President Obama Challenges states to come up with better plan: Vermont does.

[MaggieMae]

No, you are wrong, I am arguing that the Democrats are further screwing up the economy.

Private insurers are not bureaucrats.

Immie

They're even worse because they've got one of the biggest lobbying effort in Washington going for them.

Insurance: Top Contributors to Federal Candidates, Parties, and Outside Groups | OpenSecrets

Not even close.

They don't have the endless supply of tax dollars to allow them to spend without concern for staying in business. The U.S. Government can simply raise taxes or print more money or add on to the National Debt regardless of what it costs us in the long run.

Immie

And when was the last time your taxes got raised? You seem to imply that this is done all the time as a normal course of business. And the debt? Are you seriously going to blame it all on social programs?

 

[Immanuel]

And? That's the whole point. It's the insurance industry that has been driving the bus...right into a ditch, which is why affordable health care for all Americans is even an issue at all.

Affordable?

At what costs? Significantly reduced tax revenues because 25% of the work force is unemployed and not paying employment taxes or income taxes? Higher costs for Unemployment? Or are we just going to end Unemployment because with 25% of the workforce is out of work and we simply cannot afford it?

As I said, I am not completely against an SPS, but I am very concerned about what is going to happen when we adopt one. I think we as citizens of the United States should be asking those tough questions. When and if they are answered to our satisfaction, then we should move forward, but not until.

Immie

What ARE you talking about? I'm talking about skyrocketing HEALTH CARE COSTS, not tax revenue or unemployment. Medical costs continue to rise, and insurance premiums continue to rise with them, putting health care out of reach for far too many people.

And what I am asking is what happens to the economy when you wipe out 16% of it?

If you are going to save (let's just throw out a huge number here to make you happy) a hundred billion dollars in health care costs, but it costs you five hundred billion dollars in tax revenues because of everyone who has lost their jobs are you really saving anything? Note: I am throwing numbers out because I am asking questions not making statements. I am concerned about what the actual cost of a national SPS is going to be. Convince me, that hundreds of thousands of jobs won't be lost and that there will be assurances that our costs as taxpayers will be protected AND reasonable, and I am okay with the idea. But, I think certain politicians want this in effect now and don't give a shit about what it is going to cost us as taxpayers.

Yes, Health Care Costs are sky-rocketing and we HAVE to do something about it, but can you assure me that your plan when it goes national won't cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs? That link I provided earlier stated without hesitation, that health insurance companies would be a thing of the past. If that is the case, what happens to those employees? Believe me, I don't care about the board as they are all rich enough to get by, but what about the receptionists that answer the phones? What about the adjusters? Mail Clerks? etc. etc. etc. in everyone of those companies.

Why can't those answers be answered BEFORE we jump head first into a bloody nightmare??!! Or is it like Nancy Pelosi says, "we have to pass it before they can know what is in it"? Is that something we can afford this time around?

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

I'd be careful with the hypocrisy, Immie.

More Layoffs, Bigger Payoffs: CEOs Who Cut More Jobs Got Paid 42% More Money in 2009 - DailyFinance

Why was there no noise about those top companies laying off tens of thousands at the same time they reported positive earnings? Suddenly, everyone is projecting fear about a few hundred people getting laid off in the State of Vermont because their jobs in the insurance industry might be eliminated?

A few hundred?

We're talking nationwide and we're talking hundreds of thousands of jobs when this goes national.

Also, we are not talking about companies choosing to eliminate positions here although the issue is something to be concerned about. We are talking about the U.S. Government systematically destroying a very large sector of the U.S. Economy. I'm not sure, but I believe I read somewhere that it was 16% of the U.S. Economy and that is only the direct part of the health insurance industry. It does not include all the satellite industries that are going to be effected.

Immie

Would you puleeze stop worrying that the sky is falling NOW? This is one state, has only passed the House in Vermont, not the Senate yet, nor been signed into law, it will not even be funded until 2013 and not ready to administer until 2017. You've got a few years left before you seriously need to start losing your mind over this, so please take care of your blood pressure before you wear out all your arguments before any such plan ever, ever EVER gets installed across the United States.

No! I won't because if we sit back and wait, it will be too late if it is not already too late.

Why can't I ask these questions now? Why should I wait until the next Nancy Pelosi stands up and says we're doing this come hell or high water. Why wait until they are voting on it before questions are asked?

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

They're even worse because they've got one of the biggest lobbying effort in Washington going for them.

Insurance: Top Contributors to Federal Candidates, Parties, and Outside Groups | OpenSecrets

Not even close.

They don't have the endless supply of tax dollars to allow them to spend without concern for staying in business. The U.S. Government can simply raise taxes or print more money or add on to the National Debt regardless of what it costs us in the long run.

Immie

And when was the last time your taxes got raised? You seem to imply that this is done all the time as a normal course of business. And the debt? Are you seriously going to blame it all on social programs?

They have been trying to raise SS taxes for years and eventually they will.

Didn't say all the debt was the fault of social programs. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Immie

 

[Trajan]

Private insurers are not bureaucrats.

I guess that about sums it up. As you were.

I think what he may be alluding to is that because of a profit margin or consideration, the private is there by more efficient....

at least that was what my comment was intended to explore but it appears you no longer answer questions I pose, or those that may requirement inconvenient exposure/explanation, hey, its cool, your nickel

 

[Immanuel]

Private insurers are not bureaucrats.

I guess that about sums it up. As you were.

I think what he may be alluding to is that because of a profit margin or consideration, the private is there by more efficient....

at least that was what my comment was intended to explore but it appears you no longer answer questions I pose, or those that may requirement inconvenient exposure/explanation, hey, its cool, your nickel

No, what I was saying was that I do not want some government lacky making my health care decisions for me. I don't trust the people in government.

I believe Greenbeard understood that fully, but just didn't want to discuss the truth of what I said.

Greenbeard is very knowledgeable in this area. I respect his input. But, I am not confident that a SPS is good for our economy right now, if ever. He disagrees with me and I know that.

Immie

 

[Trajan]

hey, whatever, in the end it doesn't matter and oh yeah, he is, no doubt very well versed as to what the plan SAYS.

Hes in policy implementation, of course that comes with its own set of inherent issues, ala not having much patience for opposition and discussion of anything outside a framework where in he can take cover and camouflage in important but very tedious forest of detail, few have the patience and where with all to study and understand, because hes paid to be partisan, 'but come by it honestly' .

Sorta like the bill itself.. You don't think he wound up here, just because he was toolin' around the internet and likes us?

They barely won the strategic battle to convince us of the efficacy of their plan, only got it approved because of a majority, not due to persuasion or compromise.

As foretold, whether one likes the facts or not or want to look at it in partisan terms, the reality is; the bill is a hydra whose heads or limbs fall off every couple of months...they actively and willfully engaged in twisting the truth, gross exaggerations and the like and then blame Partisan politics on its unpopularity., "BUT you see let me explain the deeeeetaillll, you see it can be done", of course thats not how things are done, from the bottom up, designing a screw, so as to fit it to an airplane, but hey, thats the governments style of policy creation and implementation.

Too funny if it were not so destructive.

 

[bripat9643]

It would be hard to come up with a plan worse than Obamacare. However, if one qualifies, single payer is it.

While other states are busy crushing unions, denying people healthcare, like Jan Brewer, which resulted in the deaths of two people and cutting taxes on the rich (Can we guess what party or ideology these people embrace), Vermont actually took up Obama's challenge and went with single payer.

About fucking time.

Vt. House Passes Single-Payer Health Care Bill - News Story - WPTZ Plattsburgh

 

[Greenbeard]

at least that was what my comment was intended to explore but it appears you no longer answer questions I pose

... he can take cover and camouflage in important but very tedious forest of detail,

You've made it clear--and reiterated it here--that you don't want me to answer your questions. I'm not going to waste time on those who aren't actually interested.


But I do enjoy hearing the narratives playing in your head as to what I do and what conspiracies I'm in on.

 

[MaggieMae]

at least that was what my comment was intended to explore but it appears you no longer answer questions I pose

... he can take cover and camouflage in important but very tedious forest of detail,

You've made it clear--and reiterated it here--that you don't want me to answer your questions. I'm not going to waste time on those who aren't actually interested.


But I do enjoy hearing the narratives playing in your head as to what I do and what conspiracies I'm in on.

I for one appreciate your knowledgeable input, especially on the technical parts. Seriously addressing health care and costs is an overwhelmingly difficult thing to do, and this thread is merely revisiting all the old arguments of two summers ago. So I'm not going to waste my time any further arguing the merits either. Frankly, I'd love to see the Republican majority succeed in overturning the Obama health insurance program in its entirety, then sit back and watch them do NOTHING for another 30 years, as their own costs and premiums continue to rise. The upper wealth classes will continue to fight for zero coverage for middle classes stuck between a rock and a hard place until the rising costs begin to take a bite out of the fat wallets of those who can now afford to pay for it with ease.

 

[8537]

Whats funny is this thread went nothing like predicted on the first page.

GL to Vermont!

Veromont WILL become the FIRST autonomous Self-Actuated Socialist State of the Union apart from the Constitution...and a SAD example for the rest.

It means they capitulated having run outta ideas when they signed on to the best idea...of individual Liberty when they helped RATIFY the Constitution as one of the original 13 States...

Holy shit man. You should take some remedial history classes before posting.

 

[8537]

"hat link I provided earlier stated without hesitation, that health insurance companies would be a thing of the past. If that is the case, what happens to those employees? "

They find work in other industries (there is no shortage of insurance work in other areas in Vermont).

 

[Immanuel]

"hat link I provided earlier stated without hesitation, that health insurance companies would be a thing of the past. If that is the case, what happens to those employees? "

They find work in other industries (there is no shortage of insurance work in other areas in Vermont).

Have you looked at the unemployment numbers nationwide anytime in the last two years? No? Didn't think so.

Do you really think we can just absorb an influx of more unemployed and employ them anytime soon?

Immie

 

[Sallow]

Why won't it? With zero competition there is no incentive for the government not to charge every dime they can and then throw those extra tax dollars into the general fund (which is where they will go in the first place) for use in adding pork.

Immie

You've totally lost me. Are you now talking about single-payer or Obamacare? Under the latter, there would be plenty of competition, which is as it should be, because insurance companies will have to compete with each other for the pool of subscribers in the exchange program. Under single payer, the administration would be a separately administered program. Huh?

I am talking about the goal of taking single payer nation wide.

And I believe you are wrong in your assertion about the Health Care Reform bill that passed last year that you term, Obamacare. I don't like that word, because it is right wing crap trying to denounce the efforts of the legislature. HCR sets up exchanges, but it limits what insurance companies in the exchange (and in order to sell insurance they have to be in the exchange) can sell. In effect, it makes them puppets of the government. They are not allowed to market their products. They must be just like every other company on the exchange... i.e. a puppet of the government.

Under a SPS, the government would be the sole provider of Health Insurance and there will be no competition at all, not even the puppets.

Immie

Except that's not the goal.

 

[Sallow]

Do I have to point out that administrative procedure is precisely the topic of conversation here? Bureaucracy is a function of organization, not your ideology.



Your link actually contains a brief discussion of private sector bureaucracy. It's not particularly enlightening, but I'm not here to provide a reading list in organizational theory.

My point stands. You're making a blanket argument against any increase in administrative efficiency in the health insurance sector because then, sadly, we'd be paying less for those functions (ergo we'd be employing fewer folks in that sector). Overhead for the sake of overhead (there, do you prefer that?) is not good medicine and it's not good policy.

So, you want to literally destroy the economy in order to drop administrative expenses by a percent or two? Wow!

Tax revenues will plummet for one thing. Unemployment expenses are going to sky-rocket, but by God we saved a million dollars in administrative expenses by eliminating hundreds of thousands of jobs. Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant.

Immie

Hundreds of thousands? News flash: The entire State of Vermont only has a population of 621,000.

That's what I mean about overreacting and projection. ONE state; a very, very few number of people who will be affected by layoffs.

And there's absolutely nothing to back this up.

On the other end of the spectrum..the Energy industry gets all sorts of subsidies and the use of the US military. They've made more money then all capitalistic enterprises in the history of mankind. And not a word about that.

 

[8537]

"hat link I provided earlier stated without hesitation, that health insurance companies would be a thing of the past. If that is the case, what happens to those employees? "

They find work in other industries (there is no shortage of insurance work in other areas in Vermont).

Have you looked at the unemployment numbers nationwide anytime in the last two years? No? Didn't think so.

Do you really think we can just absorb an influx of more unemployed and employ them anytime soon?

Immie

So, we should maintain outdated production because we might "lose jobs"?

That's not how it works. Efficiencies lead to higher employment, not lower. Should we also disband the automated assembly line because it led to fewer people being needed to make cars?

 

[Immanuel]

You've totally lost me. Are you now talking about single-payer or Obamacare? Under the latter, there would be plenty of competition, which is as it should be, because insurance companies will have to compete with each other for the pool of subscribers in the exchange program. Under single payer, the administration would be a separately administered program. Huh?

I am talking about the goal of taking single payer nation wide.

And I believe you are wrong in your assertion about the Health Care Reform bill that passed last year that you term, Obamacare. I don't like that word, because it is right wing crap trying to denounce the efforts of the legislature. HCR sets up exchanges, but it limits what insurance companies in the exchange (and in order to sell insurance they have to be in the exchange) can sell. In effect, it makes them puppets of the government. They are not allowed to market their products. They must be just like every other company on the exchange... i.e. a puppet of the government.

Under a SPS, the government would be the sole provider of Health Insurance and there will be no competition at all, not even the puppets.

Immie

Except that's not the goal.

That is the ultimate goal of the Obama Administration.

"hat link I provided earlier stated without hesitation, that health insurance companies would be a thing of the past. If that is the case, what happens to those employees? "

They find work in other industries (there is no shortage of insurance work in other areas in Vermont).

Have you looked at the unemployment numbers nationwide anytime in the last two years? No? Didn't think so.

Do you really think we can just absorb an influx of more unemployed and employ them anytime soon?

Immie

So, we should maintain outdated production because we might "lose jobs"?

That's not how it works. Efficiencies lead to higher employment, not lower. Should we also disband the automated assembly line because it led to fewer people being needed to make cars?

1) Thank you for keeping the discussion civil. I'm finding others, in other threads are not able to do so, and at the moment, I'm getting a little perturbed so please excuse me if I don't sound all that polite in any reply. It is not intentional. I respect your input as always.

Should we maintain outdated productions methods because we might lose jobs?

That all depends. What is the cost of the outdated production methods and what will be the cost of losing those jobs?

If I can save a hundred billion dollars by replacing the outdated methods, but it ends up costing me five hundred billion in the long run, is it really a good idea to change methods? My answer to that is no. If replacing the method will provide a return such that within a reasonable amount of time, the costs of the lost jobs will be recovered then I would change my answer to that, but I am concerned that the savings will not be recovered in a reasonable amount of time.

Our economy is in the crapper right now. I am not blaming the Obama Administration for that, but it is a fact that the economy is in the crapper. So, is now the time to risk making things worse?

I have said it twice in this thread and other times as well, I am not opposed to the Single Payer concept, but seeing as how I am one of the unemployed and currently looking for just any old job, I don't think that making the unemployment situation worse is all that great of a frigging idea.

Call me selfish, but it has been 14 months since I lost my job. I applied at frigging Walmart this morning that is how desperate things have become. Hundreds of thousands of new competition in the unemployment lines is not all that appetizing to me.

By the way, I'm asking questions. Maybe I am wrong in my assumptions, but damn it we all ought to be asking questions.

Immie

 

[8537]

1) Thank you for keeping the discussion civil. I'm finding others, in other threads are not able to do so, and at the moment, I'm getting a little perturbed so please excuse me if I don't sound all that polite in any reply. It is not intentional. I respect your input as always.

Should we maintain outdated productions methods because we might lose jobs?

That all depends. What is the cost of the outdated production methods and what will be the cost of losing those jobs?

Well, let's try it this way: Let's say we moved to a system where everyone paid for healthcare out of pocket.

It would be inefficient and a waste of resources to continue paying insurance companies, right? That's analogous to what (might) happen here. The people who lose their jobs in insurance will face some structural unemployment, but the increased efficiencies will lead to higher total employment and higher wages over time.

If I can save a hundred billion dollars by replacing the outdated methods, but it ends up costing me five hundred billion in the long run, is it really a good idea to change methods? My answer to that is no. If replacing the method will provide a return such that within a reasonable amount of time, the costs of the lost jobs will be recovered then I would change my answer to that, but I am concerned that the savings will not be recovered in a reasonable amount of time.

ah! That's a different question: Will any savings actually be realized? Maybe, maybe not. But IF you are going to implement the reforms (And we're going to, at least in some small part) there is no reason to maintain insurance employment.

Our economy is in the crapper right now. I am not blaming the Obama Administration for that, but it is a fact that the economy is in the crapper. So, is now the time to risk making things worse?

I agree it's in bad shape - FWIW, it's in far better shape here. Our unemployment rate is about 6%. And this program isn't rolling out immediately. Best case scenario, we're looking at 2014.

I have said it twice in this thread and other times as well, I am not opposed to the Single Payer concept, but seeing as how I am one of the unemployed and currently looking for just any old job, I don't think that making the unemployment situation worse is all that great of a frigging idea.

Call me selfish, but it has been 14 months since I lost my job. I applied at frigging Walmart this morning that is how desperate things have become. Hundreds of thousands of new competition in the unemployment lines is not all that appetizing to me

First, best in your search for employment. I have no doubt it's an extremely difficult time to be looking for work. And I certainly don't blame you for asking the questions - we need more of that before we move forward. This legislation is just a baby step towards soliciting answers to questions and exploring a range of options. Despite what might be being reported, the bill was not a bill to adopt single-payer. It was a bill to take exploratory steps in that direction.

 

[Immanuel]

1) Thank you for keeping the discussion civil. I'm finding others, in other threads are not able to do so, and at the moment, I'm getting a little perturbed so please excuse me if I don't sound all that polite in any reply. It is not intentional. I respect your input as always.

Should we maintain outdated productions methods because we might lose jobs?

That all depends. What is the cost of the outdated production methods and what will be the cost of losing those jobs?

Well, let's try it this way: Let's say we moved to a system where everyone paid for healthcare out of pocket.

It would be inefficient and a waste of resources to continue paying insurance companies, right? That's analogous to what (might) happen here. The people who lose their jobs in insurance will face some structural unemployment, but the increased efficiencies will lead to higher total employment and higher wages over time.

If I can save a hundred billion dollars by replacing the outdated methods, but it ends up costing me five hundred billion in the long run, is it really a good idea to change methods? My answer to that is no. If replacing the method will provide a return such that within a reasonable amount of time, the costs of the lost jobs will be recovered then I would change my answer to that, but I am concerned that the savings will not be recovered in a reasonable amount of time.

ah! That's a different question: Will any savings actually be realized? Maybe, maybe not. But IF you are going to implement the reforms (And we're going to, at least in some small part) there is no reason to maintain insurance employment.

Our economy is in the crapper right now. I am not blaming the Obama Administration for that, but it is a fact that the economy is in the crapper. So, is now the time to risk making things worse?

I agree it's in bad shape - FWIW, it's in far better shape here. Our unemployment rate is about 6%. And this program isn't rolling out immediately. Best case scenario, we're looking at 2014.

I have said it twice in this thread and other times as well, I am not opposed to the Single Payer concept, but seeing as how I am one of the unemployed and currently looking for just any old job, I don't think that making the unemployment situation worse is all that great of a frigging idea.

Call me selfish, but it has been 14 months since I lost my job. I applied at frigging Walmart this morning that is how desperate things have become. Hundreds of thousands of new competition in the unemployment lines is not all that appetizing to me

First, best in your search for employment. I have no doubt it's an extremely difficult time to be looking for work. And I certainly don't blame you for asking the questions - we need more of that before we move forward. This legislation is just a baby step towards soliciting answers to questions and exploring a range of options. Despite what might be being reported, the bill was not a bill to adopt single-payer. It was a bill to take exploratory steps in that direction.

Here? Are you in Vermont?

Truth be told, I grew up in California and my dad worked for the phone company. We had an HMO called Kaiser Permanente which in my humble opinion was phenomenal. If I could be assured that our hospitals were going to be run with the efficiency of Kaiser, I would be jumping for joy and lobbying for the change without a moment's hesitation. Note: not everyone who had Kaiser agrees with me.

But, what I foresee is a government run health insurance company without any of the checks and balances offered by the free market and that is what scares the shit out of me.

Immie

 

[Sallow]

I am talking about the goal of taking single payer nation wide.

And I believe you are wrong in your assertion about the Health Care Reform bill that passed last year that you term, Obamacare. I don't like that word, because it is right wing crap trying to denounce the efforts of the legislature. HCR sets up exchanges, but it limits what insurance companies in the exchange (and in order to sell insurance they have to be in the exchange) can sell. In effect, it makes them puppets of the government. They are not allowed to market their products. They must be just like every other company on the exchange... i.e. a puppet of the government.

Under a SPS, the government would be the sole provider of Health Insurance and there will be no competition at all, not even the puppets.

Immie

Except that's not the goal.

That is the ultimate goal of the Obama Administration.

There is nothing in his governing style to even remotely suggest that.