Stop Me Before I Vote Again

I reached a similar conclusion. The gnashing of teeth amuses, no?

But how are we going to give private insurers millions of new customers to profit from!?

If we don't all, by virtue of being alive, become their customers then [magically] they'll be able to do all these terrible things that they are already finding loopholes to do anyway!

Heh.

My employer called a meeting today and informed us that our insurance rates were all "going up because of Obamacare" and advised us to vote Republican in the next election.

When I asked a few questions (as in "how has a program that hasn't been implemented yet raised private insurance rates") I was told "not to be so political."

(I was told it's about all extending Cobra).

In any event, I'm now paying another 35 bucks a month for insurance.

I guess this decision gives me the option of going without insurance in a few years if and when "health care reform" is finally implemented.

At this point:

1.) I have no idea what's going on.
2.) I never use health insurance
3.) I have no plans to drop my coverage

My employer also whined about their only being 4 health insurance companies in New Jersey.

When I asked how this compares to say Utah or Ohio I was told nobody knew and I shouldn't be so political.

(Is NJ subsidizing the governor's lunches?)

When I suggested that a public option would give NJ a fifth insurance company I was told, you guessed it, not be so political.

Hmmm.

All in all, it's another 35 bucks a month.

But it also reminded me of this old vignette from American history.

http://tinyurl.com/2c8o6cr

Yes, a great day for single payer/genuine insurance. It doesn't get much more direct than recognizing that "only by requiring healthy people to have policies can they afford to treat those with expensive chronic conditions...." Of course, the next millimeter past this this one-millimeter-from-an-admission acknowledgment that "private insurance" is an oxymoron is unthinkable, so into the memory hole it goes.

so. clearly. time to talk "amendment."

you guys act like the insurance crowd is the main benefactor of our present medical system

do u believe that ???
if not
then what share of the excess "social cost"
of our system is their "profit " abuse
and what part their waste
the total "fat " in the system as a whole
can be estimated at
anywhere
from 400 billion on up past a trillion

--------------

the universal mandate is indeed a patch work
wildly uneven and injustice
attempt at full socialization of the systems full costs to society

md has it right
insurance is sublated by full socialization

the struggle has two fronts
battling toward a lowest cost universal provision system that is just
and hacking away at the actual health systems
"rent " pockets
which are everywhere and involve clearing away the present viciously thorned
bramble of a price structure
--
besides de balling the health insurance privateers
i'd start with big pharma's massive rents
their abuse their waste and their corrupting mechanisms .....of course i would
-----
i admit at of a completely non productive
counter strategic spite
i'd loved to gore the special docs
replace em with medics technicians
soft ware and devices
but that can wait
just like a wealth tax can wait
the people need fast relief from premium costs
hence an uncle premium freeze
and payment subsidy of hollywood epic dimensions
that's un done job one

we must be prepared to wait on clio for our
full measure of revenge

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/blog/white-house-and-progressives-should-be-cheering-virginia-ruling-striking-down-mandatory-health-

Dembot cut out
jamie court
making poison lemonade ??

"If anything can save Democrats now, it's populism -- the notion that standing with 80% of Americans is real power. "

"That's why the White House and progressives should be cheering the decision by a conservative Virginia judge to strike down the highly-unpopular federal mandate to purchase health insurance ...."

father's cheer echoed ??
nope

"and preserve the rest of the federal health care reform law."
i doubt that's father "incendiary" McSmiffs take
but ...

"Conservatives have tried to repeal the mandate that everyone must buy health insurance as a way of taking out the full law in the court. Today's ruling makes clear that the popular and progressive parts of health care reform could go forward without the big sop to health insurance companies -- mandatory purchases without regulated premiums."

get that last bit the nub

the present law amounts to
"mandatory purchases without regulated premiums"

but the devils corporals may have their arduments:

"Why would a progressive like me support repeal of mandatory health insurance purchases?"

"70% of Americans consistently oppose mandatory health insurance purchases."

yup that's enough there for a pwog
that purports to voice
the people's overwhelming desires
ie
a people's tribune version of pwogery ..

but
prepare for a serious side bar zap :

"If the last two elections have taught Washington a lesson, it's that we can do anything if 70% of Americans agree and do nothing if a majority cannot agree."

well seems the Dem core learned nothing
so appeals to the record go without response
only line we get is we need to elect 66 liberal senators eh ??
not
the real populist mission
pass bills
that have a two thirds popular support
not two thirds senatorial support

"Most of the progressive parts of health care reform - subsidies to buy insurance for the poor and rules to make the marketplace fairer - enjoy 60% to 70% public support. "
ie what is progressive is also popular
yup and indeed always will if isolated
hence ??
why what else
that should have been all Dem pwog-pop
allowed to pass in 09

the unstated twin ??

not mandates but
cost control thru a premium freeze

alas alas

back to it

here comes more good sense

"Mandatory purchases...will consistently suffer the public's wrath because of popular distrust of the insurance industry and the high cost of health insurance premiums."

" Congressional refusal to limit how much health insurance companies can charge will ensure Americans' distaste only grows."

hence WE NEED A PREMIUM FREEZE

So ...the courts in their elitest way
if they follow on this virginian pokes lead may be stopping
".. a ticking time bomb for Democrats "
the magic of Clio's useful idiots
in turning intentions into their opposites

more good sense insight:

"Beneath the polling, of course, is a strong social mores that the government should not be forcing Americans to buy health insurance that they cannot afford."
comes the barry suck up:

"As a candidate, President Obama agreed with this popular sentiment. He argued, in stark contrast to Hillary Clinton, that, "The reason people don't have health insurance isn't because they don't want it, it's because they can't afford it." "

then comes his tickler
"Once in office, Obama conceded to the Washington wisdom that government cannot force insurance companies to sell policies to all citizens without requiring that everyone have to buy it."

now he attacks the neolib thesis
that combines the whole crowd from summers to krugman :

"The notion that mandatory insurance is necessary for a "take-all-comers" law to succeed,"

" like so many assumptions in the Beltway, needs to be reexamined."

his respones

" gaming by those who won't buy insurance until they are sick can be alleviated by creating greater carrots for buying coverage and less severe deterrents for failing to, such as a limited national open-enrollment period."
hmmmm how big the subsidy ??

example of inadequate subsidy:

"Current law now requires Americans to spend 8% of their income on health insurance by 2014 or face fines. Sliding scale subsidies would assist a family of four up to $88,000, but the $7,000 the family would have to pay could not even buy a policy likely to meet their needs, since the average policy for the family costs more than $12,000 today."

he then suggests the road forward
when premiums soar

looking a mass as herbinger

"Mandatory health insurance has not produced lower premiums or health care budget savings in Massachusetts, the laboratory for the experiment. Massachusetts recently adopted strong premium regulation to give consumers relief from the highest health insurance rates in America."
and new york

"New York, which has a take-all-comers law, is often cited as the disastrous consequence of the failure to enact mandatory purchases. But the empire state also is embarking on tough premium regulation to deal with its problems -- which still rank it lower than Massachusetts in premium prices. Premium regulation is the key."

comes the my story
or closer the advertisements for my self :

"This principle set me on my journey as a consumer advocate more than twenty years ago. Californian endured double-digit premium hikes on their auto insurance under mandatory auto insurance laws imposed in 1986. This sparked a voter revolt in 1988 led by the founder of the consumer group I now head, Consumer Watchdog. Proposition 103, passed via ballot measure, created the nation's toughest premium regulation. A 2008 report by the Consumer Federation of America found California motorists have saved $62 billion on their auto insurance bills."

" Congress has no such appetite for tough regulation, however."

and so

well since health expenditures can become mandatory if you wish to live
and unlike Driving a car there is no health bus to take

it comes down to paying a tax of 8 %
of income for everyone
to support our system
as courtie sez

"When the public feels that blow, the backlash will make the midterm election look like a baby shower."
so if its that obvious will it happen ??

close

". Narrowly repealing mandatory health insurance is something the public and many Democrats agree with, it's the common ground that Americans overwhelming stand on. The political establishment should join them"

a freeze not a mandate

When I ducked quickly out onto the stoop in the goddamn' wicked-assed bone cold to grab our Post, ducked back inside and copped a look at that headline, I somehow found myself transported into Obama's brain -- kinda' like in Being John Malkovich -- and, get this, I could hear the goddamn' Twilight Zone theme playing...

doo dee doo dahh, doo dee doo dahh
doo dee doo dahh, doo dee doo dahh
doo dee doo dahh, doo dee doo dahh...

...and Rod Serling purring ominously...

you're traveling in another dimension... a dimension not only of sight and sound, but of policy... that's the signpost up ahead! your next stop -- THE BUTTHURT ZONE.

...and, mind you, this was before I'd had my first coffee'n'toke. Just straight out of bed, downstairs, pick up the Post, and, wham.

But, aaa-aaanyway, yeah; first time in a long time I was actually cheered up by the front page of the Post, even though in the left-hand column, there was this somehow huffily annoyed headline about the tax-cut bill, citing a poll claiming 70% support as if to admonish us, "SEVENTY GODDAMN' PERCENT, ya' got that? Now, GET WITH THE GODDAMN' PROGRAM!" ...and a lead that read like a goddamn' press release. I shit you not. My old high-school journalism teacher would've so totally flunked the hack that wrote that load of fluff. I didn't read any further to avoid losing the cheap laffs value in the head and the lead.

Hell, not only that, but when I emerged from REM state this morning to the sound of Morning Joe -- as usual -- the first thing I heard was Joe, Mika, Willie and That Guy Named After That Nasty Critter That Sticks To The Side Of A Ship all sobbing and moaning and gushing over Richard Holbrooke, and I instantly knew the motherfucker had died before I actually heard anyone say it.

So, I'm smirking when I get out of bed, already, and then I cop a look at the Post... Been nothing but hilarity ensuing in the media today, so far. Yee hahh.

the mike papers
ripped fresh from the pages of his life and times

give us more nockzzle boy !!!!

A good friend of mine died a week ago, and I've been brooding over the unfairness of life, until I read the news this morning.

While we're finding things unconstitutional, how about changing the law that people who are self-employed (usually not by their own choice) have to pay not only the employee part of their SS tax, but the employer's too?

A few months ago, when I first got wind of the Republican's intent to sabotage every one of Obama's initiatives, I felt an odd delight, and now I know why.

Op-san, you are certainly correct that insurance is but the half of it. Yet, I'd say that clubbing the providers down to size is only possible, only going to reach the agenda in humane and proper form, after we embrace the need for replacing the present system of private gambling with real, all-together-now, pooled risk public insurance.

op sez on 12.14.10 @12:40:
the mike papers
ripped fresh from the pages of his life and times

give us more nockzzle boy !!!!

Uhhm, well... thanks, glad you're digging it.

Y'know, every goddamn' morning I have to suffer through Joe, Mika and crew holding up the front pages of three or four major dailies and telling us what's on them and then discussing them with the usual bland spin, usually with Mika making some frosty, bitchy retorts and Joe cutting loose a blast of crassly offensive banality or some shit.

I always thought that my analysis and commentary should carry much more weight than the Morning Joe crew because whereas Scarborough & Co. have the benefit of a couple of hours' wakeful relaxation, a fresh, hot cup of coffee and a cushy seat in a spiffy studio, I flip through the front pages of each section of the Post in my front hallway after being awake for about ten minutes and develop my impressions in the time it takes to close the front door and shuffle back to the kitchen to start the coffee and refill Minnie's dish.

Usually, that early-morning brain belching is channeled into cartoons, but this morning it was just one funny random thought after another that couldn't be fashioned into anything coherent, while hearing Morning Joe mourning Holbrooke, and catching the Post headline about the big ol' Obamacare smackdown.

I mean... it's been twelve hours, and still everytime I think of that headline first thing this morning, I'm like, whee hahhh!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/15/business/economy/15leonhardt.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a2
did u know as a polity and nation
we super and sub-mericans
had two competing traditions in our economic outlook ???

lire the great leonhardt :

a quote :
"“We are against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program,” said one prominent critic of the new health care law. It is socialized medicine, he argued. If it stands, he said, “one of these days, you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.” "

that's our Ronnie as a younger dog ...on medicare !!!

leon:

"In part because of his stand against Medicare in the 1960s, Ronald Reagan transitioned from an actor to a political activist. "
and on to Cal-Gub and then Potus Unitarianus
of the 4th reich

THAT'S ONE TRADITION

the other ??

well here's the skinny according
to this la gris madamme's chitter bug

".... Nearly every time this country has expanded its social safety net or tried to guarantee civil rights, passionate opposition has followed. ..The opposition stems from the tension between two competing traditions in the American economy."

ahhhh

" One is the laissez-faire tradition that celebrates individuality and risk-taking."

yup

" The other is the progressive tradition that says people have a right to a minimum standard of living — time off from work, education and the like. "

is there emphasis these days
on "and the like " ???

soft ...
here's the message in the empty floating booze bottle ....

"Both traditions have been crucial to creating the most prosperous economy and the largest middle class the world has ever known"

R.I.P
or
RIP ???

leon squares the circle:

"Guaranteeing people a decent retirement and decent health care does more than smooth out the rough edges of capitalism. Those guarantees give people the freedom to take risks. If you know that professional failure won’t leave you penniless and won’t prevent your child from receiving needed medical care, you can leave the comfort of a large corporation and take a chance on your own idea. You can take a shot at becoming the next great American entrepreneur. "

its silly to note

comparing mandated purchase of under regulated private health plans
to social security or medicare
leaves a few areas of.... non analogy
----------

btw leon still thinks romneycare was
a boon to us bay area commonwealers

see we had no refusal before no freedom to choose
and why ...premiums soared
until gub mitt led us to
a clap on
of a dang
universal mandate
after which
premiums ....errrr ....soared agin ???

Aside from this gift to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, and the ongoing effort to reduce the costs of medicare, wasn't there also the motive of shifting insurance costs away from business onto workers. As I recall, several years ago, the early talk about universal coverage came mostly from business.

sen
" wasn't there also the motive of shifting insurance costs away from business onto workers"

well there certainly was a corporate
desire to "socialize " the costs of health insurance
for employees
in as much as these were paid out of payroll taxes and corporate "net " contributions to premium payments
in particular legacy payments
for non producing ex employees

but given the tax expnditure contribution and cost shifting on to product prices and reduced take home wages
its not clear what the impact on profits would be of a full socialization of healthcare payments
to the extent our social cost per capita is nearly double oecd norms ...
no matter the location points of extraction
i conjecture profit margins are lower "here"
and or prices higher then otherwise
give us japan's health cost structure
and we'd split the social cost savings in some proportion three ways
lower prices
and /or
higher take home wages
and /or
higher operating profits

of course
during any system wide adjustment period
b4 the system settled down into a fairly stable configuration
the saving prolly goes mostly to operating higher margins first lower prices second higher wages last