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

[Gil Gunderson]

Sarah Palin, author, quitter, social gadfly,  birther?

"I think the public rightfully is still making it an issue," Palin said. "I don't have a problem with that. I don't know if I would have to bother to make it an issue, because I think that members of the electorate still want answers."

"I think it's a fair question just like I think past associations and past voting records. All of that is fair game," Palin responded, adding that "the McCain-Palin campaign didn't do a good enough job in that area. We didn't call out Obama and some of his associates on their records and what their beliefs were, and perhaps what their future plans were, and I don't think that was fair to voters to not have done our job as candidates and a campaign to bring to light a lot of things that now we're seeing manifest in the administration."

Palin later referenced "that weird conspiracy theory freaky thing that people talk about that Trig isn't my real son, and a lot of people that went 'Well, you need to produce his birth certificate, you need to prove that he's your kid,' which we have done, but yeah, so maybe we can reverse that, and use the same [inaudible] thinking on the other one."

But later, via Facebook, sayeth Sarah:

Voters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I've pointed out that it was seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is in fact my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask... which they have repeatedly. But at no point - not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews - have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.

[/s]

All she is, is my next sexual conquest:

I just love the look on Biden's face.  Steak sauce.

[R-V]

If you're a simple caveman like me and don't understand why healthcare has gotten so goddamn expensive to the point that it'll cripple our economy in a few years, this is a good start:

I finally read this whole article.

It's worth your time.

The upshot seems to be a suggestion by Gawande that lower costs and better patient care are not in fact diametrically opposed, but rather go hand in hand, regardless of who's ultimately footing the bill.

Gawande checks in with an interesting farming-healthcare analogy. It's just as good as his initial article.

At the start of the twentieth century, another indispensable but unmanageably costly sector was strangling the country: agriculture. In 1900, more than forty per cent of a family's income went to paying for food. At the same time, farming was hugely labor-intensive, tying up almost half the American workforce. We were, partly as a result, still a poor nation. Only by improving the productivity of farming could we raise our standard of living and emerge as an industrial power. We had to reduce food costs, so that families could spend money on other goods, and resources could flow to other economic sectors.

The United States did not seek a grand solution. Private farms remained, along with the considerable advantages of individual initiative. Still, government was enlisted to help millions of farmers change the way they worked. The approach succeeded almost shockingly well. The resulting abundance of goods in our grocery stores and the leaps in our standard of living became the greatest argument for America around the world.

What seemed like a hodgepodge eventually cohered into a whole. The government never took over agriculture, but the government didn't leave it alone, either. It shaped a feedback loop of experiment and learning and encouragement for farmers across the country. The results were beyond what anyone could have imagined. Productivity went way up, outpacing that of other Western countries. Prices fell by half. By 1930, food absorbed just twenty-four per cent of family spending and twenty per cent of the workforce. Today, food accounts for just eight per cent of household income and two per cent of the labor force. It is produced on no more land than was devoted to it a century ago, and with far greater variety and abundance than ever before in history.

Pick up the Senate health-care bill—yes, all 2,074 pages—and leaf through it. Almost half of it is devoted to programs that would test various ways to curb costs and increase quality. The bill is a hodgepodge. And it should be.

Which of these programs will work? We can't know. That's why the Congressional Budget Office doesn't credit any of them with substantial savings. The package relies on taxes and short-term payment cuts to providers in order to pay for subsidies. But, in the end, it contains a test of almost every approach that leading health-care experts have suggested. (The only one missing is malpractice reform. This is where the Republicans could be helpful.) None of this is as satisfying as a master plan. But there can't be a master plan. That's a crucial lesson of our agricultural experience. And there's another: with problems that don't have technical solutions, the struggle never ends.

[R-V]

DPD for MikeC ACORNscandalfail.

ACORN employees caught in those undercover videos advising a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute on how to break the law acted unprofessionally and inappropriately, but did nothing illegal, an independent report has found.

The videos that have been released appear to have been edited, in some cases substantially, including the insertion of a substitute voiceover for significant portions of Mr. O'Keefe's and Ms. Giles's comments, which makes it difficult to determine the questions to which ACORN employees are responding. A comparison of the publicly available transcripts to the released videos confirms that large portions of the original video have been omitted from the released versions.

[morpheus]

DPD for MikeC ACORNscandalfail.

ACORN employees caught in those undercover videos advising a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute on how to break the law acted unprofessionally and inappropriately, but did nothing illegal, an independent report has found.

The videos that have been released appear to have been edited, in some cases substantially, including the insertion of a substitute voiceover for significant portions of Mr. O'Keefe's and Ms. Giles's comments, which makes it difficult to determine the questions to which ACORN employees are responding. A comparison of the publicly available transcripts to the released videos confirms that large portions of the original video have been omitted from the released versions.

Sure.

[Gil Gunderson]

DPD for MikeC ACORNscandalfail.

ACORN employees caught in those undercover videos advising a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute on how to break the law acted unprofessionally and inappropriately, but did nothing illegal, an independent report has found.

The videos that have been released appear to have been edited, in some cases substantially, including the insertion of a substitute voiceover for significant portions of Mr. O'Keefe's and Ms. Giles's comments, which makes it difficult to determine the questions to which ACORN employees are responding. A comparison of the publicly available transcripts to the released videos confirms that large portions of the original video have been omitted from the released versions.

Sure.

That's what the ACORNNaziSocialistKenyan-Zombies want you to think.

It's a conspiracy.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Details...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/democrats-trade-opt-out-for-trigger-medicare-buy-in-and-more.php

As has been widely reported, one of the trade-offs will be to extend a version of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan to consumers in the exchanges. Insurance companies will have the option of creating nationally-based non-profit insurance plans that would offered on the exchanges in every state. However, according to the aide, if insurance companies don't step up to the plate to offer such plans, that will trigger a national public option.

Beyond that, the group agreed--contingent upon CBO analysis--to a Medicare buy in.

That buy-in option would initially be made available to uninsured people aged 55-64 in 2011, three years before the exchanges open. For the period between 2011 and 2014, when the exchanges do open, the Medicare option will not be subsidized--people will have to pay in without federal premium assistance--and so will likely be quite expensive, the aide noted. However, after the exchanges launch, the Medicare option would be offered in the exchanges, where people could pay into it with their subsidies.

It appears as if liberals lost out on a Medicaid expansion that would have opened the program up to everybody under 150 percent of the poverty line. That ceiling will likely remain at 133 percent, as is called for in the current bill.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/the_team_of_10_reaches_a_deal.html

The details will be important here... But assuming those pieces don't come in much worse than expected, the combination of national non-profits and a Medicare buy-in seems like a pretty good deal. Better by far than what Democrats looked likely to get a week ago. And more likely, by far, to seed health-care reform with scalable experiments.

A public option partnered with Medicare might have been better than these policies, but national non-profits and direct competition between Medicare and insurers is more promising than the compromised public plans that succeeded the initial policy idea. In fact, it's like we split the idea into two parts.

The national non-profits are not exactly like, but not that far from, the compromised public plan in the House version of the bill. They won't be publicly run, but with the OPM regulating them tightly and carefully choosing which offerings are accepted into the market, the impact might not be that different in practice. They're like publicly-regulated utilities more than private plans, and they have the advantages of offering a single product nationally and being freed from the profit motive, both of which were key to the theory of the public option. Indeed, these look a lot like the semi-private insurers that function well in Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands, among others.

Meanwhile, the Medicare buy-in lets people in the broader insurance market see what national bargaining power can do for individual premiums. Right now, Medicare's rates are largely hidden, as no one pays premiums, and so no one can really compare it to private offerings. But if the premiums become visible, and Medicare's superior bargaining power is capable of offering rates 20 to 30 percent lower than its private competitors can muster, we'll see how long it is before representatives begin getting calls from 50-year-olds who'd like the opportunity to exchange money in return for insurance as good as what 55-year-olds can get.

[Chuck to Chuck]

All I want to know is this:

Does Mike C have to go to the hospital?

[R-V]

Details...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/democrats-trade-opt-out-for-trigger-medicare-buy-in-and-more.php

As has been widely reported, one of the trade-offs will be to extend a version of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan to consumers in the exchanges. Insurance companies will have the option of creating nationally-based non-profit insurance plans that would offered on the exchanges in every state. However, according to the aide, if insurance companies don't step up to the plate to offer such plans, that will trigger a national public option.

Beyond that, the group agreed--contingent upon CBO analysis--to a Medicare buy in.

That buy-in option would initially be made available to uninsured people aged 55-64 in 2011, three years before the exchanges open. For the period between 2011 and 2014, when the exchanges do open, the Medicare option will not be subsidized--people will have to pay in without federal premium assistance--and so will likely be quite expensive, the aide noted. However, after the exchanges launch, the Medicare option would be offered in the exchanges, where people could pay into it with their subsidies.

It appears as if liberals lost out on a Medicaid expansion that would have opened the program up to everybody under 150 percent of the poverty line. That ceiling will likely remain at 133 percent, as is called for in the current bill.

This part seems strange...an idea championed by known Marxist Howard Dean ends up in a version approved by Wise Centrists Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe? HYEEEEEEEAH!

I also like this:

Additionally, there was consensus support for a requirement long backed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and other liberals for insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of their premium income providing benefits, a step that supporters argue effectively limits their spending on advertising, salaries, promotional efforts and profits.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Additionally, there was consensus support for a requirement long backed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and other liberals for insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of their premium income providing benefits, a step that supporters argue effectively limits their spending on advertising, salaries, promotional efforts and profits.

That smells of loopholes all over the place.

- It's not a premium, it's a Renewal Fee.
- It's not a premium, it's an Online Statement Review charge.
- It's not a premium, it's a Change of Coverage fee.

Unless it's tied to gross revenue, not really a good idea in practice.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Details...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/democrats-trade-opt-out-for-trigger-medicare-buy-in-and-more.php

As has been widely reported, one of the trade-offs will be to extend a version of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan to consumers in the exchanges. Insurance companies will have the option of creating nationally-based non-profit insurance plans that would offered on the exchanges in every state. However, according to the aide, if insurance companies don't step up to the plate to offer such plans, that will trigger a national public option.

Beyond that, the group agreed--contingent upon CBO analysis--to a Medicare buy in.

That buy-in option would initially be made available to uninsured people aged 55-64 in 2011, three years before the exchanges open. For the period between 2011 and 2014, when the exchanges do open, the Medicare option will not be subsidized--people will have to pay in without federal premium assistance--and so will likely be quite expensive, the aide noted. However, after the exchanges launch, the Medicare option would be offered in the exchanges, where people could pay into it with their subsidies.

It appears as if liberals lost out on a Medicaid expansion that would have opened the program up to everybody under 150 percent of the poverty line. That ceiling will likely remain at 133 percent, as is called for in the current bill.

This part seems strange...an idea championed by known Marxist Howard Dean ends up in a version approved by Wise Centrists Ben Nelson and Olympia Snowe? HYEEEEEEEAH!

Yeah... Not so fast there, comrade...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/snowe-says-she-opposes-medicare-buy-in-idea.php

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) says a Medicare buy-in approach will be a hard sell with her. She told reporters this afternoon that she's not inclined to support the idea, currently being discussed by liberal and conservative Democrats seeking a compromise on the public option.

"We looked at it...we evaluated that, because it's an attractive approach. This has appeal...but we examined that issue this summer and a number of issues cropped up."

She's expressed her doubts to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "I told him I have concerns," she said. "The Medicare buy in is problematic."

A reporter asked if that meant she's not inclined to support the idea. "Correct," she said.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/71223-senate-dem-health-talks-advance-snowe-skeptical

Liberal and centrist Democratic senators huddled behind closed doors throughout Tuesday seeking an elusive agreement that would enable them to propel healthcare reform forward.

But even as Democrats tentatively said the talks were promising, Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine), whose backing has been sought all year, expressed deep skepticism about key components of the tenuous Democratic framework.

...

Nelson, one of the toughest sells in the Democratic caucus on the healthcare reform bill, said he would continue to work with his liberal counterparts even if he did not feel he could support the final product.

"I'm continuing to try to work with a variety of different issues with my colleagues to try to be, at least, a friend of the process," Nelson said. "Until everything is settled and you've got a clear view of what changes might be made and what may be there, it's hard to say."

...

Snowe emerged from a meeting in Reid's office Tuesday, telling reporters that she is intrigued by the proposal to have the OPM, which administers the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, offer plans on the health insurance exchange that the bill would create. Snowe opposes a public option except a version she introduced, which would "trigger" the program in states underserved by private insurance.

But Snowe shot down the Medicare and Medicaid expansions under discussion by Democrats.

"It's an expansion of government at a time in which we should be moving in the opposing direction, frankly," Snowe said. "...[M]y deep concern is about the breadth and scale of this legislation moving and taking a more expansionistic approach for government's role, rather than the reverse, at a time in which people are questioning expanding the scale of government's involvement in healthcare."

[R-V]

Additionally, there was consensus support for a requirement long backed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and other liberals for insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of their premium income providing benefits, a step that supporters argue effectively limits their spending on advertising, salaries, promotional efforts and profits.

That smells of loopholes all over the place.

- It's not a premium, it's a Renewal Fee.
- It's not a premium, it's an Online Statement Review charge.
- It's not a premium, it's a Change of Coverage fee.

Unless it's tied to gross revenue, not really a good idea in practice.

Premium revenue currently accounts for the vast majority of total revenue for insurance companies.

According to WellPoint's income statement for 2008, the company's total revenue that year was $61,579.2 million. Of that, 93.2 percent came from premium revenues, and 6.3 percent came from fees for merely administering the claims of employers who self-insure (that is, these firms set aside their own funds for their employees' health benefits and bear full risk for them).

I would imagine that there's at least one person as smart as Chuck in Congress who might suggest writing the legislation to combat the loopholes you mentioned.

And if not, I'd imagine that somebody might catch on if Wellpoint's percentage of total revenue from premiums dropped from 93% to 70% once the reforms go into effect.

[Chuck to Chuck]

Additionally, there was consensus support for a requirement long backed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and other liberals for insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of their premium income providing benefits, a step that supporters argue effectively limits their spending on advertising, salaries, promotional efforts and profits.

That smells of loopholes all over the place.

- It's not a premium, it's a Renewal Fee.
- It's not a premium, it's an Online Statement Review charge.
- It's not a premium, it's a Change of Coverage fee.

Unless it's tied to gross revenue, not really a good idea in practice.

Premium revenue currently accounts for the vast majority of total revenue for insurance companies.

According to WellPoint's income statement for 2008, the company's total revenue that year was $61,579.2 million. Of that, 93.2 percent came from premium revenues, and 6.3 percent came from fees for merely administering the claims of employers who self-insure (that is, these firms set aside their own funds for their employees' health benefits and bear full risk for them).

I would imagine that there's at least one person as smart as Chuck in Congress who might suggest writing the legislation to combat the loopholes you mentioned.

And if not, I'd imagine that somebody might catch on if Wellpoint's percentage of total revenue from premiums dropped from 93% to 70% once the reforms go into effect.

What happens if the payouts go down in a given year due to random chance?  Do they have to pay out extra?  Lower premiums next year?  Do they measure on a 3 year rolling average?

Loophole heaven.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Additionally, there was consensus support for a requirement long backed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and other liberals for insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of their premium income providing benefits, a step that supporters argue effectively limits their spending on advertising, salaries, promotional efforts and profits.

That smells of loopholes all over the place.

- It's not a premium, it's a Renewal Fee.
- It's not a premium, it's an Online Statement Review charge.
- It's not a premium, it's a Change of Coverage fee.

Unless it's tied to gross revenue, not really a good idea in practice.

Premium revenue currently accounts for the vast majority of total revenue for insurance companies.

According to WellPoint's income statement for 2008, the company's total revenue that year was $61,579.2 million. Of that, 93.2 percent came from premium revenues, and 6.3 percent came from fees for merely administering the claims of employers who self-insure (that is, these firms set aside their own funds for their employees' health benefits and bear full risk for them).

I would imagine that there's at least one person as smart as Chuck in Congress who might suggest writing the legislation to combat the loopholes you mentioned.

And if not, I'd imagine that somebody might catch on if Wellpoint's percentage of total revenue from premiums dropped from 93% to 70% once the reforms go into effect.

What happens if the payouts go down in a given year due to random chance?  Do they have to pay out extra?  Lower premiums next year?  Do they measure on a 3 year rolling average?

Loophole heaven.

You're basing this judgment on... a single sentence from an Associated Press story about what was said in a news conference.

At least you're not boldly jumping to broad conclusions based on slim evidence like usual.

[R-V]

Additionally, there was consensus support for a requirement long backed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., and other liberals for insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of their premium income providing benefits, a step that supporters argue effectively limits their spending on advertising, salaries, promotional efforts and profits.

That smells of loopholes all over the place.

- It's not a premium, it's a Renewal Fee.
- It's not a premium, it's an Online Statement Review charge.
- It's not a premium, it's a Change of Coverage fee.

Unless it's tied to gross revenue, not really a good idea in practice.

Premium revenue currently accounts for the vast majority of total revenue for insurance companies.

According to WellPoint's income statement for 2008, the company's total revenue that year was $61,579.2 million. Of that, 93.2 percent came from premium revenues, and 6.3 percent came from fees for merely administering the claims of employers who self-insure (that is, these firms set aside their own funds for their employees' health benefits and bear full risk for them).

I would imagine that there's at least one person as smart as Chuck in Congress who might suggest writing the legislation to combat the loopholes you mentioned.

And if not, I'd imagine that somebody might catch on if Wellpoint's percentage of total revenue from premiums dropped from 93% to 70% once the reforms go into effect.

What happens if the payouts go down in a given year due to random chance?  Do they have to pay out extra?  Lower premiums next year?  Do they measure on a 3 year rolling average?

Loophole heaven.

You're basing this judgment on... a single sentence from an Associated Press story about what was said in a news conference.

At least you're not boldly jumping to broad conclusions based on slim evidence like usual.

Forget it Tank, it's Chucktown. Where there's always an "angle" that no one else can see.