Healthcare "Reform" is nothing but a Pork Barrel Corperate giveaway.

http://www.mrbrklyn.com/resources/obama_healthcare_pork.txt

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/repeal

 

This Yuval guy is an idiot. Explain the process of repeal to me so I can see how it is going to happen. It flat out isn't going to happen and the reactionaries like Yuval will eventually have to come back down to planet earth and figure out how the process really works.

 

Holy crap! You mean Obama isn't going to sign a measure repealing his own healthcare bill? That is startling.
Hey..I'll bet the RNC is asking for donations to "repeal health care". (aimed at the southern based right wing folks who probably believe that it can be repealed...cause "they said it on TV"). Yeah that permanently over tanned dude with the painted on hair said so, so it must be true! LOL.

 

He's smater than you are. Maybe you should actually READ the article and understand that the bill will not reduce healthcare costs.

 

From Bad to Worse

To see why nothing short of repeal could suffice, we should begin at the core of our health care dilemma.

Conservative and liberal experts generally agree on the nature of the problem with American health care financing: There is a shortage of incentives for efficiency in our methods of paying for coverage and care, and therefore costs are rising much too quickly, leaving too many people unable to afford insurance. We have neither a fully public nor quite a private system of insurance, and three key federal policies—the fee-for-service structure of Medicare, the disjointed financing of Medicaid, and the open-ended tax exclusion for employer-provided insurance—drive spending and costs ever upward.

The disagreement about just how to fix that problem has tended to break down along a familiar dispute between left and right: whether economic efficiency is best achieved by the rational control of expert management or by the lawful chaos of open competition.

Liberals argue that the efficiency we lack would be achieved by putting as much as possible of the health care sector into one big “system” in which the various irregularities could be evened and managed out of existence by the orderly arrangement of rules and incentives. The problem now, they say, is that health care is too chaotic and answers only to the needs of the insurance companies. If it were made more orderly, and answered to the needs of the public as a whole, costs could be controlled more effectively.

 

Conservatives argue that the efficiency we lack would be achieved by allowing price signals to shape the behavior of both providers and consumers, creating more savings than we could hope to produce on purpose, and allowing competition and informed consumer choices to exercise a downward pressure on prices. The problem now, they say, is that third-party insurance (in which employers buy coverage or the government provides it, and consumers almost never pay doctors directly) makes health care too opaque, hiding the cost of everything from everyone and so making real pricing and therefore real economic efficiency impossible. If it were made more transparent and answered to the wishes of consumers, prices could be controlled more effectively.

That means that liberals and conservatives want to pursue health care reform in roughly opposite directions. Conservatives propose ways of introducing genuine market forces into the insurance system—to remove obstacles to choice and competition, pool risk more effectively, and reduce the inefficiency in government health care entitlements while helping those for whom entry to the market is too expensive (like Americans with preexisting conditions) gain access to the same high quality care. Such targeted efforts would build on what is best about the system we have in order to address what needs fixing.

Liberals, meanwhile, propose ways of moving Americans to a more fully public system, by arranging conditions in the health care sector (through a mix of mandates, regulations, taxes, and subsidies) to nudge people toward public coverage, which could be more effectively managed. This is the approach the Democrats originally proposed last year. The idea was to end risk-based insurance by making it essentially illegal for insurers to charge people different prices based on their health, age, or other factors; to force everyone to participate in the system so that the healthy do not wait until they’re sick to buy insurance; to align various insurance reforms in a way that would raise premium costs in the private market; and then to introduce a government-run insurer that, whether through Medicare’s negotiating leverage or through various exemptions from market pressures, could undersell private insurers and so offer an attractive “public option” to people being pushed out of employer plans into an increasingly expensive individual market.

 

But in order to gain 60 votes in the Senate last winter, the Democrats were forced to give up on that public insurer, while leaving the other components of their scheme in place. The result is not even a liberal approach to escalating costs but a ticking time bomb: a scheme that will build up pressure in our private insurance system while offering no escape. Rather than reform a system that everyone agrees is unsustainable, it will subsidize that system and compel participation in it—requiring all Americans to pay ever-growing premiums to insurance companies while doing essentially nothing about the underlying causes of those rising costs.

Liberal health care mavens understand this. When the public option was removed from the health care bill in the Senate,

**** Howard Dean argued in the Washington Post that the bill had become merely a subsidy for insurance companies, and failed completely to control costs. Liberal health care blogger Jon Walker said, “The Senate bill will fail to stop the rapidly approaching meltdown of our health care system, and anyone is a fool for thinking otherwise.” Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos called the bill “unconscionable” and said it lacked “any mechanisms to control costs.” ****

BINGO!!!!!!!

 

Indeed, many conservatives, for all their justified opposition to a government takeover of health care, have not yet quite seen the full extent to which this bill will exacerbate the cost problem. It is designed to push people into a system that will not exist—a health care bridge to nowhere—and so will cause premiums to rise and encourage significant dislocation and then will initiate a program of subsidies whose only real answer to the mounting costs of coverage will be to pay them with public dollars and so increase them further

BINGO AGAIN!!

The problem is that so much NOISE has occurred that no analysis of the actual IMPACT of the law or the proposed bills had been fleshed out, with either a LIBERAL or a CONSERVATIVE solution. Instead we have strengthened every trigger for run away healthcare costs and undermined the working poor, while making American Businesses increasingly vulnerable to the biggest line item on their books, EMPLOYEE helthcare costs. which will accelerate the need to use Chinese labor or markets with socialized medicine for production.

 

Maybe you should actually read my comments and tell me how you and this Yuval mastermind plan to repeal this law. How would either of you do that? I don't believe that there is actually any honesty on the Right to even want to reduce costs so why would I bother to challenge your assumptions. If the Right wingers really wanted to reduce costs, they would have supported the public option instead of defending the insurance industry.

 

You know Mr. Burglar, when you steal somebody else's writing and you don't bother crediting them, its called plagiarism.

http://weeklystandard.com/articles/repeal

I'm sure that the Weekly Standard wouldn't appreciate you posting their entire article as your own words nor would the moderators here at CoinTalk. Copy write infringement and all...so messy.

 

Moen,

The Republicans don't have any interest in reducing the costs and the Democrats don't really want to fix healthcare. The Democrats wanted to pass some worthless healthcare legislation for political gain and the Republicans wanted to stop them for political gain. As long as both political parties continue to use political gain as their primary motive, the loser will always be the same, the citizens of the United States of America.

 

To some extent you are exactly right. I don't have blind faith in either party but some individuals that are represented by the Democratic Party are stand up people and I support them and hold my nose and support their party even while knowing it is just a compromise of my ideals at best. I'm sure people on the other side feel exactly the same way about the people they support. Its sort of like when they ask people if they like public schools and a large number of people say no but when you ask them if they like their public schools, a large number of people say yes. The negative perception of the whole institution doesn't always translate to a negative perception of the individuals in that institution.

 

Oh wow, you really are a hypocrite, aren't you? You plagarized Pelosi & didn't give her the credit until I called you on it, right?

 

You sure he's smater? Don't think he's very smat. Smaty pants.

 

He doesn't know. I think he wants you to do your own legwork. He probably doesn't have the time nor the inclination to blah,blah,blah.

 

You know, I'm going to let you have that delusion. By the way, it is spelled "plagiarized" and you can't plagiarize the spoken word. Plagiarism is stealing somebody else's work or written material. I merely repeated a quote Nancy Pelosi made during a news conference the day before without acknowledging that she was the one that made because I didn't know if she was the one that made it originally or if she was quoting someone else's words. In any case, if you ever adhered to this standard you seem to hold me to, your posts would all look like, "Government takeover" Fox News, "Obama lied" Fox News, "Socialists" Glen Beck, etc.