Ever wonder why Republicans aren't holding live town halls on health care?

Post Office vs UPS?

Brent-320354

For less than 50 cents I can mail a one ounce letter to any part of the country? The USPS will even pick it up at my house six days a week.

Do you know what you get for 50 cents from UPS - absolutely nothing.

Let’s seek solutions the best we can to make things better, make health care more accessible, and more affordable for the (other) three percent.

The Republicans offer only one solution - more availability to private for profit insurance which is no solution but another gift to the health care industry like Medicare Part D which prohibits negotiating drug prices. We know the drill.

easyjett.

Thank you for presenting data not some emotional song and dance.

Great post.

Easy,

So no matter what the numbers, it's okay for millions of people to be uninsured? I'm confused.

If your issue is illegal immigrants being counted, that would and should be addressed by immigration reform. This issue is a drain on the medicaid system, as are the 21% (?) of the foreign nationals if they are sick/injured and indigent/un-underinsured.

I'm looking for the source of the 10 million uninsured who have chosen that status, and if they have, when they do get sick or injured they go to the ER and as indigents, guess who ultimately pays the bill?

I also can't find the source that states that a bulk of the uninsured qualify for SChip and medicaid. Have you ever tried to apply and qualify for that? By the way, SChip guidelines vary from state to state.

Yes people may change jobs and 'pick-up' insurance, or the reverse happens. Or they lose their job. Have you been unemployed? Paid a COBRA premium? They may get a better job or get married. How many of the millions of uninsured will be reduced by that scenario? Republicans tend to argue that Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupting us - so the argument that more people may qualify for or go on those programs may be a little weak.

I cannot find the source that says 97% of Americans are or have the option of being insured. I have never even heard it.

Health care reform legislation should be written in that it protects individual liberty, preserves privacy, prevents government bureaucrats from having limitless power over our health, is based on genuine evidence that proposed reforms would work. In other words, reforms that protect patients first.

If you believe that, write your Reps and Senators and tell them. I haven't seen a bill that suggests that the government have limitless power over my health and privacy. If genuine evidence is needed, perhaps the Republicans should work toward providing it, work on legislation that they can get behind, find reforms that protect patients. Spend less time talking smack about the current ideas and proposals for health care reform.

Even if the "Town Hall" meetings were "staged" does that make the stories any less true? False facts? Can we look forward to a Republican town hall with a room full of perfectly healthy, well insured people?

Let's debate and argue facts, not wild stories or assertions.

Let's.

Here's a point to consider. A large chunk of the non-insured are people who choose not to pay. My brother is 41 and does not pay. My brother in law is in his 40s and chooses not to pay (he has a plan for his kids). These aren't hard-luck stories; some people use that 300 a month to buy beer and cigarettes.

At my company, health insurance is a pain in the butt because of all of the "in program" vs "out of program" doctors.

Why don't we let all of the insurance companies have full access to everyone instead of requiring these co-ops through businesses? Then, the insurance companies (like auto insurance) will lower prices through competition.....

And if Obama can't run an honest Town Hall meeting, why would you believe him? (I guess that was a dumb question to ask an Obama supporter.....)

Killfile, I think my solution helps better than the government running things. Maybe we could meet in the middle by the government giving a health insurance tax deduction that everybody gets by proving they bought insurance. That way, no one has to pay and we keep the free market running things instead of the bureaucracy. Think Poet Office vs UPS....

I meant a tax credit.

I understand your chemotherapy comment and think my plan works with an "insurance companies can not drop perople because of illness" law. That way, the person would have already had insurance before the need for chemo and they would continue to get it.

I just think healthcare welfare is a non-starter. We need to put rubber on the road. The government paying for everyone's health care outright would severley hamper the medical industry: Who would get to decide what treatment a person gets? What incentive is there for innovation? The free market system answers these questions-wefare does not.

What do you think?

Brent,

Who would get to decide what treatment a person gets?

But private health insurance companies do that now. I'm on medicare and they don't interfere with my treatment anywhere near the level private ins. does. I don't know what limitations, if any a proposed plan would have but I don't believe it could be any worse than what BCBS or other private ins. companies get away with.

Killfile

What we should be doing is a universal policy for all Americans funded by income tax. Insurance is a societal good -- the diffusion of risk -- and thus we are all better served if everyone pays in and everyone is in the pool.

Nay. Insurance is a service purchased by individuals or corporations to lay off risk of a catastrophic event.

Killfile,

What we should be doing is a universal policy for all Americans funded by income tax.

The State of Hawaii tried to provide universal health care for all people in the state. They had to give it up after a few months since money just ran out. If every state tried this, the same result would happen.

neenei, if all of the insurance companies afe fighting for your contract, they will expand coverage as a way to attract customers.

I'm sorry, but nobody is going to talk me out of a free-market system. The government will do to health care what they did to the post office and the state of California.

The government will do to health care what they did to the post office and the state of California.

Exactly what is that?

Jack, the answer is: Bankrupt them both.

Brent,

if all of the insurance companies afe fighting for your contract, they will expand coverage as a way to attract customers.

I'm a little confused here. There are very few competitive health insurance companies. BCBS has effectively cornered the market. Where is their incentive to broaden service? If there were both a single-payer and private system that could make sense. Smaller ins. companies can't compete with big corps. like BCBS. So it seems a little lopsided.

I'm still concerned about the bureaucracy as well. Recently the Mental Health Parity Act was passed. Mental health services are to be provided and covered like any other health care service. Almost immediately BCBS found a way around it. They limit the number of visits and if you need more, it has to be approved by them, not your doctor, not their doctor. A non-medical pencil-pusher. That's very worrisome.

I'm not trying to be argumentative Brent, I'm very pleased to be discussing the ins and outs and ideas and options!

Brent,

The USPS is a private company and gets NO tax payer dollars.

CA has its own problems theirs is not because of the Feds.

Killfile

From a micro-economic viewpoint you're absolutely right rickace. I'm looking at it macro-economically.

I can't make sense of that doublespeak, so I'll explain simply my idea in words we can all understand. I'm OK with buying major medical coverage and paying for prescriptions and normal visits to the doctor out of my own pocket. Heck that's what I've been doing since I lost my job in 2000. Seems today though people want someone else to pay for everything. How selfish is that? That will change though as the evolving economic collapse drives more and more people into unemployment and deprives them of company-funded health care.

There are very few competitive health insurance companies. BCBS has effectively cornered the market. Where is their incentive to broaden service

Therein lies the rub, each state has different circumstances, in California there are dozens of competitiors and Blue Cross is seperate from Blue Shield. Blue Cross is for profit, and Blue Shield is not for profit, the not for profit is 10 pct cheaper than for profit. Each state is regulated differently with California being one of the more highly regulated states. Look at the big picture as opposed to just your state.

Lampell,

That's what I'm trying to do. Trying to get a handle on the big picture and learn about all of the variables, the ins and outs. Thoughts, ideas and solutions. Wasn't looking for snark. Thanks for the reply.

Trying to get a handle on the big picture and learn about all of the variables, the ins and outs. Thoughts, ideas and solutions.

If you would like to see some of my views, I wrote several articles on the subject on my site, lampell.newsvine.com You may or may not agree but I do know the industry, from a finance point of view.

Have a happy 4th

The point of insurance is to pay for catastrophic problems and medical insurance accomplishes this by having deductibles and co-pays etc. There's no reason to suspect - by the way - that a public option wouldn't have these things too

Back in the "old days" insurance was just that, insurance against the unknown and car insurance didnt and still doesnt cover a tune up. Doctors also made house calls and didnt own their own labs with MRI machines etc. Insurance had a dedutible, maybe 80/20 after that with a cap and that was that. HMO type plans came in, with copays for visits, checkups etc etc. Rates on HMOs were kept down for awhile since doctors were paid an annual stipend whether they saw you or not. The thought being that they wouldnt do unnecssary procedures. Of course as with all well meant intentions that too got out of hand as the doctors got fed up with the low stipends and started to make up for lost time as what happens with any wage and price freeze. It sounds good to cover preventitive tests because the theory is that it will save you large expenses down the road. Its a theory because no matter how well you take care of yourself, you are a walking time bomb and sooner or later you will have a huge bill, even if it is only once in your lifetime. I hadnt used my insurance for years and like many, thought Why am I paying for this worthless stuff. I had my checkups reluctantly ( my wife nagged me) and everything was cool. One day, after weeks of building a patio, to save money, dragging 100 pound stones, I discovered I had difficulty walking. I had never had any back problems of any kind. After tests etc etc it was determined that I needed back surgery after I lost the ability to walk at all. One day in the hospital after the insurance company negotiated the bill down was 50,000 dollars. Insurance paid what it was supposed to pay and now I can walk. Keep in mind, my daughter who is 34 thinks that a 50 dollar copay is catastrophic coverage.

Lampell and Killfile, you bring up very valid points. The problem is nobody wants to pay for anything. No deductible no copay and that simple isn't a workable outcome.

Also something to consider, demographic changes is one reason no changes in healthcare policy will reduce costs. We as a Nation are aging. And rapidly. And that simple fact is inescapable.

Quite frankly, whether we have national healthcare or not cost will continue to rise for this very fact. The debate is rather pointless because of this.

Exactly how much are we as a society willing to spend to keep us all alive till we are 80, 90, 100, etc.? I would be very interested in the breakdown of healthcare spending by age group. Both aggregate and per person within age groups.

Quite frankly, whether we have national healthcare or not cost will continue to rise for this very fact. The debate is rather pointless because of this.

I agree, the problem is is that many people and the government think they have the answer which in many cases is either deliberate or misguided information. Some think that rates will go magically down if we eliminate insurance companies, some think its the doctors fault, malpractice insurance, tort reform, drug companies etc etc. The government adds to this by coming up with mythical cost savings where they take these savings from Medicare and apply it to a new program. Americans want what they want, obviously we all want the latest technology, the most advanced techniques, who wouldnt. No matter what reform that comes about there will still be millions who are disatisfied. Copying European systems are not the answer either since they pay for their systems with taxes that most Americans wouldnt even want to consider. Our costs will continue to shoot up and some of that comes from imposing wage and price freezes years ago with HMOs and keeping rates down with Medicare. A complex problem that everyone thinks can be fixed with their own solution.

Americans want what they want

My 13 year-old wants an Ipod touch, too, but he's not getting it from me. At $300, plus whatever he wants on it, I think he might have enough lawns mowed by the end of July. When he buys things with his own money, he takes MUCH better care of them.

Anita

It's great to hear you taught your son the value of earning money for himself. When I was a teenager in the 1960s, my friends and I did the same. I had a newspaper route, lawn jobs, and snow plowing in the winter. When we got our driver's licenses we worked on our own cars. Today in that same neighborhood no boy does any of that; parents hire hispanic gardeners to manicure their lawns, and you never see a kid working outdoors.

While things have certainly changed since the 1960's (you've got about 10 years on me I think), a work ethic for children is something that is almost extinct. Last year, when my son started reffing soccer games, he was THRILLED that he made $36 in a morning. He couldn't believe it. He saves his money too. What a concept!

His dad and I have involved all three of our children in the family finances. They see the bills that come in and they help me pay them. We go through a process of adding everything up and figuring out when we can afford to pay what. By doing this, they understand when I tell them "No, we don't have the money for that this month." They GET it.

Having been smart enough to buy a house we could afford and save for improvements before we made them... Lucky enough to have our health and jobs all these years... we are paying off our house in two weeks! With so many out of work, I don't brag about that, but my kids know it is happening. When a neighbor/mom of their friend asked how I was doing the other day, my son said, "She's doing GREAT! She and my dad are paying off the house," her reaction said it all for him.

Annoy a Liberal. Work Hard and Be Happy.

When the kids have to work for it they certainly have a better appreciation for what they have and also take better care of their things. Being on a fixed income it was a task teaching my son that I couldn't buy the things that he saw the kids around him getting, apparently just for breathing and being a joy to their parents!

The idea of a parent buying their child a brand new car boggles my mind! Nick mows lawns and does odd jobs and chores for me, his grandma and grandpa and several neighbors. He has applied for several jobs at local businesses as well. (He won't turn 15 until next week, so it's not likely he'll get hired, but it's good experience) He is learning how to budget and save his money. Yay! He's saving up for his first car. He knows I can't buy him one, he also knows he has to pay for his own gas, insurance and maintenance.

I don't think that's the typical teen experience anymore, but I think it will serve him well in the long run. I wish folks would figure that out and get over the instant gratification mind set.

Well, I applaud you for involving your son in the "real world," which is what we do as well. In our state, when they turn 14, the kids can bag groceries so next year, my son will be doing that during the summer as well.

I agree with you about the cars. I see it all day long where I live and it sickens me. Trying to raise my three children to be good to others... to stick up for someone who is getting picked on.. to save their money... to be responsible for themselves.

I think so many people want most for their children to "be happy," but happiness for them is just chasing the dragon. For us, its being grateful for what we have and doing our best to help those we are able to help.

Having been lucky enough to give modestly to a couple of charities in the past... and not being able to do so now... really breaks my heart. I am the gal who, when I see somebody with an "I'm Hungry" sign -- always stop to give whatever (few) dollars I might have on me.

I hope and pray for you that you will find the assistance that you need for you and Nick, I fear it may come from the government, and that is not good. If we could get them out of our lives, I know my family could go back to the days where we could afford to give more. In the meantime, we volunteer at least every other weekend and are very involved in our community helping those less fortunate than us.

Stay strong and thoughtful, and hang on to that confident character. With you for a mom, he's going to be a wonderful man.

We don't have to agree on everything, but I will tell you that my fellow American citizens are not my enemy -- my government is my enemy.

Thank you - and to you as well.

If I'd asked my dad to buy me a car he would have laughed his azz off! He taught me to change the oil, the tires, check fluids. I paid insurance and gas. If I got a ticket and the insurance had gone up - my bad! I wish I had that car now!

I used to be able to donate cash to charities. Not so much now! I do volunteer at the food bank (and the kiddo goes with). One year was so bad I was on the other side of the food bank line and it was a painful experience. Being in flat out survival mode changed my perspective on a lot of things. I'd had a job since I was 15, and worked summers since I was 12. Didn't think it could happen to "me". Wake up. That was a stupid way to think. Now we're okay.

I do wish I could do more for him in the way of education. It would be nice to splurge on him once in awhile! When he wants something special, say his i-pod, we negotiate. He got a B average last semester so I split it with him. Things like that. (I had to save too. Whew!)

I am the gal who, when I see somebody with an "I'm Hungry" sign -- always stop to give whatever (few) dollars I might have on me.

I did that just the other day! My son asked me what if he buys booze or cigs or if it's a con? Hey, it happens. What if he is hungry? I can't judge that. I'll err on the side of being human.

Anita Bail Out

Having been lucky enough to give modestly to a couple of charities in the past... and not being able to do so now... really breaks my heart.

My father was blessed with enough money to keep the house running and give regularly to charities and our church. He was in so many ways a wholesome role model for my brother and me. Today I am unemployed but I have enough in my savings that I can still support a few charities charities and nonprofits like the Southern Poverty Law Center, and sponsor two girls in South America through Children International. Hun, you can take comfort in knowing that even though you are temporarily unable to give, many of us with your spirit are doing the work you would be had you the funds to do it.

I am the gal who, when I see somebody with an "I'm Hungry" sign -- always stop to give whatever (few) dollars I might have on me.

I lived in Manhattan for seven years. It appalled me how pedestrians could walk right past a needy person sitting next to a cup for donations. When I saw someone like that I'd take out my wallet and give a dollar or two. Then I'd look into their eyes and say something like "God bless you" before I went on my way.

I'll err on the side of being human.

My sentiments exactly.

Right wing wack jobbery you can believe in, lone wolves admitted without cover charge, now gathering at a tea party near you, formal dress, sheets required.

ScienceGuy-356641

Well, at least the GOP has their new 2010 campaign slogan: "The Republican Party -- status quo you can believe in".

Expect many braindead incumbents on both sides of the aisle to lose their seats in 2010. This isn't a partisan issue; both parties are infested with corruption and stupidity, and includes the dude in the Oval Office. Unfortunately it's gonna take longer to vote him out.

2010 is going to be really interesting for third party candidates. Neocons & NeopHrogs are on their way out. Its gonna be ugly, but time to cut the head off the beast.

Obamas slogan: Change we can believe in, after I get enough polling data to tell me what to say to not lose voters.....

Anita

2010 is going to be really interesting for third party candidates. Neocons & NeopHrogs are on their way out. Its gonna be ugly, but time to cut the head off the beast.

Agreed. I've been unemployed for nine years and have adapted to it, helped by the fact that I have no one to support. As more and more breadwinners lose their jobs, a consensus will build to "throw the rascals out" as my dad was fond of saying. It's a bit early in the game, but I expect a few candidates will emerge to blaze a trail to take back Washington and restore to the White House and Congress to agencies that serve the people first instead of themselves.

Brent-320354

Before Obama finishes his term, his polling numbers will make GWB's look good.

Well, at least the GOP has their new 2010 campaign slogan: "The Republican Party -- status quo you can believe in".

Obama is making the staus quo quite attractive. The Democrat party slogan will have to be "We're truly sorry for 2008 and the resulting atrocities, and we'll never be so forking stupid again, really, it's an apology you can believe in".

kiss

I channeled Bob Hope and he instructed me to detrack.

In obedience I do so now.

lulz & good summer to you

Oh!..but it's just O Frakkin K! for the Repiglicans to have 8 years to shove crap down peoples throats and still demand that right today AFTER the American people sad plainly...NO MORE!!! Get a CLUE rgh234!

Shroder, well put "the American people sad plainly". Obama is sad....

Brent..don't get so high and mighty! I misspelled "said" and you know it! I'm busy as usual and didn't proof read before I posted! Grow Up stop being a troll.

Easy,

1.) Eliminate the easy access to frivolous malpractice lawsuits. Cut the actual providers cost of doing business. Close the litigation angles for the get rich quick ambulance chasing attorneys.

I think there are some states that do have a cap on settlements/damages in malpractice lawsuits. One thing that cripples doctors is the cost of malpractice insurance. I'm unclear on the litigation angles. Could you explain?

2.) Allow new meds and procedures to hit the market in less time and trial basis that the FDA now has implemented.

Absolutely. I would also like to see the Pharmaceutical lobby slapped down, they are either #1 or #2 in lobbying expenditure. Wonder why drugs are so expensive?

It is not the property of the government to dictate the type of medicine they may practice, wages they will earn, and whom they must or may not treat.

Is this part of the proposal? Telling the docs who, what, when and where? Would they be covered for malpractice by the government as well and the need for insurance eliminated?

Profit is not evil

The profit rate of these companies is driving private businesses, individuals and all levels of the government broke. Corporations have but one purpose, to maxamize profits and without any control, such as the last 8 years, they have gone beserk.

If more people personally had to pay the full freight for their insurance, they would revolt. I spend over $18 k a year for two people. Twice the cost of any other nation. That is why people don't have money for new cars, appliances or anything else.

A public option would give them a run for their money and force them to reduce their 10 to 30% overhead rates. They sure as heck are afraid of some competition, arn't they?

Yes there is a problem in American health care. We ARE THE BEST IN THE WORLD, bar none.

Just wondering what objective standards you are using to make that claim? You certainly are not using life expectancy or infant mortality rates. We pay the most, I guess we are the best at that, but by any measured standard the health care we receive is near the bottom of the first world countries.

Please post a link to the studies showing America to have the best health care.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

The public option was tried with retirement savings...it's called social security; it is totally inadequate, bankrupt, and lacking any competition from the private sector because of the political loyalty a government hand out inspires

Who Stole Your Social Security and Why?

For some people retiring now and in the next few years, Social Security may represent the vast majority of their income. And yet, Social Security, which has been running a surplus…surplus…since 1984 is said to be running out of funds. How is that possible? Someone took the money and spent it. If I come into your house and take your money and spend it, that is called “theft.” I stole your money. The governments under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and enormously under the recent Bush stole your money.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan came into office promising three consecutive tax cuts of ten percent, plus a cut in unemployment and a balanced budget. Of course it was impossible, “voodoo economics” and he never balanced a budget nor did he decrease, but did increase, unemployment. In fact the average unemployment rate for Reagan’s entire presidency was 7.5%, a point-and-a-half higher than U.S. unemployment last year.

By 1983, it was clear that the slight shortfall in the Social Security system would need adjustment because by 2010 the baby boomers would retire and that would create huge deficits in the system. So the Democrats and Reagan agreed to a plan that would actually create surpluses. By 1984, the Social Security surplus was already $300 million, up from a minus of about $8 billion in 1982. It then quickly went up to $9.4 billion, $16 billion, $20 billion and in 1988, the year George H.W. Bush was elected, it was $39 billion. Eventually, surpluses would average well over $100 billion a year.

Who knew that a succession of Presidents of both parties would forfeit the trust and faith of the American People for political gain? Simply to make a budget deficit seem smaller in order to win an election, these cruel and cynical politicians spent the retirement savings of the elderly as surely as if Bernie Madoff had conned them into one of his schemes.

http://www.populistdaily.com/economics/who-stole-your-social-security-and-why.html

Spectator99,

The profit rate of these companies is driving private businesses, individuals and all levels of the government broke.

If the profic margins of these health insurance companies were as high as you claim, every investor, trust fund, venture capitalist would be setting up insurance companies. The fact that they are not means that the profits are not that great.

The real reason the price of health insurance goes up is that the population, in general, is aging and getting fat. The more old and fat people you have, the more medical expenses there will be.

The "experiment" that was a failure was the HMO model under Ted Kennedy in 1976; Private insurance worked before that, but Ted had a Utopian vision. Thanks, Ted.

Is it a class taught by the GOP - rewriting history 101??? Did Ted own Kaiser-Permanente?

I was sure that Richard Nixon signed the HMO Act of 1973 into law.

There's nothing in HMO that is bad, unless you count it's bastardization at the hands of megacorps in pursuit of quick, easy profits. But you could say the same for the entire US healthcare system on that score.

Ted Kennedy was the man behind the 1973 HMO act:

"As the author of the first HMO bill ever to pass the Senate, I find this spreading support for HMOs truly gratifying. . . HMOs have proven themselves again and again to be effective and efficient mechanisms for delivering health care of the highest quality."

IT IS with great pleasure that I today sign into law S. 14, the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973. This legislation will enable the Federal Government to help demonstrate the feasibility of the HMO concept over the next 5 years.

- Richard Nixon

Both sides now?

Simply put.

Best answer yet.

Did I hear somebody say something...did someone make an ingorant assumption about my knowledge?...

I think that depends on your definition of "ingorant"

I was wondering who would notice that and say something first...

Ever wonder why Republicans aren't holding live town halls on health care?

I would like to hear a republican plan. Let them take it out on the road so we can all evaluate it in the light of day. Can you imagine all the people coming forward and telling their stories of hardship?

The republicans could respond with how much they love America and freedom and so forth. Republicans could tell everyone losing their homes due to an illness how, optimistic they are about America. How everyone should be happy that they have the opportunity to die from some horrible disease in freedom and liberty. Golly we should be happy since the insurance companies have all this money. The republicans would get all choked up and shed tears because they would be so proud.

Just for the record, yes, I am mocking republicans. Why? Because they have failed America.

I am not sure the republicans would take time out for a town hall meeting discussing heath care concerns. Why?

Because republicans are cowards? They are not stupid.

Garyray,

Why no town hall meetings from Republicans? The simple answer is that there is no simple answer to the soaring medical costs of an aging population. We live in an age of Oprah where the solution to each and every problem is an open discussion with live TV.

Sober analysis and reading through books and pages of boring data are not exactly good for TV ratings but are a must.

The simple answer is that there is no simple answer to the soaring medical costs of an aging population.

Never thought it would be simple. Citizens understand this. They also understand that they need to be heard. Why won't Republicans listen to them?

garyray-501488

Never thought it would be simple. Citizens understand this. They also understand that they need to be heard.

That's what the tea parties are about. Why don't you go to one?

Paul Krugman, you know, the Princeton professor and Nobel Prize winning economist would disagree with you. So would all of my economics professors.

Please, I'd be interested to see your findings in your article, becaues if you did solid academic research you would probably come to different conclusions. Since the healthcare industry is dominated by a single company -- Blue Cross Blue Shield accounts for about 80% of the industry -- it hardly has "free market" conditions, leading to large deadweight losses. Not to mention the fact, as the OP pointed out, the sole purpose of their existence is to strategically NOT provide healthcare.

That's because the sole purpose of a firm is to produce a profit (according to neoclassical theory) and the only way insurance firms turn a profit is to strategically deny people coverage.

So basically, a well-informed economist would certainly say that when the free market works, it works amazingly well, (to quote one of my professors) but when it doesn't it needs government intervention. And there is overwhelming evidence that the healthcare industry is one that desperately needs government intervention.

I'm not arguing for the status quo. I realize it's broken. But just because something's broken doesn't mean that a particular suggested solution (i.e. single-payer or a public option) would actually work. While I admit that "we've gotta do something," I think we ought to be very cautious to make sure that that "something" doesn't do more harm than good. It is my argument, in the article I've written about a paragraph of, so far, that single-payer healthcare would not work, and by extension, we ought to be skeptical of a "public option."

The fact that various economists, even Nobel-prize-winning ones such as Krugman or Joseph Stiglitz, support one or the other of these plans is irrelevant. Quite obviously, there are many economists -- including my economics professors (albeit at a notoriously conservative school) -- who oppose non-market-based healthcare reform plans. Appealing to one particular expert's view of the issue and pretending that that view is dispositive is fallacious.

I primarily disagreed with your statement that anyone who is an economist would be displeased with a single-payer system. I merely pointed out at least one, who was in favor of a single payer system and carries much weight in the field.

I agree with you that the status quo must be changed, and I do agree that a single payer system would not produce an efficient outcome (according to neoclassical standards). However, a government run single payer system that covers virtually everyone is a more desirable outcome (in my opinion) than an oligopoly dominated by one firm turning a profit that leaves 50 million people uninsured.

Regardless, it is hard to argue against the assertions that for one, the healthcare industry does not have "free market" properties by any means, and second, it is the goals of any private firm to strategically deny covereage to people who need insurance most.

Regardless, it is hard to argue against the assertions that for one, the healthcare industry does not have "free market" properties by any means, and second, it is the goals of any private firm to strategically deny covereage to people who need insurance most.

Those assertions are both correct.

I primarily disagreed with your statement that anyone who is an economist would be displeased with a single-payer system.

I don't think I made that assertion. I see where you got it from, but, as a matter of set theory, I didn't say that.

And Obamacare is gonna kill you right to your face. With their plan, you get the painkillers instead of the surgery. Their "Thin The Herd" plan is going to solve social security and medicare with one fell swoop. The average American's life expectancy will plummet with his plan.

Thanks! They may be ignorant, but in their secret hearts, they love the idea of killing off the "old people." They want somebody else to pay for what they want. They covet what other have worked for. They don't think far enough into the future to realize that it will be their turn before you know it.

Hetep folks. Did you vote for Bush?

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall

Humpty Dumpty voted for Bush and had a great fall

Fool me once !@#$%

Hetep folks. Did you vote for Bush?

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall

Humpty Dumpty voted for Bush and had a great fall

Fool me once !@#$%

Isnt Obama the President now? and your point about anything re this subject?

Aunk (The Cultural Health Guy)

Did you vote for Bush?

Did you vote for Obama? He's Bush on steroids.

Lampell

Isnt Obama the President now?

Guys like Aunk can't stop bringing up Bush. They're like that lone Japanese soldier on an island somewhere in the Pacific still waging a war that ended a decade ago.

Somehow Rickace you think that because BushCo has left office we do not have deal with all of his failed policies. Time to stop chasing windmills and face the ugly present BushCo put us in.

JACK DEATH

Somehow Rickace you think that because BushCo has left office we do not have deal with all of his failed policies.

That's only the product of your fertile imagination. Bush added $5 trillion in debt and a useless war. When it comes to spending, anyone with a credit card can do better than he did.

and a useless war

Your body is not in the line of fire in BushCo’s useless WARs. What a sad commentary the day after the 4^th July.

JACK DEATH

Your body is not in the line of fire in BushCo's useless WARs.

Gauging from your avatar neither was yours.

What a sad commentary the day after the 4^th July.

There's no sad commentary in evidence. While you and your family partied for the Fourth, I struggled alone most of the day, with the high point being my aging aunt and our aging neighbor trying to figure out why her new Craftsman lawnmower refused to start. Today her son-in-law stopped by, diagnosed the problem (a blunder by me) and now that mower hums.

Life is good :)

Do not assume you know anything about me or my family assumption is the mother of all FickUP!!

I struggled alone most of the day

Hate to hear that. As insightful and wise as you are, you should run for office.

Hetep and Respect folks. thanks for your honest responses. I concluded the following.

1. You did vote for Bush - I did not

2. You are against New American "Health" Care for all Americans - I am for it

3. We agree to disagree

It was nice meeting all of you. good bye. If you see me in the future, I hope I see U first. :-)

Aunk (The Cultural Health Guy)

I concluded the following.

1. You did vote for Bush - I did not

I didn't vote for Bush or McCain, so wrong there. Hopefully you didn't vote for the trainwreck we have now.

2. You are against New American "Health" Care for all Americans - I am for it

I am against the government running amok, but apparently I'm in the minority as Obama's approval ratings remain high. I'm also against the feds running health care; I can testify from personal experience that the current system is deeply flawed, but the private sector must remedy that on its own. Our overreaching government must stick to governing and stop meddling in affairs it has no business meddling in like bailouts and the automobile industry.

It was nice meeting all of you. good bye. If you see me in the future, I hope I see U first. :-)

Yeah, just toss out a few lightweight remarks and scoot off. Dime-a-dozen leftie as if we needed any more of those.

Kathe Sarah

Republicans might be evil but they're not stupid.

I'm a Republican. Am I evil?

They don't and will never hold a townhall on health care,

Perhaps it's because they understand that government health care would be a disaster were it to be implemented during a wholesale economic collapse, and I'd agree with them on that. Or perhaps they understand that the U.S. healthcare machine would chew them up and spit them out if they tried to mess with it. The AMA, HMOs, pharmaceutical companies and tort attorneys are wealthy beyond measure and can buy votes in Congress to kill anything that would get them kicked off the gravy train. And speaking of town halls, Obama cut them out of his ABC infomercial. Any problem with that?

Learn to think critically and you'll see government and industry differently.

or anything else that involves reality

The Republicans are out of power so give it a rest already. The "reality" is that the nation is sliding into the abyss and the president and Congress are recklessly greasing the wheels. Are you cool with that, because I'm sure as hell not.

Rickace you do realize that you are part of the approximate 26% of people is this country that do not want some kind of Federal health insurance as an alternative. So really you do not count much in comparison to the majority but, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion.

If that number were true, and it's not, it would only mean 74% of people think they will get something for nothing, i.e., they are ticks living of the 26% who know federal government medicine spells the end of freedom and liberty for America as the government literally takes the lives of the into its hands in a day to day manner, and seizes a giant sector of the economy and runs even more of the earnings of the formerly free people of America through its bureaucracy. Or some portion of the 74% has no clue what is going on but votes any way, like they did in the Presiidential election. There will be no "alternative" federal medicine, just government medicine. It is malicious deception to even suggest the government will allow a private sector medicine or insurance once in control, because, after all, that wouldn't be "fair".

JACK DEATH

Rickace you do realize that you are part of the approximate 26% of people

You can't debate me with talking points.

So really you do not count much in comparison to the majority but, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion.

I could care less where I count.

KMA,

You really should just do a little home work and not just spout BS it makes you look really ignorant, here your buddy Drudge has a good link for you to read. Enjoy. HA

http://www.drudge.com/news/122203/poll-76-want-public-option-health-care

Rickace you do realize that you are part of the approximate 26% of people is this country that do not want some kind of Federal health insurance as an alternative. So really you do not count much in comparison to the majority but, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion

You do realize that Federal employees have private insurance? It aint cheap by the way, my daughter had that coverage, same as Senators. So when you suggest that 74pct want what the Federal govt gets you are actually saying yo are against government run health system. Obama had Blue Cross as a senator.

I said that 74% of Americans want a Federal Health insurance option.

KMA,

You really should just do a little home work and not just spout BS it makes you look really ignorant, here your buddy Drudge has a good link for you to read. Enjoy. HA

You post some dumbutt link to the Drudge Retort under a false pretense and expect to gain some credibility? Is that how your liberalism disorder started, malicious fakery?

The public doesn't understand the complexities of healthcare and healthcare financing any more than your god Obama who thought the little kid with asthma he made up would do better with care that kept him off of the "breathalyzer", no "inhalator", well whatever that thing that breathes for you is called. Just the kind of brilliance we need sabotaging the largest private sector industry in America and risking the health and lives of everyone in the country. You're in weak and dirty hands with BarryCare ObamaState.

I said that 74% of Americans want a Federal Health insurance option

My point was that most Americans dont know what that really is. You do. Of course most Americans would like a new car, as long as someone else pays for it:)

Lampell & KMA,

You two characters are just funny anybody who means other than the 26% that you belong to could care less about your fear mongering.

You two characters are just funny anybody who means other than the 26% that you belong to could care less about your fear mongering.

Yes I know it must be at my age that I have become stupid but I have to say, I have no idea what you are talking about. If trying to achieve universal health care is funny so be it. And I certainly dont know where the fear mongering in my posts is coming from either. I also dont believe I am a character though some people think I have a sense of humor:)

Rickace you do realize that you are part of the approximate 26% of people is this country that do not want some kind of Federal health insurance as an alternative

And the rest who want it, want it for "free"(free to them means they want somebody else to pay for it.) As long as we're workin' the numbers, 76% did not know Barack Obama claimed to have campaigned in 57 states. There ya have it.

Lampell -- You are highly intelligent, insightful and a diplomat, from what I've seen of you on the vine. Jack.... not so much.

And the rest who want it, want it for "free"(that means they want somebody else to pay for it."

ABO,

That is your opinion unless you can supply a link to back up your outrages claim which I seriously doubt.

Lampell -- You are highly intelligent, insightful and a diplomat, from what I've seen of you on the vine. Jack.... not so much.

LOL thank you, its what I say under my breath thats the problem:) I used to own an investment bank when I lived overseas and my main function was to bring in clients and give presentations that were short and to the point so people wouldnt fall asleep. Being nasty, arrogant wouldnt have worked too well.

76% did not know Barack Obama claimed to have campaigned in 57 states

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9htwW21K8s

still looking for the other one... but judging by your spelling abilities (outrages s/b outrageous), I know which percentage YOU fall in....

ABO,

You in enjoy yourself looking.

Anita,

As long as we're workin' the numbers, 76% did not know Barack Obama claimed to have campaigned in 57 states.

I can't find a source for that. Could you link one?

neenie.

It was from a zogby poll. I linked the youtube video. Still looking the poll (November 2008) and another link but check out the video.

When he misspoke and said 57 instead of 47? Really?

Didn't you see that? Heeeeere's Barry!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlXFnZdJs5Y

His words... 57 states with one left to go. He didn't go to Alaska or Hawaii because his staff wouldn't justify it..

I know what he said. I've seen the video. I've also read his statement later in the day. Check out Snope as well.

We believe it's clear in context that the evidently exhausted Obama was thinking out loud about the 50 U.S. states and how many he'd been to, with the intent of saying he'd been to 47 states, with 1 left to go, excluding Alaska and Hawaii.

Obama acknowledged the mistake later in the day, while also expressing concern that he may have also misstated the potential number of Burmese hurricane victims:

"I hope I said 100,000 people the first time instead of 100 million. I understand I said there were 57 states today. It's a sign that my numeracy is getting a little, uh..." [1]

"Maybe it's Obama's age. He's getting up there in his forties, you know," joked Andrew Malcolm of the Los Angeles Times.

In other words, it's a non-starter and was news only to people who wanted to make it so, and apparently to those who have never misspoken, been tired or want to beat a dead horse.

Well, nice of you to jump in there since I wasn't responding to you in the first place. In any case, the libs (not you) LOVE to blame and jump all over GWB, who also misspoke at times and is older than Obama.

No need to be nasty. Its a funny clip that makes him look stupid.

Anita

GWB was abysmally inept at speaking without a teleprompter. Based on that alone many of the clueless on the left pronounced him to be an idiot. I've seen clips of Obama getting tongue-tied as well, but I know he's far from an idiot. He's very bright and he has what I interpret to be a reckless and dangerous agenda. How he's going to be reined in I don't know, but it damned well needs to happen, the sooner the better. Same with Pelosi and her posse. One can only imagine the consequences of yet another piece of egregiously expensive and tragically flawed legislation like TARP or ARRA.

Speaking of funny clips, here's one of my faves.

How you doing today Rick?! I've seen that clip in emails. Really funny! Obama may not be an idiot, but none of us are really sure WHAT he is... no birth certifical, no transcripts, no disclosure of who paid for his education, no proof that he was ever even a professor (have you ever seen a student interviewed?) What we have here, is a lack of communication and a failure to disclose. Very disturbing.

pupon,

Have you any cogent arguments or points to make in regard to health care except for the fact that apparently it all went to hell in the 1970's with Ted Kennedy. You post snarky asides every 4th comment with the added value of?...

Just give her the link to your plan..

Yes but think how wealthy we've made (and are making) insurance companies and their CEOs.  Is it fair to take that away from them?

Burllap Mudflap

My insurance cost is $6000 per yr (basic coverage no dental or vision) with a $5000 deductible.

I want something better and I don't give a damn what they call it.

I'm unemployed and living off my life savings. You might consider my plan: no insurance, pay out of pocket. As the economy continues its collapse and layoffs escalate, I imagine millions of Americans will be doing the same.

rickace,

What will you do it something catastrophic occurs? This is one of the things (I feel) that we need to address. Currently 60% of bankruptcies are related to/a direct result of medical bills, which of course are ultimately passed on to everyone else. There are so many other issues related to the health care issue. You're right about the millions of Americans. What is the solution?

neenie1991

What will you do it something catastrophic occurs?

Heck if I know. Pay out of my savings probably.

Currently 60% of bankruptcies are related to/a direct result of medical bills, which of course are ultimately passed on to everyone else.

The cost of health care today is staggeringly expensive. I went to an ER in 2002 with chest pains. My stay was 28 hours, during which all they did was run some tests and then send me off to a semiprivate room and forget about me except at mealtime. $4,500 and no diagnosis. After that and several encounters with patronizing physicians, my opinion is the whole damn system is highly dysfunctional. Hopefully the economic collapse will jolt them back into treating patients properly again.

You're right about the millions of Americans. What is the solution?

That's the scary part. I can't imagine one.

rickace,

$4,500 and no diagnosis.

That is frustrating and ridiculous. I hope it was nothing serious. What was the result? Any trouble since then? I have chronic migraines. About twice a year I have an atypical one and end up in the E.R. I end up with a $1700.00 headache. They sometimes want to do a CT scan. The only reason I go there is if I have symptoms that are not the usual migraine- and I'm always leery of getting a battery of tests, but I'm not fond of the idea of a stroke either. It's a scary business. And I mean business.

I think (probably off-topic) an important thing for people to do is educate themselves and become there own advocate for their health care. We know more about our bodies, history and health than the doctor. They are not deities, they are humans 'practicing' medicine. It is up to us to ensure we are getting responsible and appropriate care.

That's the scary part. I can't imagine one.

Hence all of the tension and divisiveness. It seems like people agree that reform is necessary, but are poles apart at where to begin.

Hence all of the tension and divisiveness. It seems like people agree that reform is necessary, but are poles apart at where to begin

There really is no problem, everyone wants universal health care, just that nobody wants to pay for it with taxes

Lampell,

What other ways are there to pay for it? Do you mean premiums like you would have with a conventional insurance company? A sliding fee based on income? I'm trying to get a handle on all of the possibilities.

What other ways are there to pay for it? Do you mean premiums like you would have with a conventional insurance company? A sliding fee based on income? I'm trying to get a handle on all of the possibilities

Yes we subsidize those who dont have insurance based on their income. The lower the income the larger the subsidy. The U.S. already, as of March subsidizes those people who were laid off after Sept on their Cobra payments, paying 65pct of the premium. If we do not have a public option we can subsidize premiums more becaue the U.S. wont have to pay for 100,000 federal employees for the new public option agency. On the one hand the insurance companies will be getting more business because everyone has to have coverage and some will be subsidized to do so. On the other hand the insurance companies will be forced to take everyone regardless of medical conditons. When the state of California forced the insurance companies to "guarantee to issue" small businesses of 2 through 50 business increased for the insurance companies and many businesses that didnt offer insurance did so. Rates were unchanged. This happened in 1993. It is ironic that many people think that insurance companies make so much money, to which I would say, why are there states that only have one or two companies if it is so lucrative? Also people confuse not for profit companies with for profit companies, as those are the ones that receive the negative press with the CEOs obtaining those outrageous salaries.

neenie1991

That is frustrating and ridiculous.

Indeed, and infuriating. It took me a week to calm myself to the point where I could contact them to negotiate a lower price, pleading for mercy as I was unemployed and uninsured. They did come down to $3,000, but still. The care I got was worth nowhere near that much.

I hope it was nothing serious. What was the result?

Well here's what happened. Since I didn't have a primary care physician at the time, I asked the guy in the other bed who his was, and he gave me his doctor's name. I made an appointment - turns out he's one of the best if not the best doctor I've ever had, hella smart, hella friendly, and a peer not a patronizer - and he sent me for a stress test. When I told the cardiology practice I was unemployed and uninsured they immediately discounted their fee without my even having to ask. Great bunch of folks. I learned I was in excellent shape, no doubt because I'd been a distance runner for decades. Back to new my doctor who figured it was probably a very nasty virus. Doh!

Oh, and my father had a surgical procedure done at that same hospital. He was a retired federal employee and his insurance covered it all. But. He always paid attention to detail especially when it came to money because he grew up during the Depression. The feds sent him a non-itemized statement of the charges. Dad smelled a rat and asked for an itemized bill from the hospital. Turns out they billed the feds twice for a $3,700 procedure. Had he not looked into it, the hospital would have gotten that money. The hospital explained it as a clerical error, but I have my doubts. My guess is that once they found out they could get away with this stuff I bet they started doing it routinely. Unapolgetic American bank robbing icon Willie Sutton is quoted as saying "Go where the money is...and go there often." Thieves never go away, the just dress to meet the occasion. A few years back South Nassau Communities Hospital built a huge new wing onto its existing building. Gee, wonder where the money to pay for that came from? Me and the feds for starters.

Any trouble since then?

A few episodes, but now that I know what it is I treat it with OTC painkillers till it goes away. I'm saddened to hear you are having the same experience I did, and I hope you find a way to get the ER out of the loop. I got fleeced once and damn did it sting, but I'd be hella pissed if the mother@!$%#ers were able to do it on a regular basis. And you are right it's a scary business especially for someone out of work and uninsured. And those of us will mount as the collapse inexorably takes its toll.

That hospital I went to with chest pains was on Long Island. In March I moved to northeastern Pennsylvania. I have another condition and went for treatment a month or two ago. The doctor's PA wanted to hospitalize me but couldn't tell me what the cost would be. Then she said I had to go to the ER of a different hospital for a test, never mind there was no emergency in evidence, after which I'd be ferried (probably by ambulance $$$) to the treating hospital. PA didn't know the cost of the ER visit either. Either that or she was lying to my face. I had a bad vibe about her, as she stubbornly refused to consider any other treatment (and I know of at least one) whose price I could learn up front. So I get on the phone and ask for billing and explain my situation to the woman who answered and asked what the cost would be. She lied to my face and said she didn't know. I gave up and still suffer. No way in hell I'm going to let that twenty-something @!$%# PA and lying slacking bureaucrat in billing get a dime of my savings for non-emergency treatment. Let 'em earn their money on the damned street.

Then I'm talking with my State Farm agent (another totally cool professional I met when I had to insure my car in Pennsylvania) and she tells me about her boyfriend who was hospitalized overnight and tested, no treatment. $13,000 and thankfully his union had good insurance. And that's the better hospital in Wilkes Barre. When she heard BF was hospitalized she went to the other one by mistake. The woman in the ER could give less of a @!$%# about doing her job. My agent said never go there.

Good @!$%#ing grief! If I need major care I'm screwed, because it's coming out of my life savings. They don't give a damn about your financial situation, they just ding you for as much as they want.

I think (probably off-topic)

I'm a Republican and you and I are holding a town hall, so let's have at it :-)

an important thing for people to do is educate themselves and become there own advocate for their health care. We know more about our bodies, history and health than the doctor. They are not deities, they are humans 'practicing' medicine. It is up to us to ensure we are getting responsible and appropriate care.

Absolutely, and that's exactly what I've done. I now run the show. Doctors who either mistreat (patronize) or fail to treat (the PA) get the boot. I can't discuss the details of this experience, but about two years ago I had a guy (health care but not an M.D.) try to frighten me into consenting to be hospitalized immediately by telling me I was in imminent danger of death. Once he said that I knew he was full of @!$%#, and also knew I wasn't going to do any business with his thieving company. They prey upon people who frighten easily. How greedy and unscrupulous is that?

But I'm definitely with you on this one. Americans have dumbed down way since the days of my grandparents who didn't have pills and MRIs and Lasik and gamma knife and pacemakers and transplants. On dad's side of the family his parents had two kids and both not only lived through the Depression, but thrived thereafter. Mom's parents gave birth to nine kids and lost three, the other six made it. The only reason mom, Aunt Marie, and Aunt Anne aren't alive today is that they didn't take care of themselves. As you say we regard our doctors as dieties, with pharmaceutical companies as their evangelists ... TV spot: "ask your doctor about XYZZY". My dad and I had an "in" joke ... when we'd see that I'd intone a phrase from an old TV ad: "My doctor said Mylanta".

Hence all of the tension and divisiveness. It seems like people agree that reform is necessary, but are poles apart at where to begin.

I expect reform to arrive tumultuously. When the people in power (Washingon, the AMA, HMOs, big pharma, insurance companies, tort attorneys) run amok and there is no higher authority to appeal to, Mother Nature steps in and she doesn't mince words. I may be unemployed, uninsured and cloistered, but my edge is thinking critically. I've known this collapse was in the cards for years and continue to prepare for it, not merely to survive but also to feather my IRA with money donated by people who were too stupid to get out of the stock market when the getting was good. Unlike the greedy suits in Washington and the health care industry, I suffer daily have little to lose. When the American people turn on the pols and the suits, I'll be glued to the TV. Then it won't matter if you tune in ABC, MSNBC, or FOX :-)

rick

On the one hand the insurance companies will be getting more business because everyone has to have coverage and some will be subsidized to do so.

This would make it more competitive, or actually take it out of the equation because everyone has coverage and the there would be virtually no differences in the services offered. That didn't make sense. Hmph.

On the other hand the insurance companies will be forced to take everyone regardless of medical conditons.

That is one of the issues I'm facing now. To purchase an individual policy for my son now, it would cost (I checked again this week) $311.00/month, $1500./deduct and no prescription. That is 17% of my income. Due to a pre-existing condition, that he hasn't been treated for in 2 years. It's a mess. Now I'm looking into a catastrophic medical policy.

I didn't realize until recently that BC/BS was one part non-profit and one part for-profit. Live and learn.

rickace and Lampell,

I'm a Republican and you and I are holding a town hall, so let's have at it :-)

After watching this thread for the last 24 hours, I notice that when an actual conversation takes place or starts to, (like the back and forth between us) people seem to talk around it and not comment or even vote. This tells me that it's not being read or they're not interested.

It's more about you're right I'm wrong, Dems v. Reps, etc. And we (I) wonder why nothing gets done in congress. If I had a dime for every time someone said "I see your point on x, but I disagree on y and here's why." or " I never looked at it that way, how would x work? I don't see how it could be feasible." Well, I would probably just have a dime. Disappointing.

I didn't realize until recently that BC/BS was one part non-profit and one part for-profit. Live and learn

I never know what people know or dont know. If I am giving out information here and you already know it dont be offended.

Here goes. At one time back in the thirties Blue Cross was started by hospitals in order for them to get paid. The were not for profit. At the same time Blue Shield was started by doctors and was also not for profit, In fact in order to be covered by a doctor and go to a hospital you really needed both. Gradually in some states those two entities merged since it was a bit impractical to have both but they still remained not for profit. In California they are separate but both cover doctors and hospitals. One is for profit the other not for profit. Blue Cross of California, the larger of the two decided that they wanted to expand into other states and needed capital to do so. The state of California having their usual fiscal problems told Blue Cross, you can change your status if you pay us 800 million dollars. Blue Cross did so, became for profit, and merged with Anthem in Indiana, they now are in 22 states. One reason they did it was so they could cover companies that were themselves nationwide and at the same time it gives them more clout with drug companies, hospitals etc. It is these companies together with United HealthCare and Aetna that pay the big bucks to the CEOs and are nasty when paying claims. In a small way the state of California is responsible for letting Blue Cross get away with this. Blue Shield is a much smaller entity, remained true to the not for profit and its rates, even though they are a much smaller company has premiums 10 to 15pct lower than its competitor. There was a proposal considered in California that would limit overhead to no more than 15 pct. Blue Shield didnt have to oppose it since they were already way under that. Blue Cross, different story. Back in the old days a county or city hospital was actually that, owned by the city or county. Everytime one of these governemnt entities got into fiscal trouble they came up with the same idea, sell something off and then resent it when the corporate entity makes money. DUH why else would an investor buy it in the first place:)

So we have government mistakes, corporate greed etc etc.

The fix is to re regulate those insurance companies so that everyone can get affordable coverage, limit profits, no preexisting conditions but make everyone have coverage so that the pool is large.

So we have government mistakes, corporate greed etc etc.

No way!

The fix is to re regulate those insurance companies so that everyone can get affordable coverage, limit profits, no preexisting conditions but make everyone have coverage so that the pool is large.

And the premiums? How are we to define affordable coverage? How do we make everyone have coverage? I also still have concerns about the uninsured/choose not to be insured/illegals etc. that cost hospitals and doctors and ultimately us money. And I'm talking about myself as well, with an uninsured child. Isn't that part of the goal of a national health care system? ( I won't go into how immigration reform and health care reform go hand in hand)

And the premiums? How are we to define affordable coverage?

Countries that have universal health care dont really worry about people not wanting to be covered. Most are glad to be covered. No health card, no service. No insurance for your car, no car. Yes many people opt out of the system, thinking they dont need or want it, My own daughter and son, who are grown up tried to avoid having coverage. The 50 million figure they keep quoting si seen as all unfortunates who cant afford coverage. My son could afford an IPOD but didnt want coverge until he got married and planned to have a child. Now we get to what affordable is. A standard will have to be set, account for the area in which you live, account for your income and subsidize you on a sliding scale. Obviously to a person who has paid nothing even 50 dollars a month will be deemed unaffordable. In some states like Nevada and Arizona the rates are almost double what they are in California but I can assure you that a Calfornian wouldnt apprciate that fact. Whatevet the reform that is enacted will still leave millions dissatisfied one way or another.

Yes many people opt out of the system, thinking they dont need or want it,

I don't understand that, but I know that's true. I just think it's pretty shortsighted.

Obviously to a person who has paid nothing even 50 dollars a month will be deemed unaffordable.

I would dance in the streets!

Whatevet the reform that is enacted will still leave millions dissatisfied one way or another.

I don't think people understand that. There is NO way to make everybody happy.

If as many people are as confused as I am about single payer, subsidy, national v. private, the implications of a combination, etc. and fail to ask questions I can understand the anger and confusion. This is why I'm trying to sort it out in my own head.

Then we hear all of the bickering and BS coming from Washington and on the news and I think people throw up their hands and say there is nothing we can do, we're screwed and we are going to be stuck with whatever they decide to come up with.

Then we hear all of the bickering and BS coming from Washington and on the news and I think people throw up their hands and say there is nothing we can do, we're screwed and we are going to be stuck with whatever they decide to come up with.

The old saying about death and taxes are quite true. Whatever reform is put through someone ( you and me) are going to pay for it. If you are low income you will have a better deal than you have today. One step at a time.

ladies and gentlemen!! we have a winner!

Because Republicans are working and tending to their families and don't have time

They have to work two or three jobs to make enough to keep their health insurance premiums current.

We'd work ten if we had to. See, we like the satisfaction of actually PAYING for what we get. We understand that when the government says "free," it means that "somebody else besides you is gonna pay for it so who cares?"

That's the difference between us and you libs. We're not LAZY numbskulls who want what everybody else had to work for.

My bumper sticker says: Annoy a Liberal. Work Hard and Be Happy.

I am glad you like the “satisfaction” so keep PAYING for all that debt that BushCo racked up so Obama can get the rest of us back on track and not be bothered by what the Repub’s squandered.

Actually I'm going to a straight cash business so I'm keeping most of it. This month, we are paying off our house so no worries there. All that hard work has paid off!

Cash business drug dealing no tax worries? LOL

JACK DEATH

I am glad you like the “satisfaction” so keep PAYING for all that debt that BushCo racked up so Obama can get the rest of us back on track and not be bothered by what the Repub’s squandered.

Back on track? Damn you're blind. Didn't you notice what Obama did as soon as he took office? Within his first month as president he spent us close to $1 trillion further into debt with his "stimulus" which BTW is doomed to fail because the economy doesn't take its marching orders from the feds. He's Bush on steroids and you're busy making apologies for him. You validate everything Anita said in #27.1. How sad is that?

Do you remember when congress scared everybody into supporting a the Stimulus? They told us if we didn't do it NOW, we would see unemployment of 8% in 2009. With unemployment currently at 9.5% and climbing with no end in site, what is Obama's explanation? That without the stimulus, unemployment would already be 15%.

Bush on steriods is no lie. With Obama's moratorium on foreclosures and the jobless rate continuing to rise, bankruptcies are about to spike big-time. Who will he blame THAT on?

Health insurance companies only want people who will not get sick that hurts their bottom line and besides they only make 30% profit what the hell. Yes I have met payroll and have had my own corporation so that is a whole lot of BS. We are the only industrialized nation that pays this out rages money for health care and still we cannot cover everybody there is something very wrong.

I do not give a tinker damn if these health insurers go out of business I have paid more to them that I will ever get back.

In closing only a person who has no investments and someday will or already is dependent upon the government for their meager social security would not want a corporation to make a profit...because there is nothing in it for them.

Interesting ... and any healthcare business would not want someone born with an illness, or someone old because there is nothing in it for them.

I am not happy with his position on tort reform either. I was disappointed by his recent statements at the AMA conference, I believe it was. I think part of health care reform should include that. And surprise, I'm an evil liberal.

neenie1991

And surprise, I'm an evil liberal.

You're a smart liberal. Crusader is right on about the trial lawyers. Malpractice insurance burdens physicians with additional costs that they must pass on to their patients's insurance companies, or for uninsured people like me, the patients themselves. I'm all for clipping the wings of greedy victims and their attorneys to bring relief from the steep cost of healthcare.

Let's start with tort reform, flat tax (goodbye IRS), elimination of private campaign contributions (goodbye lobbyists), term limits (goodbye lifer politicians), and a constitutional amendment to balance the budget.

Alright Anita, explain how the flat tax would help the situation we're in.

How would an individual conduct a campaign? Are they only allowed to use their own funds?

If there are politicians that are voted into office by the majority of voters, why does it matter if it is their 1st term or 8th term.....aren't they being judged by their performance? Also, wouldn't you be creating all sorts of "lame duck" politicians?

Explain "constitutional amendment" and how it will affect our budget.....I need more detail...you can't simply say "balance the budget". How do all the "numbers" work out?

These are serious questions....maybe you have some real solutions.

DoctorLogic I prefer the "Fair Tax" over a flat tax. You can research more here than what I could summarize in a paragraph or two.

http://www.fairtax.org

Interesting concept and site...thanks for the link.

Do you have any other sources that support this as an idea? I'm curious (I'm not asking to be a wisea**, I'm always looking for unbiased opinions to support particular ideas).

How would an individual conduct a campaign? Are they only allowed to use their own funds?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political/CleanMoneyReform_PC.html

If there are politicians that are voted into office by the majority of voters, why does it matter if it is their 1st term or 8th term.....aren't they being judged by their performance? Also, wouldn't you be creating all sorts of "lame duck" politicians?

http://www.termlimitsforcongress.com/

Explain "constitutional amendment" and how it will affect our budget.....I need more detail...you can't simply say "balance the budget". How do all the "numbers" work out?

http://www.randpaul2010.com/blog/2009/may/balance-budget-dr-rand-paul

On the flat tax..

http://www.freedomworks.org/issues/flat-tax

Additionally, I would like to see tighter restrictions on illegals, a repeal of corporate and business tax, the elimination of capital gains taxes, a national sales tax, increased taxes on foreign visitors, and three years to write off capital losses against ordinary income, including 401K and pension losses.

I really don't have a problem discussing important social issues like healthcare, but I believe there is much government reform to be accomplished before we can tackle it. Government is corrupt. Republicans and Democrats alike. I'm sick of the waste, sick of the working class being extorted, subjugated and exploited.

Thanks again for the links.

My only problem with what I've seen is that they often don't address the problems that we're dealing with now....they're interesting ideologies, but, from what I've seen, they don't have the finite solutions to what we're dealing with in 'July 2009'.

Could you explain how the programs in the links you've provided will work better than the Obama Administration's? You know, kind of a 'compare and contrast'.

Could you explain how the programs in the links you've provided will work better than the Obama Administration's? You know, kind of a 'compare and contrast'.

Doctor Logic

Since the subject of this thread is health care you might wish to visit my site, lampell.newsvine.com and see some of my articles on the subject. My knowledge is from the finance side as that is what I did for 30 years. You may agree, you may not, but thats what makes a discussion. And have a happy 4th

Killfile I'm glad you don't claim to be fair and balanced...because your claim against Neal Boortz or the Fair Tax isn't anywhere near the truth or hold one shred of validity.

The fair tax has had more than 20+ million spent in non-partition studies since 1995. Neal Boortz wasn't even on the radar at this time. Boortz is not the author of this idea, or even a co-writer of the bill. He and John Linder, a Senator from Boortz's home state co-wrote the books based off the house bill (Bill H.R.25) that John Linder proposed years ago in 1999, . They were using only the facts and resources from permission of the Americans for Fair Taxation organization. Neither John Linder or Neal Boortz collected a dime on the proceeds of both #1 selling Fair Tax books. Instead giving all the money to charity.

Neal Boortz has had NO input of the facts & figures. He was merely a platform in getting the message through his nationally syndicated audience. Your assertion that he wildly came up with the tax percentage numbers dis-credits your ability to honestly convey a truthful opinion. I don't know where you came up with your wild figures, but you can research any thought or question from the link a few post above or begin here. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_research

Thanks Lampell. I enjoy reading your posts...you add an interesting perspective to things and (even though I may disagree with you on occasion) I respect your opinions.

I realize the original topic may have been health care but I was referring to the overall approach to solving problems. I am always open to ideas from either side, but I think any ideas should then be put to the same scrutiny.....logically, that's the only way you can make decisions about anything. I've heard some say that, "it isn't the job of the minority party to propose legislation." To me, if a party is going to sit back and say 'no' to everything, they should then present a different option addressing the very issues they viewed as a problem which caused them to vote 'no'.....I think that's reasonable, don't you think?

I've heard some say that, "it isn't the job of the minority party to propose legislation." To me, if a party is going to sit back and say 'no' to everything, they should then present a different option addressing the very issues they viewed as a problem which caused them to vote 'no'.....I think that's reasonable, don't you think?

It is very reasonable DoctorLogic. I think though that it's not a matter of having an idea, it's more of getting it to the floor for discussion to even getting a vote on to further committee. The majority and it's leader pick and choose what issues will be brought forth in becoming House Bills. The only real option is to stop or filibuster before reaching the floor.

When it becomes time to debate these issues/bills, any one representative is only given minimal time to bolster an argument or disagree. Maybe a politician could take his argument to the press, but further thought I would conclude that politics is just that...and if you don't play by the rules, you get nothing I.E. funding, earmark placement, committee seats, etc, etc.

It appears better served as a politician to rewrite or amend bills when their party has control than it is to make more of a stink when one first rears it's ugly head...and they're all ugly.

it's more of getting it to the floor for discussion to even getting a vote on to further committee

That's what they ALL do when in the majority, and what ABC did with the "town hall meeting." Stifle the other side and then blame them for doing nothing.

Dr Logic

To me, if a party is going to sit back and say 'no' to everything, they should then present a different option addressing the very issues they viewed as a problem which caused them to vote 'no'.....I think that's reasonable, don't you think

As you know there are two health care reform bills up for consideration in the Senate. Quite honestly I dont know how much input the Republicans contributed to the Kennedy proposal. I do know from reading news accounts that the Finance Committiee under Baucus is trying to have bipartisan support and the Republicn members of that committee have had major input in that bill. Any final draft from the Senate to go to the joint session with the House will more probably come from that comittee because that committee is the one who has to think about how to pay for it as opposed to the Health committee. The Republicans have come up with a plan, which the media has poo pooed because it didnt include a public option, which for some reason everyone thinks is necessary to keep insurance companies honest. The Republicans in the Senate are the ones who came up with the idea of not for profit co-ops to compete with the insurance companies and that yet may be considered by the Finance committee. Problem is that if a Democrat is seen to agree with a Republican these days, they have "sold out" to special interests.

Lampell,

The Republicans have come up with a plan, which the media has poo pooed because it didnt include a public option, which for some reason everyone thinks is necessary to keep insurance companies honest. The Republicans in the Senate are the ones who came up with the idea of not for profit co-ops to compete with the insurance companies and that yet may be considered by the Finance committee.

Actually, there are several other bills that is "floating" around in congress, as well. I disagree with you that the 'media' hasn't given coverage to the co-op bill....as a matter of fact, I've seen Grassley & Baucus interviewed numerous times about it.

Basically, what it comes down to is the same ole' argument....those who'd rather trust government and those who'd rather trust big business. Personally, I haven't seen anything about the co-op plan that makes me feel comfy about it keeping cost under control. I just think a government option makes sense....it is more controlled. But again, it is the same argument that has been argued on here hundreds of times....there is no way for either of us to make traction, it comes down to ideological differences.

I don't trust government OR big business. And I trust them less when the government takes equity positions IN big business.

ABO,

You need to understand the big money game for the whole world in which we have a big stake and if we fail look the hell out.

I just think a government option makes sense....it is more controlled. But again, it is the same argument that has been argued on here hundreds of times....there is no way for either of us to make traction, it comes down to ideological differences.

LOL I have been accused many times for having no ideology, I look at issues and try and figure the best way to get from A to B. It has worked for me for many many years. There is a system, albeit flawed, that is in place. Do I hire 100,000 people to set up a government agency to compete with private or do I take that "savings" and set up regulations to limit insurance company profits, force them to be more efficient, make them take everyone, mandate coverage etc. I would think that in a recession my fixing the boat is more practical than launching another boat along the existing one. Cost control will have to come whether there is private, public or whatever. Have no party affiliation, never have, am considered "liberal" on some things and "consevative" on others. I havent had to work for the past 20 years, I have two clients, me and my wife, I enjoy life, ride motorcycles everyday, work on my garden railroad and will be eligible for Medicare in 5 years,dont take things to seriously and believe me reform will not affect me one way or the other.

LOL I have been accused many times for having no ideology,

am considered "liberal" on some things and "consevative" on others.

There's no hybrid party. I tire of the labels. And towing a party line is not in my personality. I've voted democrat and republican. I get called a liberal a lot around here. Not in a good way. I can't express a view on an issue and not get pigeon-holed and b(#&%slapped at the same time. Wonder why people can't communicate. LOL.

There's no hybrid party. I tire of the labels. And towing a party line is not in my personality. I've voted democrat and republican. I get called a liberal a lot around here. Not in a good way. I can't express a view on an issue and not get pigeon-holed and b(#&%slapped at the same time

Not only dont I have a favourite party I dont have a favourite baseball team since watching a bunch of millionaires get traded each year holds no interest. I went to a football game years back, Oakland Raiders, vs Cowboys. One guy had a Cowboy jersey on and almost got killed, stupid if you ask me:)

You need to understand the big money game for the whole world in which we have a big stake and if we fail look the hell out.

Jackie Jackie. I do understand, honey. I understand that India, China and Russia are caucusing right now in order to come up with another currency reserve and dump the dollar. With all the printing printing printing of money and spending spending spending of that money, what do you think is going to happen when there is no longer a market for our debt (that's treasuries)?? After they screwed the Chysler and GM bondholders, why would anybody EVER buy a US Treasury Bond or Bill AGAIN???

The Bailout Bubble -- The Bubble to End All Bubbles...

The Bailout Bubble -- The Bubble to End All Bubbles...

Oh boy, Anita has her new catch-phrase. You should cite your sources...FOX?...Limbaugh?...Hannity?...Beck?

So, based on your statement, we DO agree that we were on a 'bubble & bust' type of economic system before this. If Obama has the wrong ideas, what would your plan be to 'fix' it?

If Obama has the wrong ideas, what would your plan be to 'fix' it?

Dr. that's an easy answer for me. I believe in the free market. I would of let them eat their own. If the business practices were of such not to survive...let them fold or where some find themselves now. Bankruptcy. The free market would have produced and demanded a model that could carry it's own.

Easy:

I understand what you're saying and it sounds nice, neat, and tidy the way you explain it. What you're missing is how interconnected some of these industries are...if the banks would've failed, we would've been looking at a global depression (especially with assets carried by AIG). If GM/Chrysler would've tanked, we would've been looking at potentially another 1.5-2.0 more million jobs lost. There is NO WAY we'd be looking at bottoming out in 2009 and recovery in 2010. We would be looking at years of spiraling and God knows how low we'd go.

You are 100% correct saying that these companies that don't provide a product people want should fail....absolutely makes sense. What SHOULDN'T happen is the US being held hostage due to the sheer size of some of these companies/industires.

Anita has her new catch-phrase. You should cite your sources

Ever heard of the self-proclaimed political athetist and economist, Gerald Celente? Take a look around the internet, Dr. Einstein.

http://www.rense.com/general85/bubble.htm

If Obama has the wrong ideas, what would your plan be to 'fix' it?

I'm getting a little tired of you asking me the same question over and over again on different threads. I have not ignored you. Asked and answered, with links, MANY times.

Welcome to my ignore list. You certainly earned it.

have not ignored you. Asked and answered, with links, MANY times.

Groovy! I loved the links from the right-wing screwballs that you've posted. Problem with those is they are simple ideologies....I could cite hundreds of those for me as well...anyone could.

What you continually avoid is FULL EXPLANATIONS of HOW these ideologies will help us in the situation we find ourselves in now(July 2009). You don't offer 'Obama has done this' and given the same situation 'I would do that'...then explain HOW it'll work. If you do, who knows, maybe you'll change my mind. If you don't, then you look like some puppet that doesn't have a grasp of the situation....you're actually doing a disservice to yourself.

Anita, you're nothing special because you're not the only one who avoids these questions.

Wow, you have an 'ignore' list....that's a great way to get things accomplished(what are we, 12 years old). Unfortunately typifies what you appear to be....just one more ideologue with no real solutions.

DoctorLogic

I understand what you're saying and it sounds nice, neat, and tidy the way you explain it.

Capitalism isn't complex. That's one of the reasons it's successful.

What you're missing is how interconnected some of these industries are...if the banks would've failed, we would've been looking at a global depression (especially with assets carried by AIG).

And you know this how? Politicians and economists told you? Politicians are known for their self-serving lies and economists are abysmally poor forecasters. I'd much prefer the banking industry which actually knows about banking step in to treat the problems. Instead the arrogant and inexperienced feds forced their pointy little noses in where they didn't belong.

If GM/Chrysler would've tanked, we would've been looking at potentially another 1.5-2.0 more million jobs lost.

It will happen anyway. This collapse is far from over. The feds are merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

There is NO WAY we'd be looking at bottoming out in 2009 and recovery in 2010.

I find this graph highly amusing. First the economists at the CBO actually believe their own bull@!$%# that the "stimulus" will have a mitigating effect. Second they show things beginning to improve mid-2009 which is where we sit today. They are in for a rude awakening when the stock market resumes its slide into the abyss and the economy follows it. 2008 was just the opening act. There's much more to come.

We would be looking at years of spiraling and God knows how low we'd go.

Correction: we are looking at years of spiraling and God knows how low we'd go.

BTW I've been reading Anita's posts for a while here, and whereas she has real game, all you can muster is anticonservative bigotry, name calling, and one of my favorite nonsense words, "ideology". I'm a right winger and unlike you I think critically and eschew talking points. Let's see if you can debate me on this and argue successfully for bottoming out in 2009.

rick

Look at your statements you just made....almost all of them are made with assumptions that 'things aren't working' (you do realize that its been all of 5 1/2 months and less than that for some of these programs) and that all politicians and economists are "self serving liars". There definitely are some, but to say they ALL are is another easy way of painting all with a broad brush.

You are making these brilliant crystal ball predictions that show us falling into the abyss(your words). I am NOT going to say you are an idiot simply because you disagree with me (Lord knows I don't have all the answers), but, for me to believe something other than what Obama is proposing...I have to see logic and reasoning. Therefore, I'll pose the same question to you that I posed numerous posts before....you seem to be very sure of your ideas (call them ideologies or whatever you'd like) then you need to explain how your ideas would best serve us now. Explain to me how your ideas are different than Obama's and explain HOW they would work better. That's all I've been asking.

There is alot more to "debate" than ripping down other ideas. Problem is for the right wing right now, they have the burden of proof....prove it me that what Obama is doing is wrong. Without that proof, how am I supposed to know you're not just some whack job that hated Obama before he was President?

Explain to me how your ideas are different than Obama's and explain HOW they would work better. That's all I've been asking.

If a government admits that they "misread" the economy you have to wonder if they are also misdiagnosing the symptons and prescribing the right medicine and when the solution is to give it time and come back 5 months later with another dose, one could say it could lead to an overdose. Perhaps Congress should take a vacation for 6 monts, take a course in finance or get a job and then come back and look like things over again. Not all problems are solved by throwing spaghetti against the wall.

Sounds good Lampell, but as it stands now, they are the only one providing any ideas that are able to be scrutinized. At the time they took office, their decisions were made based on the information used by everyone at the time. Is it reasonable to think its possible that something might have been "misread" (which is cherrypicking a statement made by Biden in an interview...Obama restated it in a later interview). But, nevertheless, even if you buy the 'misread' line, in concept their ideas are still correct. If the Repubs would've had some ideas at the time the stimulus was passed, perhaps, I'd give them a shred of credibility now. But at the time things were tumbling down, they stood there silent. Now, all of a sudden, they're the experts....I don't think so.

I guess until I hear some logic that explains different ideas that will work and work within the situations we're in now, I have no problems putting my faith in the Obama Administration....he's the only one offering solutions (or offering up the pasta in your analogy).

until I hear some logic that explains different ideas that will work and work within the situations we're in now, I have no problems putting my faith in the Obama Administration...

There was a group of famous musicians who got together with no plan, made one album and were considered some of the best musicians of the time, The record company gave them a huge contract even before they had written a single song. The group didnt even have a name for thier group. When they got the money they decided to call the group "Blind Faith" Making this up, google them.

The Fed already spent 9 trillion as in 9 trillion dollars, get that? 9 trillion dollars as in almost equal to the entire national debt of 11 trillion. And we need a 787 billion stimulus? and another one? Some people think Congress just had to do something to make people feel better. 9 trillion isnt enough. If you say Biden mistated that misread, then why is the House Majority Leader pushing for another stimulus.

Lampell,

Could you outline where you get the 9 trillion figure? I looked all over for it and can't find figures that are even close to that.

DoctorLogic

Look at your statements you just made....almost all of them are made with assumptions that 'things aren't working' (you do realize that its been all of 5 1/2 months and less than that for some of these programs)

If you're referring to the "stimulus", it isn't working because it can't work. The economy is autonomous and does not take its marching orders from the government.

and that all politicians and economists are "self serving liars".

I didn't say that. It's only your distortion.

You are making these brilliant crystal ball predictions that show us falling into the abyss(your words).

My father forecasted the weather, I'm forecasting economic conditions. I don't consider that "brilliant", merely supported and well reasoned. You see I don't blindly swallow all the bull@!$%# that comes from politicians whether they know it's bull@!$%# or are just parroting someone else.

I am NOT going to say you are an idiot simply because you disagree with me (Lord knows I don't have all the answers), but, for me to believe something other than what Obama is proposing...I have to see logic and reasoning.

Read the article I liked in #34.26. Plenty of both in there.

Therefore, I'll pose the same question to you that I posed numerous posts before....you seem to be very sure of your ideas

When it comes to the economy, I place far more faith in my own reasoning than I do in anything cooked up Washington.

Explain to me how your ideas are different than Obama's and explain HOW they would work better. That's all I've been asking.

I have few ideas on the subject as I'm hardly an expert on operating the government. As a general one though I'll say the government should focus on its job: governing. Tampering with the private sector no matter how noble the reason, cannot improve things in the long run and will likely leave us worse off. By tampering I refer to the bailouts of last year, the stimulus, the billions showered upon Detroit, and the annexation of GM. Not one of these should have been done, and every one can come back to bite us.

There is alot more to "debate" than ripping down other ideas. Problem is for the right wing right now, they have the burden of proof....prove it me that what Obama is doing is wrong.

I can't prove anything. All I can do is argue, and I did. Read that article.

Without that proof, how am I supposed to know you're not just some whack job that hated Obama before he was President?

I can testify that I do not hate the man. I'm not a bigot, and I don't comdemn anyone based upon political party. And I am most certainly not a "whack job", as you could conclude by reading the article I linked.

Could you outline where you get the 9 trillion figure? I looked all over for it and can't find figures that are even close to that

About 2 weeks ago Mandelman posted a video from YouTube that featured a congressman from Florida questioning the Inspector General of the Federal Reserve. He basically asked her three questions, one can you tell us about profit and loss for the two trillion dollar balance sheet that the Fed now has, 2: could you tell us where the bailout money and 3 could you tell us where the 9 trillion dollars went as reported in a Bloomberg, needless to say the Inspector General couldnt answer any of it, she said she would look into it. Fact is under an obscure law, designed to protect the Federal Reserve they dont have to answer to Congress on any of their dealings, which is probably why Congress is now calling for an audit. I hate looking up links as I usually have a photographic memory when it comes to finance. I guess if you look in Bloomberg archives you will find the figure. Wont change your mind about anything though, I can tell:)

Dr Logic

Here is the link to the You Tube Video re the Fed and their trillions

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXlxBeAvsB8

Enjoy

Lampell

The first twenty seconds of that vid were all I needed to hear. This vid was staged pure and simple. Pol to Bernanke pawn:

Have you done any investigations in the Federal Reserve's role in deciding not to save Lehmann Brothers which led to shock waves that went through the entire financial system?

1) Unless the chairman is Jesus the Federal Reserve doesn't "save" anyone
2) Shock waves? Really now?
3) The entire financial system? How many banks closed their doors?

The first twenty seconds of that vid were all I needed to hear. This vid was staged pure and simple. Pol to Bernanke pawn

Well lets face it, all congressional hearings are "staged" and that was a congressional hearing with 1 million hits on YouTube. You werent impressed by the Inspector Genera's answers. She was clueless and she had people helping her being clueless.

Lampell

You werent impressed by the Inspector Genera's answers.

I didn't get that far. After the first twenty seconds of listening to the pol I knew there was nothing of substance coming and clicked it off.

She was clueless and she had people helping her being clueless.

That's because the Federal Reserve is clueless. I'm not quite sure when that began, but by the time Greenspan was chairman it was a done deal. He was nothing but smoke and mirrors and the entire nation fell for it. Bernanke is more of the same. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear though and eventually the Fed will fall.

I do not think that is what happened with the stimulus plan and cap and trade bill.

And that for me is the scary part, act first think later. Once you spend your credit on a new car it can be quite expensive if you later realize it wasnt the right one.

If you think that people in Congress don't read all the bill, then you are stupid okay. That is another talking point okay. Please people think about it. It amazes that some of you people think that members of Congress doesn't read the bills. Wow

If you think that people in Congress don't read all the bill, then you are stupid okay. That is another talking point okay. Please people think about it. It amazes that some of you people think that members of Congress doesn't read the bills. Wow

Calling someone else stupid, well maybe Forest Gump is, doesnt really advance your argument. Most congressmen rely on the committiees for guidance and yes their staff read the bills. How many people in Congress read Tarp, where they were going to remove toxic assets off the books of the banks which never took place only to be upset that it was used to pump in capital into banks. I for one am glad you are amazed. How many people can read something and not have a clue about what it says, like say an adjustable rate mortgage and then blame the big bad bank. How many Congressmen could work on a 635 page health care reform bill in a committee and be "shocked" at its cost after working on it.

bigmeat42, the members of congress have said themselves that they didn't read the bill. disagreeing with facts don't change the facts.

frostyone

bigmeat42, the members of congress have said themselves that they didn't read the bill. disagreeing with facts don't change the facts

This would hardly be the first time a Viner made up something and posted it as though it were a fact. Fortunately we can easily find links to debunk it. Anita posted two in #37.

rickace, yeah I see stuff like that all the time and can't believe that they think they won't be called out on it.

Here are a couple of sites where democrats admit they don't read the bills...OKAY??

LOL almost looks like we are double teaming on this one:)

LOL... I was a financial analyst once upon a time. Been raising my kids for 13 years and train horses now. WAY better chi...

Anyway, Lampell, do you know about the warrants that were also included with the TARP? Never heard a word on the MSM about them.

the stimulus bill was over 1,000 pages long and was posted on the government website at 10pm the day

I think it was bedtime for bigmeat, it must have been tough:)

Please... that is crap okay. So it was only 10 pm and none of the Reps read the bill. Then the people who didn't read the bill read to be fired okay. That is no excuse. Maybe the Reps had better stop having affairs and do their damn jobs. Once again some Reps did read the bill because the Reps had out their own pork in it. Save that drama for someone stupid