Political Roundtable - Part V

[dckingsfan]

One more thing... it is just recent history (Reagan and Clinton Administrations) where working together was the norm...

http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-head ... -2-357720/

[pineappleheadindc]

Quick detour from the convo stream (sorry).

A friend and I were talking about just how suddenly acceptance of gay marriage had become in the country as a whole (I get that any one individual may have a different opinion -- and I'm not trying to argue the point, just observe how quickly acceptance came).

I'm feeling (no facts, just amateur and fallable personal opinion -- I could be wrong) that the country's next big social thing may be legalization of marijuana. It benefits from being in the sweet spot of libertarians hating the war on drugs and government intrusion and liberals who -- well, frankly like drugs (sorry I'm a liberal, nobody yell at me). Two thirds of younger voters support at least decriminalization. It's costly in many financial and social ways to have so many of our citizens locked up in prison on drug charges.

What happens first???

1) Marijuana becomes legal for recreational use.

2) The Washington NFL franchise changes its nickname.

3) Abolition of the death penalty.

Just curious about opinions out there.

[montestewart]

Quick detour from the convo stream (sorry).

A friend and I were talking about just how suddenly acceptance of gay marriage had become in the country as a whole (I get that any one individual may have a different opinion -- and I'm not trying to argue the point, just observe how quickly acceptance came).

I'm feeling (no facts, just amateur and fallable personal opinion -- I could be wrong) that the country's next big social thing may be legalization of marijuana. It benefits from being in the sweet spot of libertarians hating the war on drugs and government intrusion and liberals who -- well, frankly like drugs (sorry I'm a liberal, nobody yell at me). Two thirds of younger voters support at least decriminalization. It's costly in many financial and social ways to have so many of our citizens locked up in prison on drug charges.

What happens first???

1) Marijuana becomes legal for recreational use.

2) The Washington NFL franchise changes its nickname.

3) Abolition of the death penalty.

Just curious about opinions out there.

What was the question. Oh yeah. 1, for sure.

If everyone is lighting up, 2 and 3 will probably just kind of work themselves out, but until then, Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, Virginia, etc are not giving up the right to execute anytime soon. And Snyder will continue to insist that his team's name, logo, mascots, etc honor the proud heritage of Native Americans, cross dressers, and pigs.

[barelyawake]

Wes, the problem with allowing people to keep their healthcare is a) people are stupid and b) the goal of this whole thing is to put the majority of people into a single payer system (the public option overtaking most of the insurance market).

Obama lied to the American people because it was the easy slogan. Without an easy slogan, people are easily swayed by those influences attempting to stop any health care reform. The truth is a great deal of people didn't have real insurance. They paid for something for years, never had a catastrophic illness, so they never discovered that once they got said illness their so-called insurance would have dropped them. So, they think they have earned something with their current insurance. They haven't.

This is going to be a messy process. Once you didn't go single payer, it was always going to be messy. Actually, any change was going to be a mess because of the number of people (and the amount of money) who want to highlight any problem to the change, and scream about those problems at the top of their lungs to try to stop the changes. The Democrats jumping ship are only looking out for their own asses. It has nothing to do with policy, or what is good for the country, or what is good for the individuals who don't understand their insurance.

The people who hate the exchanges should be pushing for a government option. That is the next step in the process. We will have to get there eventually. The sooner the better.

The best question that I heard asked during this whole process is: what value do the private insurance companies bring to health insurance? How does it help me the consumer to have a company who wants to make a profit, and spend money on marketing to help themselves and not me, charging me to help their CEO buy a plane? The answer is, obviously, they bring no value to me. A government system has value. They can mandate lower prices on drugs. They can mandate mental health services are available to everyone. That's why every other country has gone that route.

[dckingsfan]

Wes, the problem with allowing people to keep their healthcare is a) people are stupid and b) the goal of this whole thing is to put the majority of people into a single payer system (the public option overtaking most of the insurance market).

Obama lied to the American people because it was the easy slogan. Without an easy slogan, people are easily swayed by those influences attempting to stop any health care reform. The truth is a great deal of people didn't have real insurance. They paid for something for years, never had a catastrophic illness, so they never discovered that once they got said illness their so-called insurance would have dropped them. So, they think they have earned something with their current insurance. They haven't.

This is going to be a messy process. Once you didn't go single payer, it was always going to be messy. Actually, any change was going to be a mess because of the number of people (and the amount of money) who want to highlight any problem to the change, and scream about those problems at the top of their lungs to try to stop the changes. The Democrats jumping ship are only looking out for their own asses. It has nothing to do with policy, or what is good for the country, or what is good for the individuals who don't understand their insurance.

The people who hate the exchanges should be pushing for a government option. That is the next step in the process. We will have to get there eventually. The sooner the better.

The best question that I heard asked during this whole process is: what value do the private insurance companies bring to health insurance? How does it help me the consumer to have a company who wants to make a profit, and spend money on marketing to help themselves and not me, charging me to help their CEO buy a plane? The answer is, obviously, they bring no value to me. A government system has value. They can mandate lower prices on drugs. They can mandate mental health services are available to everyone. That's why every other country has gone that route.

Violent agreement barely... to paraphrase

a) people are stupid and b) the end justifies the means

Obama lied, yes, and multiple times - and his adminstration new it but - the end justifies the means... governments have to lie to their people to get anything done. Transparancy is a thing of the past (unless a different party gets the white house).

The government is much better at spending your money than you are and other governments have gone that way and what is good enough for Europe is good enough for the US.

[dckingsfan]

And the best part of that frame work...

Violent agreement barely... to paraphrase

a) people are stupid and b) the end justifies the means

Obama lied, yes, and multiple times - and his adminstration new it but - the end justifies the means... governments have to lie to their people to get anything done. Transparancy is a thing of the past (unless a different party gets the white house).

The government is much better at spending your money than you are and other governments have gone that way and what is good enough for Europe is good enough for the US.

IS THAT IT APPLIES TO EVERY GOVERNMENT DECISION - IRS on down...

[barelyawake]

Is it your contention that people aren't stupid and swept away by slogans and sound bites?

If so, I would ask you to listen to the Macarena again. I'd remind you the number of people who believe in angels.

In terms of the government spends your money better than you, I'd say the government spends your health insurance dollars better than private insurance. Unsure how one can argue against that statement. The government doesn't want to take your health insurance money for profit. They want to make insurance cheaper to please voters. What is the counter argument? That the market provides a cheaper option because competition drags down health insurance to levels where huge profits can be made and still provide cheaper insurance?

[dckingsfan]

Rumsfeld: People are stupid, Hussein needs to be gone, lie about WMD, Hussein gone, end justifies the means.

[nate33]

Wes, the problem with allowing people to keep their healthcare is a) people are stupid and b) the goal of this whole thing is to put the majority of people into a single payer system (the public option overtaking most of the insurance market).

Obama lied to the American people because it was the easy slogan. Without an easy slogan, people are easily swayed by those influences attempting to stop any health care reform. The truth is a great deal of people didn't have real insurance. They paid for something for years, never had a catastrophic illness, so they never discovered that once they got said illness their so-called insurance would have dropped them. So, they think they have earned something with their current insurance. They haven't.

This is going to be a messy process. Once you didn't go single payer, it was always going to be messy. Actually, any change was going to be a mess because of the number of people (and the amount of money) who want to highlight any problem to the change, and scream about those problems at the top of their lungs to try to stop the changes. The Democrats jumping ship are only looking out for their own asses. It has nothing to do with policy, or what is good for the country, or what is good for the individuals who don't understand their insurance.

The people who hate the exchanges should be pushing for a government option. That is the next step in the process. We will have to get there eventually. The sooner the better.

The best question that I heard asked during this whole process is: what value do the private insurance companies bring to health insurance? How does it help me the consumer to have a company who wants to make a profit, and spend money on marketing to help themselves and not me, charging me to help their CEO buy a plane? The answer is, obviously, they bring no value to me. A government system has value. They can mandate lower prices on drugs. They can mandate mental health services are available to everyone. That's why every other country has gone that route.

Wow, this is a profound post that perfectly encapsulates the political divide. In one succinct post, barelyawake has freely admitted that the worst fears conservatives and libertarians have about liberals are justified. barelyawake sounds like Rush Limbaugh.

1. Liberals could not convince the people to nationalize healthcare, so they lied about it and are implementing it by means of stealth.
2. This is justifiable because people are stupid and governments are smart, and by inference, conservatives are stupid and liberals are smart.

Yup. That pretty much sums it up. And so many liberals on this board wonder why Republicans aren't "working with" Democrats.

[barelyawake]

I'd like a response to the question: what do private insurance companies bring to health insurance customers?

And just because every politician to ever walk the planet have always operated on the assumption that people are stupid doesn't mean they are all the same.

[barelyawake]

Actually, Nate, people were convinced they wanted national healthcare. Check the polls for years stating that is what they wanted. It's why Obama won twice highlighting the issue. The problem is you can't explain complex issues in a sound bite world. And, btw, every single politician knows this -- in both parties. I'm sorry if voicing a truth that every single politician operates under upsets you.

[nate33]

I'd like a response to the question: what do private insurance companies bring to health insurance customers?

If health insurance was actually run as "insurance", then you wouldn't be asking this question.

The purpose of insurance is to guard against catastrophic risk. Health insurance should be like car insurance or fire insurance. You pay a manageable premium on a regular basis to insure that you don't ever have to pay a huge bill at any one time in the event of a catastrophic accident or illness. Routine health care should be paid for out-of-pocket, by an individual or perhaps through a third party broker who is an advocate for the consumer while also having the knowledge to shop a complicated market. Insurance should only come into play for extremely expensive, unforeseen accidents or illnesses.

What has happened is that health insurance has been merged with the concept of a social safety net. Instead of health insurance being something purchased on an individual basis, we have moved to a model where you buy insurance in groups, with those groups continuing to increase in size until the entire nation is one group. This takes the away the incentives for individuals to be healthy because their premiums are no longer tied to their age or health, but on the average age/health of their pool. As the pools increase, the incentives continue to decrease.

At the same time, what is covered under insurance has grown so that routine checkups, cold medicine, yearly checkups, physicals, viagra, Prozac, pap smears, prostate exams, breast exams etc are all included. This is absurd. All these things are regular, foreseeable expenses and should be budgeted for by individuals. We can certainly have a conversation on how much the poor should be subsidized for these things, but they should not fall under the category of insurance.

These two trends: larger pools and more coverage for smaller items, have destroyed the market for health services. Without accurate pricing, competition gets distorted. The winners are not the ones with the best products at the lowest prices, but rather the ones with bureaucratic connections, lawyers, superior obfuscation of costs, and superior methods to exploit the public subsidy system.

[barelyawake]

Here's what Obama would have had to say to "tell the truth." First, many people didn't understand that the government wasn't just taking over the healthcare system as a whole. They thought health care reform meant the government running hospitals. So, he had to explain that to people. Then, he had to explain to people that there weren't going to be death panels where the government decides whether your grandmother lives or dies. Then, he had to explain that anyone who has insurance through there work won't be affected. Then, he had to explain how the insurance companies are continually lying to you about what is actually covered under your insurance. Then, he had to explain to people who never had a catastrophic illness, that many of them really won't have insurance if they ever get one. Then, he had to explain how the exchanges work. Then, he had to explain that those insurance companies that are scamming people won't be able to scam them anymore under the new law. Then, he would have had to explain that those insurance companies that are scamming people will probably drop you once we force them to only offer real insurance, but that's ok, because in the end you will end up with better coverage and cheaper (once we get a public option passed).

Meanwhile, you have half the nation screaming about socialism and the other half too busy to follow politics more than a few sound bites on the news. So, he didn't explain the last part. Because he would have been beaten over the head by it by those hoping to distort what health insurance reform means. I'm sorry, but I understand that. And I don't think it's a big sin -- because the outcome will be what people overwhelmingly have wanted for decades.

[barelyawake]

"At the same time, what is covered under insurance has grown so that routine checkups, cold medicine, yearly checkups, physicals, viagra, Prozac, pap smears, prostate exams, breast exams etc are all included. This is absurd. All these things are regular, foreseeable expenses and should be budgeted for by individuals. We can certainly have a conversation on how much the poor should be subsidized for these things, but they should not fall under the category of insurance."

The majority of the country can no longer afford to pay for health care. The majority of the country don't do preventative care and a large swath of people flood the hospitals for health care. You act as though we have a large middle class who can afford all the above. And have a small number of poor who need a little help to pay for insurance. No, a great number of people can't afford to maintain basic health care (much less afford preventative care which actually is the most important part of a health care system).

[dckingsfan]

I'd like a response to the question: what do private insurance companies bring to health insurance customers?

Like any insurance company, insurance companies aggregate risk. Same for life or auto insurance. I am not sure if you were serious on this or not?

And just because every politician to ever walk the planet have always operated on the assumption that people are stupid doesn't mean they are all the same.

I don't believe that assertion. I think many politicians don't believe or behave that way. And I don't believe that all politicians believe you need to lie to the "stupid" constituents.

Regardless, not holding the politicians of your party to reasonable standards (lying, cheating, extortion, bribery, etc.) then makes it ok for the politicians of the other party to not hold to those standards either. I can't believe you really think that (at least not if you have pondered it for a while). The outcome for both parties is more of the same (Iraq, IRS, etc.).

[hands11]

I'd like a response to the question: what do private insurance companies bring to health insurance customers?

If health insurance was actually run as "insurance", then you wouldn't be asking this question.

The purpose of insurance is to guard against catastrophic risk. Health insurance should be like car insurance or fire insurance. You pay a manageable premium on a regular basis to insure that you don't ever have to pay a huge bill at any one time in the event of a catastrophic accident or illness. Routine health care should be paid for out-of-pocket, by an individual or perhaps through a third party broker who is an advocate for the consumer while also having the knowledge to shop a complicated market. Insurance should only come into play for extremely expensive, unforeseen accidents or illnesses.

What has happened is that health insurance has been merged with the concept of a social safety net. Instead of health insurance being something purchased on an individual basis, we have moved to a model where you buy insurance in groups, with those groups continuing to increase in size until the entire nation is one group. This takes the away the incentives for individuals to be healthy because their premiums are no longer tied to their age or health, but on the average age/health of their pool. As the pools increase, the incentives continue to decrease.

At the same time, what is covered under insurance has grown so that routine checkups, cold medicine, yearly checkups, physicals, viagra, Prozac, pap smears, prostate exams, breast exams etc are all included. This is absurd. All these things are regular, foreseeable expenses and should be budgeted for by individuals. We can certainly have a conversation on how much the poor should be subsidized for these things, but they should not fall under the category of insurance.

These two trends: larger pools and more coverage for smaller items, have destroyed the market for health services. Without accurate pricing, competition gets distorted. The winners are not the ones with the best products at the lowest prices, but rather the ones with bureaucratic connections, lawyers, superior obfuscation of costs, and superior methods to exploit the public subsidy system.

Car insurance is a very poor example.

[barelyawake]

"barelyawake wrote:
I'd like a response to the question: what do private insurance companies bring to health insurance customers?

Like any insurance company, insurance companies aggregate risk. Same for life or auto insurance. I am not sure if you were serious on this or not?"

I was extremely serious. And you know exactly the question I am asking (and haven't answered). Governmental insurance can aggregate risk as well, and do so without asking the customer to take on the cost of profit for the company and advertising to promote the company. And government insurance can mandate standards and price controls. So, what benefit does private insurance bring to the customers (over governmental insurance)?

And if you think politicians don't boil complex issues down to sound bites often completely avoiding the actual issues (thus lying), then you don't follow politics closely. It happens all day, every day. Should you hold Obama accountable for not completely explaining every complex idea in the healthcare law? Sure, do so. I understand why he said it the way he said it. If more agree with you, then they can vote for the other party.

Btw what he said was technically true: "If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance..." if you get your insurance through work or if not then if your insurance meets minimal standards -- and if not then that's on the insurance companies...

[barelyawake]

The lead singer of Pussy Riot has mysteriously disappeared. F' Putin. F' the man. F' people in general. May she long live in punk lore as a hero.

[nate33]

"barelyawake wrote:
I'd like a response to the question: what do private insurance companies bring to health insurance customers?

Like any insurance company, insurance companies aggregate risk. Same for life or auto insurance. I am not sure if you were serious on this or not?"

I was extremely serious. And you know exactly the question I am asking (and haven't answered). Governmental insurance can aggregate risk as well, and do so without asking the customer to take on the cost of profit for the company and advertising to promote the company. And government insurance can mandate standards and price controls. So, what benefit does private insurance bring to the customers (over governmental insurance)?.

By that argument, all industries should be run by governments. All private companies do is steal "profits" that should otherwise go to the consumer, right?

[barelyawake]

"barelyawake wrote:
I'd like a response to the question: what do private insurance companies bring to health insurance customers?

Like any insurance company, insurance companies aggregate risk. Same for life or auto insurance. I am not sure if you were serious on this or not?"

I was extremely serious. And you know exactly the question I am asking (and haven't answered). Governmental insurance can aggregate risk as well, and do so without asking the customer to take on the cost of profit for the company and advertising to promote the company. And government insurance can mandate standards and price controls. So, what benefit does private insurance bring to the customers (over governmental insurance)?.

By that argument, all industries should be run by governments. All private companies do is steal "profits" that should otherwise go to the consumer, right?

No, private companies innovate new products. What about health insurance companies? What do they innovate? Again, the answer is nothing. They only pass on expenses to consumers. They serve no function other than to make profit for themselves at the expense of citizens and their healthcare needs. They are leaches -- as every other country but ours has rightfully concluded.