When one confuses payments to physicians with administrative costs and uses polling based on a self-selected, unrepresentative 20%, I find nothing worth debating.

By the way, malpractice accounts for less than 1% of costs. Both the number cases and size of payouts have decreased since at least 2000. This while premiums have ballooned. Thank the insurance industry for that.

I resent folks like you that I think are much more interested worshiping at the alter of government than what is best for the American people. This plan stinks on so many levels and riding a wave of anger doesn't justify the insanity of this legislation. I am sure your anger won't be swayed by an understanding of the working of insurace, hopefully it will be swayed by actually protecting those that really need the help. The current stuff coming out of Washington does little to make that happen. In the long run it will hurt Americans. When reform, I mean REAL reform happens, I will be the first to support it. BAD LEGISLATION WITH A NOBLE CAUSE IS STILL BAD LEGISLATION. We can do better.

If you want to debate how, I would love to debate it with you. If you just want to be condesending and angry, I won't bother. Although I am not of the same political opinion as many of Chris' readers, I follow his blog because its well written and thoughtful. My initial statement, which is accurate, in reference to expense ratio did not warrent that type of response. There are lots of angry blogs out there that are less interested in the exchange of ideas, maybe that would be a better choice.

You claim that payments to physicians are counted as expenses for private plans. Of course they are. That also holds true for CMS. That is not the same as administrative costs. Did you not understand my statement or was your confusion intentional?

You try to misrepresent a set of polls I cited. It is a fact that 59% of physicians supported HR676, the specific bill known as Medicare-For-All. That you wish to misrepresent that as support for the public option is understandable but incorrect. The number rose to 72% support among physicians for the public option.

You can't even get the numbers straight on the poll that seems to support your point. Support for a generic healthcare reform bill was actually less than 29% among AMA members. There is a problem in citing that as representative. Only 20% of physicians belong to the AMA.

Since CMS is by far the largest purchaser of medical goods and services, it is humanly possible for them to breach 2%. Remember, they don't have to pay for advertising, marketing or multimillion-dollar salaries. Neither do they have to pay lobbyists to buy politicians.

Did you make up such terms as 'crapcare' yourself or is that evidence that you are parroting what you've been told by more creative defenders of greed.

You say you can produce a poll for every one that I produce. I'm sure you can. I have to depend on others to conduct any polls I use. That takes time. It is much easier for you. I can't just pull them like rabbits out of a hat.

I would love to dismantle your posts point by point but I have to get ready for an appointment with my neurologist.

Don't fret. I can return but at some point I'll tire of pointing out your errors. After all, a cat will finally tire of that ball of yarn.

Just one specific point.

If the private sector has to pay so much more because the government payments are grossly inadequate, why did polls of physicians show 59% preferred Medicare-For-All? Do they have some unstated reason for wanting to be underpaid for all patients without a higher payout by a then essentially non-existent private sector to compensate?

You really should have included at least one fact. Perhaps you are merely passing on something from someone else but I can assure you that every detail of your post is made up from whole cloth.

As a former foreign correspondent (from the old days), I try to have multiple, reliable sources. I can assure you that both my facts and my points are correct.

True, there is a lot of garbage out there but valid sources are not that difficult to find. You may even use me as a source.

Must be something in the air, I dunno. Happy weekend to all!

:-)

-CW

I understand. I have to work sometimes too.

I don't want you to think I am ignoring you.

You obviously put a lot of thought and time in your postings.. It's only fair that I do the same.

Unfortunately, I am at work now til tomorrow, so I won't be able to address things til then..

Just wanted you to know..

Michale.....

Those expected big victories by the GOP are only expected to reduce the Democratic majorities, not produce GOP majorities.

I was wondering why you wish to give extra money to the private corporations. Do you get some benefits from the student loan middlemen that you don't get from the government? It costs considerably more to include the middlemen and the government is supposed to set the rules and enforce them anyway. That is their proper custodial responsibility to the citizenry.

Will the government agency require everyone to get a college education? Will they require all students to take courses in Marxism? Just what nefarious plans do they have in store?

Being against everything government is not an assessment. It is an ideology. All ideologies are crap because they are by nature too simplistic to account for the realities of the real world.

Private insurance companies spend 30-32% on administration. CMS (Medicare, Medicaid & SCHIP) spends 1.8%. People on Medicare like it far, far more than people on any private health plan like theirs. Also, 59% of physicians support Medicare-For-All.

We honor the members of our military. How many parades has anyone ever given for Blackwater employees?

My brother lived most of his adult life in East Ridge, TN. It was the largest city in the country without a public fire department. It had (has?) a private one. I never met anyone happy with it and their fire department rating caused their insurance rates to be higher.

You want a private company handling law enforcement? The government is constrained by the Constitution. Corporations are not.

Would I want them under the GOP? No. I don't want anything under the GOP but what I wrote about Medicare holds true under both parties. The bulk of control of established programs is done by bureaucrats (fellow Americans), not politicians. Did W destroy Social Security by investing it in the Wall Street casinos? No.

Our economic meltdown was not caused by government. It was allowed by government. It happened because government gave the private sector permission to do it their way.

Despite what is claimed, the government funds most medical research, by far. Meanwhile, a private company gave us Vioxx. Although on the market for about 5 years, a study covering just 3 years was admitted in federal court. It showed 28,000 deaths and another 139,000 non-fatal heart attacks and strokes during that 3 years. That is 10 times the number of killed from the twin towers attack. The company admitted the validity of that study. That case also brought to light an internal email from the scientists to the executives stating that the drug was a killer - 4 years before it went to market. The FDA (read government) approved the drug because the private company lied to it and held back pertinent data.

You like the private sector? You like the internet? The Supreme Court's decision on campaign finance will allow private corporations to buy Congress and give us an internet even less free than China's.

How much was spent on the last presidential campaign? Perhaps a billion or so. Wall Street, while the economy is in ruins (a private gift to all of us), is producing record profits and giving $150 billion in bonuses. If they devoted half that to bribery of politicians we would never have to see a non-political ad on television again. The upside? You need not donate to any political campaign. The private sector will take care of that for you.

Private garbage service over municipal government? Well, it might be cheaper but city and county employees usually get paid more than minimum wage and have benefits. I prefer that.

Here is Tennessee private corporations spread out enough bribe money so that Shaw Industries (I think they are still number one in carpet manufacturing) and others could rid themselves of all of their minimum-wage employees and give some of that to the state, so prisoners could do the work much cheaper. See how creative the private sector is? They no longer have top ship jobs over seas.

Perhaps, if I took a few sabbaticals, I could come up with an area where private enterprise was appealing to more than themselves and the ideologues. No promises though.

Obama has at least proposed eliminating the middle men for student loans. That should have been a no-brainer decades ago.

There are two problems with government control over anything that has, traditionally, been private sector.

1> The government can't run things worth a shit. That was my biggest argument against DunselCare, AKA CrapCare. There are dozens and dozens of examples of government programs that are being run into the ground and completely and utterly failing to meet the needs of the people.

and

B> Administrations change. Control will not. Since it is all but assured that there will be a huge GOP victory this Nov, all the control that the government assumes now will fall into the hands of the Republicans this fall.
You have to ask yourself, "Would I be advocating for these government take-overs if the GOP was the majority party?"
Because that is, in essence, what you are doing. Advocating government control on behalf of the Republican Party which is, soon to be, the majority party.

Michale.....

OK, I hear what you're saying. I am optimistic that we'll be hearing more from Volcker in the days to come.

Michale -

Ah, but I'm talking about changing some of that corruption in the foundation, as it were. As for blame, lots of Dems (including Clinton) share the blame for jettisoning Glass-Steagall. The vote in the Senate was something like 94-6. There's PLENTY of blame to go around.

But you're right -- let's get to work on that foundation. Starting with reinstating Glass-Steagall.

You're also right about the TPs -- it would cause fear and loathing among many Democrats. But the beauty of it is that (1) even if he loses the vote, the president gains politically by trying (and FIGHTING), and (2) forcing votes on such things shows very clearly who is for and who is against such proposals, which hopefully will be remembered come election day. That fear might be enough to change some Democratic minds.

akadjian -

I believe something like this was tried in the Great Depression -- direct home loans from the federal government? I might be wrong about that, I'd have to research it, but I could have sworn I heard someone talking about this over the holidays. I'm no economist, but it sure sounds like a swell idea to me.

nutcase -

Didn't they get that through already (stopping the "rake" on the student loans) last year? Didn't follow it all that closely, but I could have sworn they passed something along those lines...

-CW

And just think, that money they are being lent is yours.

Obama has at least proposed eliminating the middle men for student loans. That should have been a no-brainer decades ago.

It seems like we're just giving these giant institutions, the ones that made such poor decisions, an absolute money maker without any expectation that they will do anything to help out the economy.

Why not go a step further and simply cut out the middle man? Why not open an operation that lends directly to the people at the same rates banks can get?

It seems like the reasoning for lending to them was so that they in turn could help out individuals and small businesses. But it's becoming apparent they're not doing that.

Cut out the middle man. Why not let the people borrow at the same rate as the banks?

-David

You realize that Dem CongressCritters are going to be as much up in arms over all that as GOP critters, no??

Let's face it..

Unless President Obama is set to take on his own party, as well as the GOP, none of that will see the light of day.

A year ago, I would have said, "Hell yea!! Obama is gonna take them down!!!!"

Being one year wiser (and infinitely more cynical) my response is, "Yea... When Monkees fly outta my butt..."

Michale.....

(That's two login names, not a slur on Michale, I hasten to point out... heh.)

Ouch...

....and the ref takes a point away...

:D hehehehehehe

(1) hopefully, they'll pay back the money WITH INTEREST, meaning the taxpayer will reap a profit (that's the plan anyway)

Yea, that's the plan...

But honestly.. What has gone according to plan to date??

Obama's actually got a good argument -- that he couldn't let the banks fail,

That was the ONLY sure way to actually accomplish anything positive...

You can't change the corrupt system if you are constantly building on the foundation of said corrupt system, no?

Michale.....

The argument that he couldn't let the banks fail was not Obama's. It was that of his advisors, and it was incorrect. Maybe he's learned a bit from Volker.

The interest profit is miniscule compared to the damage they have caused. Much of the loss was to individuals but much was also matters that the government must spend money on to correct or ameliorate.

Someone may cause you to have a wreck. Perhaps the repairs only cost $1,000 but the loss of time and transport cost you a million dollar deal, a job, a chance to see your kid before he left for Iraq or a wedding or a funeral. Does $1,000 represent sufficient compensation? Probably not the best analogy but i tried.

(That's two login names, not a slur on Michale, I hasten to point out... heh.)

Two points at the edges to toss in. (1) hopefully, they'll pay back the money WITH INTEREST, meaning the taxpayer will reap a profit (that's the plan anyway), and (2) Obama's actually got a good argument -- that he couldn't let the banks fail, but that they're still operating under the regulations that got us into this mess (meaning there is nothing to prevent it happening again). If he's driving for better regulations, now that things have settled down, then I really don't see a contradiction.

-CW

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/821dce96-0786-11df-915f-00144feabdc0.html

It appears that Obama will have more trouble with fellow Democrats..

Michale....

Bush et al does deserve some of the blame.

My only point is that, 8-10 months ago, Obama was all about saving these poor banks, that it was imperative to the survival of the country to save these poor banks.

NOW he comes back with the banks are the villains and it's their fault that the country is in this mess..

Sounds to me that Obama is simply tailoring his argument to fit his agenda.

"We are at war with Eurasia... We have ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia."

My advice back then was, "LET THEM FAIL"...

Guess that was prophetic, eh? :D

Michale.....

That's true but, when Paulson, Geithner, Summers, Rubin, et al. are your advisers, that's the advice you should expect.

Obama didn't have the confidence in his own instincts to go off the beaten path and pick advisers without Wall Street connections.

Don't forget though, the bailout started before the election. Don't give Obama all the credit for this mess.

If this is true, then Obama et al shouldn't have bailed them out in the first place.

Michale...

Chris,

It may be that I just haven't read enough. It may be that others are saying or thinking the same as am I. If it is being said, it isn't being said enough or loudly enough. So, let me use your forum to give it some play.

The President is calling for those receiving our money to keep them from failing to pay it back. That is insufficient.

In their failures they caused a great deal of harm, to the nation, to the world economy, to taxpayers, to those who lost their jobs, their retirements, their college funds, indeed, everyone. Why should they not be expected to pay at least a modicum of compensation? Many have, in less than a year, survived, made record profits and paid record bonuses, while the economy languishes, unemployment grows, foreclosures increase. In other words, they flourish while the ramifications of their greed continue to burden everyone else.

Simply paying back the money they received from the taxpayers is grossly insufficient.

Awww, com'o, CW!

You and I both know that Democrats can't control anything, let alone the Senate.

Still have a majority? Yea, Dems still have the majority..

Control? Surely, you jest...

:D

Michale.....