What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

A non partisan view of the healthcare bill...

Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
50,337
Reaction score
10,053
Points
0
Most of you know how I am loathed to use the media as a 'source', but this is an interesting article.... unfortunately, most of you will be unable to whine about 'the other side', so I suspect you won't even bother to read it. But.... for what it is worth....

Health reform in America: Signed, sealed, delivered | The Economist

Since writers for the Economist write pure on fact, and leave politics aside, I find the article a really good one. The left may not like the very clear little chart though.

I like this part....

What will it mean for America? The short answer is that the reforms will expand coverage dramatically, but at a heavy cost to the taxpayer. They will also do far too little to rein in the underlying drivers of America’s roaring health inflation. Analysis by RAND, an independent think-tank, suggests that the reforms will actually increase America’s overall health spending—public plus private—by about 2% by 2020, in comparison with a scenario of no reform (see chart). And that rate of spending was already unsustainable at a time when the baby-boomers are starting to retire in large numbers.

And the end....

Paul Krugman, an economics professor at Princeton and a liberal booster of reform, wrote on the eve of the votes: “There is, as always, a tunnel at the end of the tunnel: we’ll spend years if not decades fixing this thing.” Robert Moffit of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank opposed to the effort, agrees, albeit in darker terms: “This marks the beginning of the next phase of this hundred years war.”
 
Last edited:
OP
C
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
50,337
Reaction score
10,053
Points
0
i am among those who know you are loathed and am not loath to mention that.

Ahhhh, the Alinsky tactic already! Wow.

It ain't a popularity contest, little man. How pathetic of you to try and make it one.
 
OP
C
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
50,337
Reaction score
10,053
Points
0

editec

Mr. Forgot-it-All
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
41,421
Reaction score
5,662
Points
48
Location
Maine
Appears to me that the Krugman's complaints about this plan and mine are very similar.


The heart of the new reform is a restructuring of America’s flawed insurance market. Insurers now face tough new regulations forbidding such practices as dropping people with “pre-existing conditions” (real or trumped up), or putting lifetime caps on coverage.

That is a good thing, of course.

Now the blowback is that they will also have every right, and every logical argument for petitioning the government to allow them to increase premiums to offset these new much more costly clients.

Insurance companies will NOT lose profits because of these new clients.

In fact, they will make even more profits as a result of having to cover these people.

But EVERYBODY's premiums must go up to cover these new expenses, folks. Everybody's


In return, though, the insurance industry will benefit from a big expansion of the country’s private insurance market.

Yes. And since HC insurance profits are set to be a percentage overall primiums, they will make a LOT more money, too wwon't they?

Because when they go to the government for rate increase, they WILL get what they ask for.

Because if they do not, then those insruance companies will go out of business...and the government cannot allow that, because then nobody has HC insurance.

See how that works?

This is why I hqave been saying for the last few months, that I could not POSSIBLY have written a plan that served the interests of HC insurance cmpanies better than this does.




Heavily regulated exchanges, or insurance marketplaces, would be set up so that consumers not covered by employer-provided plans today could shop for ones more easily.

Shop for what? This is virtually a monompoly, pretending to be a competitive system.

Remember everybody HAS to BUY somebody's insurance.

And all insurance rates are decided by the government.

And the government will NOT put any insurance company OOB.

You'll have a choice, alright... a choice between twiddle dee and tewidle dumb, both of whom offer the same thing, priced by the government.



Insurers would be required to offer plans that meet minimum government requirements for health coverage, and to price them transparently.

Tranparent pricing? What a nice soundbyte. It's completely meaningless, but it has a SOUNDS GOOD ring to it, doesn't it?

Of course it's TRANSPARENT...the government oversees the cost of premiums.

We have NOT solved the HC problem, folks.

We have merely changed to some extent who has to pay for it.

And who is now going to pay for it who once did not?

Those of us who did not have HC, before, that's who.

And of course...the TAXPAYERS.

At least that's how this Indie sees it.

Oh yeah...one more thing for you to chew over...

We're dramatically increasing the DEMAND chasing HC, right?

Have we dramatically INCREASED the SUPPLY of HC?

No?

Well, budding economists...what happens to prices when MORE MONEY CHASES THE SAME AMOUNT OF GOODS IN A MARKET?

1. the price goes up
2. the price goes down
3. the price stays the same​

You guys with degrees in engineers and science and business can do the math.​

I'm just a foolish social scientist and as you all know, we're all too dumb to work with numbers.​
 
Last edited:

mudwhistle

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
100,605
Reaction score
29,780
Points
2,220
Location
Tested Negative For COVID-19
i am among those who know you are loathed and am not loath to mention that.

Ahhhh, the Alinsky tactic already! Wow.

It ain't a popularity contest, little man. How pathetic of you to try and make it one.


alinsky was a grammar nazi? are you sure you are a writer?

Funny that you would know so much about the asshole to be able to say something like that.

I think you just dropped your trousers bud.
 
OP
C
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
50,337
Reaction score
10,053
Points
0
Ahhhh, the Alinsky tactic already! Wow.

It ain't a popularity contest, little man. How pathetic of you to try and make it one.


alinsky was a grammar nazi? are you sure you are a writer?

Funny that you would know so much about the asshole to be able to say something like that.

I think you just dropped your trousers bud.

It must be hard for those who struggle to understand the article to comment on it, so attacking the poster is the natural fall back position. Sad, huh?
 

L.K.Eder

unbannable non-troll
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
27,585
Reaction score
6,569
Points
280
Location
theartching thapphireth

L.K.Eder

unbannable non-troll
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
27,585
Reaction score
6,569
Points
280
Location
theartching thapphireth
Ahhhh, the Alinsky tactic already! Wow.

It ain't a popularity contest, little man. How pathetic of you to try and make it one.


alinsky was a grammar nazi? are you sure you are a writer?

Nothing to say on the actual topic? How surprising! Color me shocked pink! It must be frustrating for you, midget.


no, nothing to say. i just enjoy mocking the super-intelligent professional writers.
 

mudwhistle

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
100,605
Reaction score
29,780
Points
2,220
Location
Tested Negative For COVID-19

PeterS

Active Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
973
Reaction score
71
Points
28
Most of you know how I am loathed to use the media as a 'source', but this is an interesting article.... unfortunately, most of you will be unable to whine about 'the other side', so I suspect you won't even bother to read it. But.... for what it is worth....

Health reform in America: Signed, sealed, delivered | The Economist

Since writers for the Economist write pure on fact, and leave politics aside, I find the article a really good one. The left may not like the very clear little chart though.

I like this part....

What will it mean for America? The short answer is that the reforms will expand coverage dramatically, but at a heavy cost to the taxpayer. They will also do far too little to rein in the underlying drivers of America’s roaring health inflation. Analysis by RAND, an independent think-tank, suggests that the reforms will actually increase America’s overall health spending—public plus private—by about 2% by 2020, in comparison with a scenario of no reform (see chart). And that rate of spending was already unsustainable at a time when the baby-boomers are starting to retire in large numbers.

And the end....

Paul Krugman, an economics professor at Princeton and a liberal booster of reform, wrote on the eve of the votes: “There is, as always, a tunnel at the end of the tunnel: we’ll spend years if not decades fixing this thing.” Robert Moffit of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank opposed to the effort, agrees, albeit in darker terms: “This marks the beginning of the next phase of this hundred years war.”

Personally I love charts. You can't fix what isn't in place. The point all along was for a public option and the chart makes it a certainty...
 

L.K.Eder

unbannable non-troll
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
27,585
Reaction score
6,569
Points
280
Location
theartching thapphireth
Nothing to say on the actual topic? How surprising! Color me shocked pink! It must be frustrating for you, midget.


no, nothing to say. i just enjoy mocking the super-intelligent professional writers.

No....instead of explaining your position you're resorting to a personal attack.

It shows you have nothing.

i made a comment about the different meanings of loathed/loath, nothing more nothing less. i now enjoy the persecution drama you punks are dishing out.

baha baha, personal attack. quak quak.
 
OP
C
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
50,337
Reaction score
10,053
Points
0
no, nothing to say. i just enjoy mocking the super-intelligent professional writers.

No....instead of explaining your position you're resorting to a personal attack.

It shows you have nothing.

i made a comment about the different meanings of loathed/loath, nothing more nothing less. i now enjoy the persecution drama you punks are dishing out.

baha baha, personal attack. quak quak.

And absolutely no comment on the article. That's cuz you dumb.
 

L.K.Eder

unbannable non-troll
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
27,585
Reaction score
6,569
Points
280
Location
theartching thapphireth
No....instead of explaining your position you're resorting to a personal attack.

It shows you have nothing.

i made a comment about the different meanings of loathed/loath, nothing more nothing less. i now enjoy the persecution drama you punks are dishing out.

baha baha, personal attack. quak quak.

And absolutely no comment on the article. That's cuz you dumb.

you will get over it, in time.
 

L.K.Eder

unbannable non-troll
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
27,585
Reaction score
6,569
Points
280
Location
theartching thapphireth
you could also ignore me and address the posters who made comments about the krugman article.

i am here to help you, cally.
 

Ravi

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
90,899
Reaction score
13,995
Points
2,205
Location
Hating Hatters
This is not a nonpartisan article.

For example, what Krugman actually said was:
There is, as always, a tunnel at the end of the tunnel: we’ll spend years if not decades fixing this thing. But kudos to all involved, with special praise for Nancy Pelosi, who is now a Speaker for the ages.

Also, elsewhere in the Economist we find this opinion piece that supports health care reform.

American health-care reform: Pass the bill | The Economist
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top