ 1:03AM|#

no ransom. adults who are not custodial parents of minors have to be disabled to qualify for medicaid. people with chronic, fatal illnesses have to be near death before they qualify for disability. but there is a lot of distance between being unemployable due to chronic illness and being near death due to chronic illness. lots of time to sit around and suffer because you don't meet some bureaucrat's interpretation of the ssdi eligibility requirements at the same time that you can't get a job because you are chronically ill, you look chronically ill, and no one wants to hire you because of it.

leather handbags|9.10.09 @ 1:03AM|#

we can introduce free market reforms, your false dichotomy not withstanding. Any more fallacies you want to toss out?

uggs outlet|9.10.09 @ 1:04AM|#

hmm. so what will this plan do for the long-term unemployed, who have no income, have spent all their savings on living expenses, and don't qualify for medicaid/social security disability?

cheap uggs|9.10.09 @ 1:05AM|#

hmm. so what will this plan do for the long-term unemployed, who have no income, have spent all their savings on living expenses, and don't qualify for medicaid/social security disability?

iscount uggs boots|9.10.09 @ 1:06AM|#

uggs on sale
uggs outlet,

Nate|9.10.09 @ 1:06AM|#

"buy a low cost $1000 deductible policy "

They aren't available in all states. Minimum coverage requirements get in the way. I'm real curious as to the minimum requirements that will apply under Obamacare. Not curious enough to read the whole bill of course. Fuck that shit.

discount uggs |9.10.09 @ 1:07AM|#

uggs outlet
cheap uggs
cheap ugg boots

through the cracks|9.10.09 @ 1:16AM|#

the level of discourse around here is truly edifying. so glad i stopped by.

|9.10.09 @ 1:29AM|#

"BIG Corporations are NOT mandated to be SELF-INSURERS. They do it because it's very profitable."

You must have discovered something I missed in the 27 years I worked for a health insurer. I suspect that large, self-insured companies would love to download this responsibility to the taxpayers.

smartass sob|9.10.09 @ 2:40AM|#

Randomly CAPITALIZING words to add SCARE value makes you look like a DUMBFUCK.


It probably isn't done to add "scare value" but for emphasis. Many people who post on the Internet don't know how to us html code and can't do italics or bolding etc. Here's a link to a basic tutorial site. Here's another.

BTW, back when people still used typewriters, it was correct to use all caps for various things; there's probably alot of carry-over from that.

smartass sob|9.10.09 @ 3:08AM|#

Did anyone yell at him or throw tomatoes?

I heard that some no-name Republican did man up and shout "You lie!" or "You liar!" or something.

====================================

Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina

According to Politico he called the White House later and appologized. I should have known a Congressman wouldn't really have any balls.

|9.10.09 @ 3:46AM|#

adults who are not custodial parents of minors have to be disabled to qualify for medicaid.



sorry dude but you're wrong. medicaid eligibility is based on 2 things: citizenship and income, that's it.

ssi is a whole other ball of wax and is not pertinent to this conversation, however ssi eligibility is a de facto elig for food stamps but the benefit can still equal zero...

|9.10.09 @ 4:10AM|#

Alice Bowie:

Corporations pay for their employees health insurance because they are not taxed on whatever they contribute. The employers essentially subtract whatever benefits they give the employee from their overall salary. Instead of making $50,000 a year an purchasing your health insurance on the market they are payed $45,000 a year and your employer enrolls you in some HMO scheme.

This is bad because it creates the 3rd party payer scenario in which a 1st party receives treatment from a 2nd party which is payed for by a 3rd party. There is no incentive for the first 2 parties to act efficiently or frugally because they're not paying for it, which leads to rising costs.

Corporations do not however "profit" by doing this. They avoid some degree of tax liability in exchange for the employee receiving coverage, but that is not the definition of profit.

Furthermore, any system where a person does not pay 100% cash for a good can be seen as a 3rd party payer scenario. Medicare and Medicaid are 3rd party scenarios too. The closer people are to the consequences of their behavior the more frugal they are and the more efficiently resources are distributed.

Tricky Prickears|9.10.09 @ 5:56AM|#

...46 percent of all medical care expenses today are paid for by federal, state, and local governments, e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

Does that include the subsidies that go to hospitals from individual states? If it wasn't for state subsidies, Temple U. Hospital's ER would be closed.

A few years back the state of NJ did a study that showed that it would be cheaper to provide insurance for the uninsured than subsidize hospitals for uninsured using the ER as their primary care.

When we talk about cutting costs, are we limiting that to federal dollars, or are we including reductions in state subsidies also? And what about percentages of GDP spent on healthcare?

alice bowie|9.10.09 @ 6:10AM|#

Brett,

I say this wall due respect and I'm not insulting you.

I don't think you understand what Self-Insured means.

The employer collects premiums from the Employee, pays Aetna (or whoever) an administration fee, pays the benefit for the employee, AND WRITEs-OFF what the employee pays in the BENEFIT. Believe it or not, it's a money maker in many ways and NOT a burden that they want to get rid of.

Tricky Prickears|9.10.09 @ 6:14AM|#

alice bowie

I've always wondered about that. Does the employer deduct the employee contribution along with their contribution?

Are you sure about that? I'll have to remember to ask my accountant next time I see him.

chuggles|9.10.09 @ 6:27AM|#

Joe Wilson could have been a hero had he not backed down. He should have shouted back at Pelosi when she flashed her school-marm look " Yeah, and you too!"
Too bad he lacked the cajones to maintain his spirited protest.

alice bowie|9.10.09 @ 6:53AM|#

The employer does NOT deduct the contribution.
And, they don't pay taxes on it as a revenue source either. They do deduct the cost of the benefit (if they are self-insured...which most big corporations are). AND, the difference, is NOT TAXED!!!

The self-insured employer not only profits (because the premium revenue is ALWAYS higher than the benefit paid) but it also doesn't pay taxes on the PROFIT.

Anonymous|9.10.09 @ 7:09AM|#

"Within hours of the speech, Wilson's Democratic opponent Rob Miller, a Marine Corps veteran, had a fundraising windfall. Over $50,000 poured into Miller's campaign coffers in a matter of hours."

Always the underdog, especially when elites are filling your pockets.

|9.10.09 @ 9:07AM|#

I didn't watch the speech. I better things to do like clipping my toenails or watching my dog lick his balls. But I did read one quote this morning that drove me over the edge.

"Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed."

Can someone please tell Obama to fuck himself? Disagreeing about policy is not bickering. I am quickly coming to the conclusion that Obama is a truely nasty person who assumes bad motives on the part of anyone who disagrees with him.

|9.10.09 @ 9:09AM|#

Apology aside, Wilson still kicks every other Republican's ass. And since it is the eve of the bastards knocking down the towers, I should thank him for concluding his one minute speeches with the phrase "Never Forget 9/11".

|9.10.09 @ 9:14AM|#

If Wilson had any balls he probably would have walked away from the evening as the GOP candidate for pres in 2012. Alas, he is a politician and therefore has no balls.

|9.10.09 @ 9:16AM|#

I didn't see it. But if Wilson had really made a point and walked out, he could have been like the chick throwing the hammer at the screen in the old Mac commercial. That is okay. The Obamasiah is in trouble. Once you have claimed to be a God, you can't go back to being just an ordinary President. You either succeed or fail spectacularly. And Obama is not succeeding.

hurlybuehrle|9.10.09 @ 9:28AM|#

I only caught clips of the speech, but it really reminded me (in tone and rhetoric) of Bush's "we have to invade Iraq" address.

|9.10.09 @ 9:53AM|#

When was the last time u saw a BIG corporation do something year-after-year-after-year that was NOT [profitable]??

Oh, this is too easy. GM? Chrysler?

As for self-insurance, big companies do it because they can afford to take the risk, and anytime you can afford to take the risk, it is cheaper in the long run to do so rather than buy insurance.

"Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed."

My wife, who is not particularly political, listened to part of the speech and said that Obama sounded really defensive and angry, thin-skinned, and she found it kind of off-putting.

Methinks this speech wasn't the game-changer he needed.

|9.10.09 @ 9:56AM|#

The employer collects premiums from the Employee, pays Aetna (or whoever) an administration fee, pays the benefit for the employee, AND WRITEs-OFF what the employee pays in the BENEFIT. Believe it or not, it's a money maker in many ways and NOT a burden that they want to get rid of.

Bullshit. Employers don't make a profit on their self-insurance plans, because they don't charge their employees the full cost of the plan. They absorb some of the cost themselves (in years with bad loss experience, they can take a hell of a hit). They self-insure because its cheaper, a cost-control measure, not because its a revenue center.

|9.10.09 @ 10:12AM|#

Alice, even if what you said is true, and as RC pointed out, it isn't, but if it was, so what? If a large company wants to cover their employees health costs, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

The reform that is needed should be to get more people covered, not less. Why does it matter if anyone or everyone makes a profit? Doctors profit from treating people. Why shouldn't insurance carriers get some profit by providing coverage? They provide a service people want.

Alice Bowie|9.10.09 @ 10:15AM|#

R C Dean,

You are absolutely wrong about this. The portion that they charge their employees IS THE PREMIUM...THE ENTIRE PREMIUM. The a facade that they match the other side. In fact, the matching is there to comply with COBRA laws...which require employees to extend their cost to laid-off employees.

It is a revenue center. And, you're right: bigger companies with bigger employees can absorb more risk and have a GREAT advantage in being Insurance companies themselves. Do you know why Mr Dean? Well, it's because their PYRAMID is bigger. And, it's a PYRAMID consisting of mostly healthy young people. The Key to making Health Insurance Work.

When u have 10,000+ employees and you hit them up for $300/month (or whatever), it pays to be an insurance company. The Big Companies merely pay Aetna an administration fee.

This is a free market. And there is no reason why Big Corporations cannot act as Insurance Companies. The ONLY reason they do this is NOT for the benefit of their employees...and, I know you learned that in your Micro Economics Class. I've argued with u b4 and u r a pretty smart guy. Big Companies Self-Insure ONLY because it is profitable. And, they are in a EXCELLENT situation to do so with a relatively young workforce.

If any employee gets a stoke or catastrophic illness, they are out of there in no more than two years....leaving that employee to go on Long Term Disability and off of COBRA. This is the problem with this system...as u know.

creech|9.10.09 @ 10:18AM|#

Alice, are you an accountant or bookkeeper?
I fear you slept through Intermediate Accounting, cause it just don't work the way you described.

I do like your "free rider" argument, however.
It is a very libertarian outlook, so thanks.
But, see, libertarians are perfectly willing to tell the free rider to get out of the vehicle if he won't pay. Your solution seems to be to force him to pay or at least force the rest of the riders to pay his fare too.
If you got the bucks to buy your Harley, then don't complain to me when you didn't buy insurance and split your head open spinning out on a patch of gravel. Alice and I may wish to contribute to your emergency care, but that doesn't mean we should be forced to.

Alice Bowie|9.10.09 @ 10:26AM|#

I'm somewhat of a libertarian. I don't believe in a 'free ride'. And, I'm sorry if i came off that way. !!! TANSTAAFL!!!

We have to pay for it.

Tony|9.10.09 @ 10:45AM|#

Can someone please tell Obama to fuck himself? Disagreeing about policy is not bickering. I am quickly coming to the conclusion that Obama is a truely nasty person who assumes bad motives on the part of anyone who disagrees with him.

You can tell the difference between disagreeing on policy and telling lies to scare people, can't you? But then you didn't watch the speech John... of course that's not stopping you from bashing it.

Anonymous|9.10.09 @ 11:13AM|#

Nick | September 10, 2009, 9:14am | #
If Wilson had any balls he probably would have walked away from the evening as the GOP candidate for pres in 2012. Alas, he is a politician and therefore has no balls.

He supports internet gambling prohibition (not libertarian) and seems to have gained his seat by promising to vote in favor of military action (he's a veteran, his predecessor did the same). He's not good in libertarian terms, but for a Republican his official stances could be worse.

I don't know his voting record, but telling the liar in chief what he is takes some balls. Let's hope he's pushed futher right by all the gun- and doctor-grabbers.

|9.10.09 @ 11:17AM|#

Alice - I work for a VERY big, international company. I know my salary, and I know what the compnay pays for my health insurance every year, because it gives me a yearly statement of my "full compensation." That includes what they pay as part of my insurance. Trust me, they aren't making money on my premium.

I'd like you to point to some reference or evidence that supports what your proposing, becuase frankly, based on your past health care arguments, I'm not convinced I can trust you.

Alice Bowie|9.10.09 @ 1:37PM|#

Big B ,

This ONLY applies to companies that are self insured.

Your total compensation will show the healthcare portion that you pay and your companies contribution. Sometimes, the company pays 1/2. And, sometimes they pay more than 1/2 toward the premiums. The premiums are being PAID TO THEMSELVES...the Corporation. Contrary to popular belief, if your company is self-insured, it does not take your money and a portion of their money and mail it into an insurance company as a premium. The company pays for all healthcare needs of its employees based on the declaration and the policy itself. So, not only does the company keep your premium portion, it also pays your doctors, your prescriptions, etc. This is known as Self-Insured.

Why would a company contribute MORE to your healthcare premiums? Well, it is NOT to deduct a higher premium. It is to collect MORE from severed employees during the COBRA session...if it applies.

I'll try to get u some public references shortly on this.

Alice Bowie|9.10.09 @ 1:38PM|#

I'm not saying that self-insured companies are doing anything wrong. Nor am I saying that they are not entitled to a profit. I'm just saying that they do have a vested interest in this matter...since they do profit off of this.

Alice Bowie|9.10.09 @ 1:40PM|#

Here's one that explains:

http://insurance.freeadvice.com/insurance_help.php/108_121_135.htm

Alice Bowie|9.10.09 @ 1:43PM|#

This is pretty long. But, explains and discusses profitability of the Self Insured companies:

http://moss07.shrm.org/Publications/hrmagazine/EditorialContent/Documents/Prevalence.pdf

|9.10.09 @ 2:06PM|#

already about 46 percent of all medical care expenses today are paid for by federal, state, and local governments, e.g., Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). What we've experienced is a creeping government takeover of health care of which Obama's "plan" can be seen as the next slither down that path.

Indeed, which is precisely the reason we have seen cost escalation. By taking the decisions away from consumers, and guarenteeing coverage for all, they've destroyed the price signals needed to control costs.

The cost escalation is CAUSED BY attempts to give everyone free, unlimited, universal, health care. And that escalation will continue under ANY of the plans under consideration now. There is really no serious attempt to control costs anywhere in any of the proposals from the white house or congress. It's all lip service and tinkering.

I don't know how that'll turn out. But it'll either be some kind of debt crisis in a very few years (given our ballooning deficits), or else draconian rationing in Medicare, which is going to be a political clusterfuck, or some combination thereof (I'm betting more on the fiscal catastrophe). I don't really want to think about it.

Incidentally, the pre-existing condition requirement is going to kill the private insurance industry anyway. You basically are guarenteeing that some private party has to pay for every sick person's health care for a nominal fee (one month's premiums).

There is simply no way that society can guarentee unlimited, universal, health care to everyone without rationing (such as not paying for pre-existing conditions). We, as a country, don't have enough money. Period.

through the cracks|9.10.09 @ 2:17PM|#

Ransom:

"sorry dude but you're wrong. medicaid eligibility is based on 2 things: citizenship and income, that's it.

ssi is a whole other ball of wax and is not pertinent to this conversation, however ssi eligibility is a de facto elig for food stamps but the benefit can still equal zero..."

Nope. Here is a link to the front page of the CMS site that defines eligibility for Medicaid:

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicaidEligibility/02_AreYouEligible_.asp#TopOfPage

The site identifies 4 groups: Pregnant Women, Children and Teenagers, the Aged/Blind and/or Disabled, and "other."

Under "other" it says: (bolding is mine)

"Apply if you are leaving welfare and need health coverage. Apply if you are a family with children under age 18 and have limited income and resources. (You do not need to be receiving a welfare check.) Apply if you have very high medical bills, which you cannot pay (and you are pregnant, under age 18 or over age 65, blind, or disabled)."

Again and again, it reiterates that adults must be pregant, elderly, blind, or disabled to qualify for Medicaid. So SSI is in fact very pertinent to this question.

If you had spent the last 2 years watching a close relative, who is disabled with a chronic and ultimately fatal disease, get denied disability repeatedly while the hospital bills pile up and then get turned over to collection agencies, you would know more about it. And let me point out that no matter what you think about social security, medicaid and all that from an ideological perspective, people who have worked and paid their taxes and have enough work credits to qualify for disability and Medicaid, should be able to get it without being denied 3 times and finally getting a lawyer to take the case, at which point actually saving that person's life might no longer be possible. In fact, the person could be dead before it ever gets to court. And by the way, if it does go to court and the lawyer wins the case, the government pays the lawyer and well as reimbursing anyone who has paid any medical or living expenses for the disabled person for, IIRC, 6 months prior to the court decision.

Again, regardless of what you think of the system, if a person has functioned in that system and contributed to it, they shouldn't be bullshitted around and allowed to die - they should get the benefits.

I am not in favor of Obama's plan. One reason is, it does not address the nonsensical marriage of health insurance to employment (the theoretical reason why Medicaid is conditional on disability for adults who don't have children to care for). The other reason is, it doesn't help many of the people who have the most dire and immediate need for access to health care. My relative can't pay for health insurance at any price, and my parents and other family members are already paying for his daily living expenses and emergent medical care bills.

Rafi|9.10.09 @ 2:20PM|#

GlenBarry Glen Ross | September 9, 2009, 11:13pm | #
That watch costs more than you car. I made $970,000 last year. How much'd you make? You see pal, that's who I am, and you're nothing. Nice guy? I don't give a shit.

Mamet swings his dick,
Round and Round
Round and Round
Round and Round
Mamet swings his dick
Round and Round
Round and Round
Round and Round

A tougher guy we will never know

Mamet puffs his chest
Up and down
up and down
up and down

Mamet puffs his chest
Up and down
up and down
up and down

For his ridiculous ego

smartass sob|9.10.09 @ 5:29PM|#

There is simply no way that society can guarentee unlimited, universal, health care to everyone without rationing (such as not paying for pre-existing conditions). We, as a country, don't have enough money. Period.

They don't care, Hazel - they just want to get a lock on voter support for the Democrats.

alice bowie|9.10.09 @ 7:20PM|#

There is simply no way that society can guarentee unlimited, universal, health care to everyone without rationing (such as not paying for pre-existing conditions). We, as a country, don't have enough money. Period.


The rest of the modern world does it without denying those with pre-existing conditions.

Plus, McCain was willing to pay for an $11billion PER MONTH war for 100 years.

Healthcare would be much much cheaper than destroying countries...and then building them up again.

|9.11.09 @ 1:10AM|#

I see the government health care, in the same light as I see government food.

Before Iraq, the military made its own food. It was generally but with a few exceptions, awful.

In Iraq they hired KBR and some other companies to make food. They generally made much better food than the military did/ does. But they also charged a whole lot more.

We (US general population) would not be able to afford to all eat at the rates that KBR charged for meals.

Though KBR is much better than the military food, most if not all those who ate KBR food could probably get much better food and save money if they were given the money to procure food rather than have it bought for them by a 3rd party.

chris|9.11.09 @ 8:47PM|#

I hope that this health care bill is as good as the president says it is.