Democrats are proposing a $1000 fine for people who do NOT get the HealthCare plan...

Anyone on board with this??

Michale.....

Question:Will I ever have to wait for vital care?

Answer: No.

Question: But they wait in Canada.

Answer: But not that long.

Question: But some, very long.

Answer: Very overblown.

Question: So I won't have to stand in a long line?

Answer: Not now.

Question: Will you pay for this taxing health benefits folks already have now?

Answer: Everything's on the table.

Question: Well, is that on the table?

Answer: We're looking at a lot of things.

Question: OK, then on that specific tax health benefit thing?

Answer: Move on.

Question: OK, what about sticking with my existing doctor?

Answer: Of course, everything you have now and you like now, you can keep with this now.

Question: But what if my doctor is thrown into a new pool of doctors. A lot more people will want to see him now will I be standing in a longer line for him now too?

Answer: Ridiculous. Everything you love now, you keep now.

Question: Then why the hell are we changing things now if everything is fine now.

Answer: Because everything is not fine for everyone now. We need to think of them.

Question: And pay for them.

Answer: Yes.

Question: How much?

Answer: All things we're looking at. But in the long run it will be more efficient.

Question: How do you know?

Answer: We know.

Question: Yeah, but how?

Answer: Because we trust the government to streamline things.

Question: The same government with the $1,000 hammers and billion dollar bridges to nowhere? That government?

Answer: No. Different government. Better government.

Question: But same guys in government, right?

Answer: Kind of.

Question: Kind of what?

Answer: Kind of late. Gotta go. Just trust us.

When reading this, I got the feeling that this is exactly how the Left accused the Bush Administration of sounding with regards to Iraq and the war against terrorism.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh? :D

Michale.....

Yea, I kinda shocked myself that I was so blase about the "Spock" comment.

On the other hand....

http://anything-goes.us/temp/obamaspock3.jpg

... I have mentioned it before. :D Even put it on a T-Shirt :D

Michale.....

I can't believe I'm giving out Moderation Evasion advice on my own blog, but here goes...

(1) You know I don't moderate for content, just to stop spam. In three years of doing this blog, I think I (I have no control over HuffPost moderators, I should clarify) have deleted precisely one comment for offensive content. Maybe two. That's a pretty good track record (for YOU GUYS, not for me, I should point out), from what I see on other blogs. And I NEVER moderate for length (which, considering the length of my posts, would be hypocritical in the extreme).

(2) But I regularly get attacked by comment spam. My filters seem to be pretty good, as I don't think a single comment spam has ever made it through, which is why you readers have never seen this phase of the operation.

(3) It may be awkward, but there is an easy way to avoid the automatic hold on comments -- break up your post so that there's only one link per comment (may take multiple comments to do this, of course). So, if you're looking for a workaround, there you go!

(4) I wasn't chastising you, it was just an easy way to re-post the "how to put a link in your comment" instructions, for the benefit of new commenters (I do this periodically, and just piggybacked it onto what I wrote about yours). It's no real hassle for me to fix links, I just thought you had forgotten...

Just to clear things up for everyone.

:-)

-CW

PS. I simply CANNOT BELIEVE you haven't commented on the "Spock" byplay in Obama's presser. You feeling OK? Dude, a reporter just called Obama Mr. Spock! And not one word from Michale? I have to say I'm a bit disappointed, personally...

;-)

On a similar subject… Michale, you forgot the tags. I fixed your links, you're welcome.

Yea, I know, but I wanted to get the post out right aways. To lazy to wait for moderation. It's a sneaky way of doing things that borders on Moderation Evasion.. :D I'll stop it if it's a hassle for ya. :D

Michale.....

:-)

Posting links require "a href" tags, in standard html tag format with angle brackets (shift-period and shift-comma on a US keyboard).

-CW

For a new commenter, and one with an opposing viewpoint, I have to say you have added to the conversation, as I am considering things I might not have.

I'm not answering your last post here, don't have time right now, but I did want to say "don't be afraid to post a link to your blog." It's totally allowable here, but if you post two or more links your post will be held for manual moderation (I have to do this to cut down on the comment spam). But even such multi-link comments are allowed, they just won't appear right away (just FYI).

Anyway, just wanted to point that out. Don't be shy about plugging your own blog!

-CW

thrfeed.com/2009/06/abcs-white-house-special-struggled-for-viewers.html

abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/story?id=7919991&page=1

Michale.....

As far as other counties are concerned, there are always things we can learn, however, I am not interested in being a socialist country. That system over the long haul doesn't work. France and Germany have just come to grips with that by electing conservitive leaders. I would be happy to compare our tax rate to Canada or any European country and our ability to create personal wealth here verses there. the bottom line is this: the cost of the care is the issue, the governemt will face those very same costs. Insurance companies offset that cost by collecting premiums, governments do it by collecting taxes. Either way, it will be the same cost unless the system is fixed. Europe and Canada are both dealing with cost issues and tax issues. My point returns to where I started, if you think that profit is at the root of high health care costs, think again.

One last point on Tort reform. The Med Mal cost in Virginia and West Virginia, are about 50% less in the state with the reform. Ask a doctor what his/her big costs are and its always Med Mal and insurance paperwork. (An insurance area that needs lots of cleanup). Good blog, Chris

PS Sorry for typo's wrote this really fast!

This is not exactly an analogous situation for several reasons, but that's my fault for not phrasing the question precisely enough.

While it's apparent that the US Military does it cheaper, there is no evidence to suggest that the US Armed Forces does it better. Of course, the US military DOES do everything better than private contractors. :D But, as a veteran of two branches of the services, I am biased and so is my opinion. :D

Whereas one can argue that, with private contractors, political considerations are low on the priority list. On the the other hand, economic considerations are very HIGH on a contractors list. With the US Military, the priorities are reversed. So, "better" is a completely subjective term, if one were to look at the comparison logically.

I would also point out that the issue of self-sustainability is not a factor when one looks at military operations. Self-sustaining, as Dorkfish defines (accurately), is the mark of a successful "business". In that regard, the US Military doesn't qualify as a business, but the Private Contractor does.

However the main reason the analogy fails is because, in the military/private contractor example, it was the private contractor who entered a field that has, traditionally, been the purview of the government. IE National Security and National Defense.

In the Healthcare issue, the government is entering a field that has, traditionally, been the purview of the private sector.

As I said, it's my fault for not phrasing the question properly.

So, to correct this....

Can anyone point to ANY successful government program that has been, traditionally, the purview of the private sector.

Given the government's track record for failure in this regard, I can't see anything good coming from the Administration's healthcare endeavor.

It's a laudable goal. But I question whether or not it's wise to roll the dice, given the current economic climate.

The LAST thing we need is another wasteful and bloated government bureaucracy paid for by the taxpayers of this country..

Michale.....

I have always said that any position based in emotion is usually the wrong position.

In the original commentary, the polling data was mentioned.

Here are some interesting poll numbers that paint a different picture.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/24/obama-pushes-national-health-care-americans-happy-coverage/

Just another point in my series of points that polls are useless and only show the bias and opinions of the Poll TAKERS. :D

Michale.....

As for the post office, I'm not sure that's a great example. I thought they were semi-privatized a few decades ago, and are off the government teat. But I could be wrong about that.

Like I said, it's not a great example, for either side. The PO makes most of its money off bulk mail (ie., junk mail). True, UPS and FedEx and the rest of them provide a better service. They wouldn't exist if they didn't. But you pay for it. The same letter that costs you 44 cents to mail anywhere in the US costs a minimum of around ten bucks to send by FedEx, and that's only for 3-day service (overnight is pricier). Go into FedEx some day and try to convince them to mail something for 44 cents. Come to think of it, other than a parking meter, try to buy ANYTHING today for 44 cents... But, like I said, their service is undeniably better -- IF you're willing to pay the price.

I didn't have any point vis-a-vis health care with that, but talk about an "unlevel playing field" where you're comparing $0.44 to $10.00, that was my only point.

As for the gauntlet thrown down about govm't vs. private, I have two examples. Our military does a pretty good job. So do private contractors. The difference? Contractors make a TON of money, whereas your average grunt soldier does not. And yes, I'm speaking specifically of Iraq when I say that. "Cost plus" is an abomination.

But a lot closer to home, what do you think of Obama's example? Medicare Advantage was passed because Republicans were CONVINCED that private companies could always do a better job (in this case, getting drugs to sick folks) and cheaper than the gummint. What has happened is that is has become a cash cow. Insurance companies make their 20% profit ON TOP of what it would cost Medicare to provide the SAME SERVICE. That is the $177 billion Obama's talking about. Taxpayers could save that money if Medicare ran the program. So there's my example.

As for Dorkfish, you obviously have a lot of experience with the Canadian system. But let me ask you a simple question: how many Canadians go backrupt because they get sick? How many Canadians are denied health care (not delayed, denied) because they can't pay for it?

No system is perfect. But Canada seems to have a better safety net than the US. In the US, in 1980, eight percent of all bankruptcies were due to medical bills. A few years ago, they ran the same study and came up with 50%. This year, the figure is 63%. Something is obviously wrong with this.

It's interesting that you point out how you can buy private insurance in Britain on top of your national health. This is a big secret Americans don't realize (no matter which side of the issue they're on). Private insurance still exists in countries with "national health." Which kind of deflates the claim that even having a "public option" would kill all private insurance forever in the US.

Part of the problem is Americans simply cannot ever believe (We're number one!!) that any other country in the world could possibly do anything (ANYthing) better than we do. It just is an impossible thing for most Americans to even contemplate -- that others could do things better than us.

I saw a PBS show last year which looked at four or five countries with different health care schemes. Two of the ones they looked at were Switzerland and (I believe) Singapore. Both have radically changed their health care system in the past ten or twenty years. They both studied many other countries' health care, and tried to pick and choose what worked and what didn't when they set their own up. They didn't demagogue the issue to death, they sat down and studied it in a calm and sober fashion. This is what annoys me about America some times. Even though we are talking about totally revamping our health care, we (to the best of my knowledge) haven't even attempted to study how other countries do it. The Swiss, interestingly enough, had a system close to America's (all private insurance). They decided a few things: (1) everyone should have access to a "basic" level health care plan, subsidized for those who couldn't afford it, and (2) every health insurance company had to offer this -- at NO PROFIT to them. This was their "loss/leader" in advertising terms. They are all still in business, and they sell "extras" in various more expensive private plans. Things like a guarantee of a private room if you go to a hospital, or better food in the hospital -- things like that. But the medical care itself is the same for everyone. The insurance companies are still in business, still making money, they're just doing it in a different way than they used to.

But nobody even mentions such hybrid public/private systems in this country -- not the left, and not the right. This seems to be shortsighted, to me, as there ARE things we could learn from the rest of the world, who all have "national health" but not necessarily "socialistic single payer" health. The two are not equivalent, in other words. Whereas many here think they are.

It just seems to me that America needs to be able to provide this "safety net" level of insurance to EVERYONE, but also that there will still be plenty of money to be made on top of that providing "gold-plated" (or maybe just "gold-leaf-slightly-better-plated") health care.

As for tort reform, I've seen figures that put it at half of one percent of the problem of rising medical costs. It might help, in other words, but not much.

All I know is that I talk to people on Medicare who are my parents' age, and although they may have minor gripes about it, NONE OF THEM would trade it for private health insurance. NONE. Now, this may be a biased sample, but I bet you'd find most people in Medicare are pretty happy with it.

And while it's true that it's going to cost something, Americans pay the lowest tax rates in the Western world, as far as I am aware. The country I lived in in Europe had a 22% VAT when I was there. And something like a 45% income tax rate for an average decently-paid worker. All that cradle-to-grave stuff doesn't come for free. But, at the same time, they consider the idea that someone would lose their life's savings over basic health care as a barbaric concept.

But as for costs, please explain how other countries manage to provide health care for half or one-third of what we pay, and have measurably better health care as a result (by outcome)? How does this work out actuarily? (I probably misspelled that, sorry). Our health care, as measured against the rest of the world, is pretty dismal. We're something like 37th in the world -- right behind Cuba.

Maybe part of the problem is drug companies charge American consumers ten times what they charge in other countries (like Canada... I bet you didn't see many Canadians taking bus trips down to the USA to buy drugs, since the traffic on that front goes the other direction). Why can they get away with this? Because the government isn't in the picture -- this is one place where national health beats our system cold.

I'm no expert on health care, I fully admit that. And I am not scoffing at your Canadian experience. I always am willing to listen to others who have seen other ways of doing things, and what is right and wrong with them. And some of my best commenters on this site are Canadians (although I cannot make Canadian jokes right now because I promised I wouldn't for a month... I even forget why I made this promise, but I'm sticking to it).

All I would like to see is a full discussion which includes some of the examples (both the good, the bad, and the ugly) from the rest of the world when Americans (especially American politicians) sit down to revamp our own system. Maybe we can cherry-pick and avoid some of the mistakes, who knows?

Anyway, gotta run, this is long enough as it is...

-CW

The Ontario sales tax rate that you quote is incorrect.

Do you have current numbers on what the comparative national tax rates are - personal and corporate - for Canada and the US?

As far as the post office comparison, the analogy doesn't work because Fed Ex, UPS etc are not regulated business' like insurance. The postal service is playing on a level playing field and is forced to compete as such. In the insurance world, companies have to play by government set financial regulations, while the government doesn't compete on the same field. As Michale state, " the government plays to lose money". I would add, "our money."

I do agree with Osborn Inc. that we are already seeing care rationed in the private sector, but currently not at a rate remotely close to Medicare. To state that business principles don't apply to runnning a business is simply silly. The big issue I have with people on the other side of this argument is that its often based on emotions rather than sound financial facts. Spewing "talking points" only works well with the uninformed. In the end, the government will have to run healthcare like a business. Their track record is dismal when it comes to business. The health insurance market is very competitive, if big profits were the root of the major problem, there is a line of competitors waitng to take those customers away. (Let me guess, there must be a big conspiracy of collusion!) The high cost of the care is not a result of health insurers, although they do play a role in the cost problem. How about the lack of competition? How about tort reform as it related to malpractice rates? How about the vast number of UNFUNDED government mandates (in our state its over 50!). The idea that profit is the issue is an uninformed and emotional position. It is a complex situation and I find it very scary the large number of Americans that have strong opinions without much research beyond political talking points. I have spend nearly 25 years understanding insurance principles. Guess what, like it or not, if the government runs it, they will be forced to adhere to those actuarial numbers as well. Sorry, Osborn, but the government trys to adhere to then now. They just do it very poorly. The govenment has a lengthy track record of actuarial failure on this subject. For the sake of arguement, take the profit margin out of the picture, the numbers still don't remotely add up. Do the math, the numbers are out there, most are publicly traded companies.

If you want some of your questions answered, compare the average American's medical plan's coverage to Medicare, it will tell you all you need to know.

We do agree on this point, we have a big cost problem in this country. Its not going to go away with a government run program. The government is facing the same numbers as the private sector and no where near the expertise. There are solutions to the problem, but there are a lot of sacred cows in the way, starting with the government itself.

Can ANYONE give me an example of a government run program that has a private industry counter-part and is run successfully, as Dorkfish defines success, AND meets the needs of it's customers?

Just one??

Michale.....

I haven't read much about the GOP claiming that the problem doesn't exist.

All the complaints that I have read from the Right are that the Government doesn't have the best track record as evidenced by the mess that the Medicaid and Medicare programs are in.

Do we really WANT or NEED a third messed up bureaucracy?? Or a fifth one, if you count GM (Government Motors) and AIG (American International Government)...

If government truly can't provide anything better and cheaper than private industry, why are people so worried? Does not compute.

Actually, the complaint is quite logical.

The government CAN provide services much much cheaper than the industry simply because it can afford to LOSE money. It will always have the taxpayer tit to suckle off of so it can offer lower prices. Addressing Osborne's point is a perfect example. Does ANYONE honestly believe that the US Postal service could survive without the taxpayer's titties??

There are many MANY examples in business whereas a company will enter a market, lose millions of dollars by undercutting the price in an effort to obtain market-share. Japan and cars, Microsoft and XBOX, etc etc etc... This would simply be more of the same. The US Government Health Care "business" will have to attract customers to justify it's existence. Since it is very unlikely that the USGHC will be able to provide superior service (come on... It's the government...) then the only way to attract business is buy much lower cost.

Ergo, the complaint that people will leave private insurers for the lower costing plan IS a valid and logical complaint.

If national health is such a nightmare, why then has no country which provides it ever had a movement to move to the American system?

Probably for the same reasons that the US hasn't changed to the Canadian or British Health Care model.

Too much hassle to totally revamp a system that is already in place.

I'll ask the question again...

Do ya'all REALLY want a government run auto industry, a government run banking industry AND a government run healthcare industry if Republicans are the government???

All these government-run programs may be Utopian to Democrats with Democrats in charge. Personally, I think that the less government intervention in our daily lives the better, but that's probably just me.

But how is the Left going to react with all these government controlled industries when it's the Republicans that are controlling them??

When THAT happens, will ya'all still think it's a good idea??

Michale.....

First off, welcome to the site.

Secondly, I have to ask, for all those people who hold up Canada, Britain, and other Western countries with national healthcare as some sort of horror story, the following question:

If national health is such a nightmare, why then has no country which provides it ever had a movement to move to the American system? If it is truly that bad, and the numbers truly don't add up, then why are we the only country to do things the way we do, and why do people in these countries never seem to demand the American system?

Perhaps, in comparison, their systems aren't as bad as they are painted for the domestic American audience by healthcare reform opponents? I'm just saying....

-CW

My 90-year old grandmother lives in Canada. She has no complaints. She has never been denied care for a pre-existing condition, never had to wait for vital procedures, never been told that her insurance wouldn't pay above the "usual and customary rate," and never had an insurance copay raised arbitrarily without notice. She has never had to deal with the manifold ways insurance companies get between the doctor and the patient.

Dorkfish, all your dire predictions are already happening WITHOUT a public option. Private insurers ration care and limit compensation every day. Medicare is underfunded because costs are going up far faster than inflation; that is the nature of for-profit health care. Canada -- and many other countries -- manage to have better overall health while keeping costs dramatically lower. It's got nothing to do with "actuarial principles" and everything to do with the private need for bigger and better profits.

Another TP someone mentioned today: the US Postal Service has been in competition with FedEx, UPS, and DHL for decades. Why haven't they gone belly-up if government competition is so deadly?