The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[Chuck to Chuck]

but the bigger issue should be that there is no way you can convince me that a government bureaucrat is going to reject fewer claims than an insurance company.

You have more faith in a person who owns stock, the value of which is based on the profit of the company said person works for, said profitability determined by premiums paid in minus the number of claims paid?

Under single payer health care, a huge bureaucracy will review, accept, and deny claims.  How that is different than what we have is beyond me.

I'm not in favor of single payer.  But the arguments that it's worse than what we have now are unconvincing.  Strikes me as change for the sake of change.

Fixed.

As you said, if it's not an improvement, doing nothing is better.

Fair enough.  Next, David Frum:

http://www.newmajority.com/what-if-we-win-the-healthcare-fight

What would it mean to "win" the healthcare fight?

For some, the answer is obvious: beat back the president's proposals, defeat the House bill, stand back and wait for 1994 to repeat itself.

The problem is that if we do that... we'll still have the present healthcare system. Meaning that we'll have (1) flat-lining wages, (2) exploding Medicaid and Medicare costs and thus immense pressure for future tax increases, (3) small businesses and self-employed individuals priced out of the insurance market, and (4) a lot of uninsured or underinsured people imposing costs on hospitals and local governments.

We'll have entrenched and perpetuated some of the most irrational features of a hugely costly and under-performing system, at the expense of entrepreneurs and risk-takers, exactly the people the Republican party exists to champion.

Not a good outcome.

Even worse will be the way this fight is won: basically by convincing older Americans already covered by a government health program, Medicare, that Obama's reform plans will reduce their coverage. In other words, we'll have sent a powerful message to the entire political system to avoid at all hazards any tinkering with Medicare except to make it more generous for the already covered.

If we win, we'll trumpet the success as a great triumph for liberty and individualism. Really though it will be a triumph for inertia. To the extent that anybody in the conservative world still aspires to any kind of future reform and improvement of America's ossified government, that should be a very ashy victory indeed.

[Eli]

but the bigger issue should be that there is no way you can convince me that a government bureaucrat is going to reject fewer claims than an insurance company.

You have more faith in a person who owns stock, the value of which is based on the profit of the company said person works for, said profitability determined by premiums paid in minus the number of claims paid?

Under single payer health care, a huge bureaucracy will review, accept, and deny claims.  How that is different than what we have is beyond me.

I'm not in favor of single payer.  But the arguments that it's worse than what we have now are unconvincing.  Strikes me as change for the sake of change.

Fixed.

As you said, if it's not an improvement, doing nothing is better.

Just curious, TJ.  How would you like to see the health care system fixed?

[Chuck to Chuck]

Just curious, TJ.  How would you like to see the health care system fixed?

I'm not expecting that TJ has the answer.  But there is a point that needs to be made.

The elephant in the room remains Medicare.  We have, effectively, single payer in this country if you are over age 65.  If it's good for 65+, why not everyone else?

To paraphrase a punch line, we know what you want, we're just haggling over age.

[Gil Gunderson]

Irony abounds...

GLADNEY THE UNINSURED ACTIVIST.... Over the last few days, a conservative activist in St. Louis named Kenneth Gladney seems to have become something of a cause celebre in far-right circles. Depending on which version of events you choose to believe, Gladney either initiated or was involved in a scuffle at a town-hall event late last week.

At least one prominent conservative blogger said Gladney was "brutally attacked" by SEIU members outside the event. After watching the video, there's ample reason for skepticism. Gladney was, in fact, pulled to the ground during the fracas, but he seemed to bounce back up quickly, and is seen walking around soon after without any obvious injuries. His attorney has argued that Gladney was beaten during the fight, but there's nothing in the clip to support that.

Gladney later went to the hospital, claiming to have sustained injuries to his "knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face."

Yesterday, about 200 conservative activists held a protest outside the SEIU office in St. Louis. Gladney was there -- bandaged and in a wheelchair -- as a featured guest. Some of the activists held signs that read, "Don't Tread on Kenny." Reader R.D. alerted me to this tidbit in the local news account of the protest:

Money quote, however:

Gladney did not address Saturday's crowd of about 200 people. His attorney, David Brown, however, read a prepared statement Gladney wrote. "A few nights ago there was an assault on my liberty, and on yours, too." Brown read. "This should never happen in this country."

Supporters cheered. Brown finished by telling the crowd that Gladney is accepting donations toward his medical expenses. Gladney told reporters he was recently laid off and has no health insurance.

A man who doesn't have health insurance because he was laid off from a job is protesting a plan that would give him health insurance. 

Moreover, these people are using their weekends off - presumably - to protest a union hall.

This country is stupid.

[Chuck to Chuck]

A man who doesn't have health insurance because he was laid off from a job is protesting a plan that would give tax others to give him health insurance.

While it may be in his short term best interests to want the plan, it may not fit with him long term.  Not much different that a soldier voting in favor of Bush in 2004 over Kerry despite the soldier knowing that a vote for Bush could lead to the soldier's deployment and possible death.  Soldier's formula: Bush = possible death but safety for my family and decendents vs. Kerry's = safety for me but possible long term harm for family and decendents.

I find nothing contradictory in his actions if that's the guy's type of formulation.

[Brownie]

but the bigger issue should be that there is no way you can convince me that a government bureaucrat is going to reject fewer claims than an insurance company.

You have more faith in a person who owns stock, the value of which is based on the profit of the company said person works for, said profitability determined by premiums paid in minus the number of claims paid?

Under single payer health care, a huge bureaucracy will review, accept, and deny claims.  How that is different than what we have is beyond me.

I'm not in favor of single payer.  But the arguments that it's worse than what we have now are unconvincing.  Strikes me as change for the sake of change.

Fixed.

As you said, if it's not an improvement, doing nothing is better.

Just curious, TJ.  How would you like to see the health care system fixed?

I'd like to see the tax law changed so that your employer isn't buying your health insurance. The employer no longer has a tax incentive to buy health insurance, but you have the incentive to buy it for yourself. You could shop around and find a plan that works for you (or roll the dice and go without, if you're crazy).

Finally, how about a voucher for $x for every person in a household with income under a certain threshold? Let them participate in the marketplace too.

As for Medicare, the best thing about it is its cost to the end user. It's an expensive program and I don't know how we'll fund it in oh, 15-20 years. Sure, it's popular. Free stuff generally is. Until you no longer have it to give away.

A man who doesn't have health insurance because he was laid off from a job is protesting a plan that would give tax others to give him health insurance.

While it may be in his short term best interests to want the plan, it may not fit with him long term.  Not much different that a soldier voting in favor of Bush in 2004 over Kerry despite the soldier knowing that a vote for Bush could lead to the soldier's deployment and possible death.  Soldier's formula: Bush = possible death but safety for my family and decendents vs. Kerry's = safety for me but possible long term harm for family and decendents.

I find nothing contradictory in his actions if that's the guy's type of formulation.

The country's fucked once 51% of the population realizes that it can help itself to 49% of the people's cash.

[Quality Start Machine]

Maybe we should ask Bill Kristol, especially after his appearance on The Daily Show n which he said the American Military received the finest healthcare in the world, then had to admit the finest healthcare in the world was provided by the US Government.

[Brownie]

Intrepid Reader: Whitey Herzog
Fucking Astroturf, ruining baseball!

[MAD]

Maybe we should ask Bill Kristol, especially after his appearance on The Daily Show n which he said the American Military received the finest healthcare in the world, then had to admit the finest healthcare in the world was provided by the US Government.

I've heard VA hospitals are not exactly bastions of great health care.  Wouldn't surprise me if Bill Kristol's full of shit.

[Chuck to Chuck]

A man who doesn't have health insurance because he was laid off from a job is protesting a plan that would give tax others to give him health insurance.

Here's where you go for this kind of stuff http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333933006516877 :

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.

Mr. Hawking has lived in the UK his whole life.

[Brownie]

A man who doesn't have health insurance because he was laid off from a job is protesting a plan that would give tax others to give him health insurance.

Here's where you go for this kind of stuff http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333933006516877 :

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.

Mr. Hawking has lived in the UK his whole life.

The editorial didn't mention that the UK has a "two-tier" plan. The well-to-do buy private insurance (as I'm sure Mr. Hawking does), and the great unwashed get the National Health Service.

[ChuckD]

A man who doesn't have health insurance because he was laid off from a job is protesting a plan that would give tax others to give him health insurance.

Here's where you go for this kind of stuff http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333933006516877 :

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.

Mr. Hawking has lived in the UK his whole life.

The editorial didn't mention that the UK has a "two-tier" plan. The well-to-do buy private insurance (as I'm sure Mr. Hawking does), and the great unwashed get the National Health Service.

And that's a bad thing (loaded language aside)?

Also, this made me laugh.

The British have succeeded in putting a price tag on human life, as we are about to.

THE HORROR!

[MAD]

A man who doesn't have health insurance because he was laid off from a job is protesting a plan that would give tax others to give him health insurance.

Here's where you go for this kind of stuff http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=333933006516877 :

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.

Mr. Hawking has lived in the UK his whole life.

The editorial didn't mention that the UK has a "two-tier" plan. The well-to-do buy private insurance (as I'm sure Mr. Hawking does), and the great unwashed get the National Health Service.

And the well-to-do here would also have the opportunity purchase their own private insurance, unless you truly believe the BOGEYMAN about Obama stealing our choices in the middle of the night.

[Philberto]

but the bigger issue should be that there is no way you can convince me that a government bureaucrat is going to reject fewer claims than an insurance company.

You have more faith in a person who owns stock, the value of which is based on the profit of the company said person works for, said profitability determined by premiums paid in minus the number of claims paid?

Under single payer health care, a huge bureaucracy will review, accept, and deny claims.  How that is different than what we have is beyond me.

I'm not in favor of single payer.  But the arguments that it's worse than what we have now are unconvincing.  Strikes me as change for the sake of change.

Fixed.

As you said, if it's not an improvement, doing nothing is better.

Just curious, TJ.  How would you like to see the health care system fixed?

I'd like to see the tax law changed so that your employer isn't buying your health insurance. The employer no longer has a tax incentive to buy health insurance, but you have the incentive to buy it for yourself. You could shop around and find a plan that works for you (or roll the dice and go without, if you're crazy).

Finally, how about a voucher for $x for every person in a household with income under a certain threshold? Let them participate in the marketplace too.

As for Medicare, the best thing about it is its cost to the end user. It's an expensive program and I don't know how we'll fund it in oh, 15-20 years. Sure, it's popular. Free stuff generally is. Until you no longer have it to give away.

A man who doesn't have health insurance because he was laid off from a job is protesting a plan that would give tax others to give him health insurance.

While it may be in his short term best interests to want the plan, it may not fit with him long term.  Not much different that a soldier voting in favor of Bush in 2004 over Kerry despite the soldier knowing that a vote for Bush could lead to the soldier's deployment and possible death.  Soldier's formula: Bush = possible death but safety for my family and decendents vs. Kerry's = safety for me but possible long term harm for family and decendents.

I find nothing contradictory in his actions if that's the guy's type of formulation.

The country's fucked once 51% of the population realizes that it can help itself to 49% of the people's cash.

I would then request that my employer pay me more to counteract the increased health care costs, and I don't think I'd be alone... Also, I would think this could possibly increase companies' expenses (transferring health care costs to wages expense, plus the added payroll taxes expense).

I'm not saying it's a bad idea; I'm just saying I don't see how it helps, but there are a lot of things in this world I don't see clearly

[Gil Gunderson]

I'd like to ask this question from a purely rational point of view, devoid of emotion that may be associated from asking it.

Is it wise for a country to spend money healing a person who, in their old age, probably won't contribute much to society versus not spending money on those, in their younger and middle ages, who would?

I'm not advocating a T-1 project or an Obama Death Panel, I just want to know from a logical point of view whether it makes sense.