2009.11.05
GOP Health Care 'Reform'
Remember back when the Republicans were complaining a lot about President Obama's budget, then unveiled a budget of their own that was lacking only one thing: numbers?
Well, those rascally Republicans are at it again. Now they've released a health care reform proposal that is lacking only one thing: reform.
The Republican proposal won't ensure insure significantly more people (leaving about 52 million Americans uninsured by 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office). It doesn't prevent insurance companies from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. Oh, and it doesn't lower the deficit as much as the Democratic plan.
As Matthew Yglesias summed it up, the GOP has come up with a plan that "works better for people who don't need health care services, and much worse for people who actually are sick or who become sick in the future. It's basically a health un-insurance policy."
RSS feed 
How cute with the " " on the word reform.
Another attack on republicans. What a surprise. Yawn.
The same republicans that just overwhelmingly won 2 gubernatorial elections in states that went to BH0 only a year ago.
Yep, this party is way out of touch with what the people want....
Comment by Bob H — November 5, 2009 @ 11:22 am
Sounds like a better plan the the Democrats. Last report I read was that based on the bills they were putting together after spending countless dollars we don't have the majority of the "uninsured" would still be "uninsured" after 10 years of "reform".
The Dems want to revamp an entire system in which 80% of the participants are don't want it revamped.
Here's an idea, how about both parties just stay out of the "reform" business and instead remove the restictions that keep the system from addressing costs through the free market?
Wow!! Less government, what a concept!!
Comment by Richard S. — November 5, 2009 @ 11:27 am
BTW,
This comes from the same bunch that said the republicans didn't have a plan at all. Credibility anyone?
Comment by Bob H — November 5, 2009 @ 11:41 am
There appears to be typos in the third paragraph:
ensure - insure first sentence
It doesn't ~ensure~ insurance companies from discriminating against
Comment by Uptheriver — November 5, 2009 @ 11:48 am
You're right, Up. I'll fix, though the second correction should be: It doesn't ~prevent~ insurance companies from discriminating against ...
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 5, 2009 @ 11:51 am
@Bob #3: "This comes from the same bunch that said the republicans didn't have a plan at all. Credibility anyone?"
Uh, until they released this a couple of days ago, they didn't.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 5, 2009 @ 11:52 am
Not true Dan, and you know it.
R's had health care plans they couldn't get out of committee. Numerous links have bene posted on numerous health care BLOGS by the RTLEB before about those plans.
I know you are a better journalist than that....
Comment by Bob H — November 5, 2009 @ 11:57 am
Bob,
Individual Republicans have offered proposals. This is the first proposal with the backing of Republican leadership - the first proposal that could be said to be THE Republican health care plan.
And it is pitiful.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 5, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
@8 at least it isnt socialist !
Comment by pammala — November 5, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
#9 I feel like a teacher at a chalk board, you must write 50 times our President is not a socialist. Or maybe a TV show that says, those right wingers say the nuttiness things.
Who know? But they are in their own world and reading the scrip word for word. Maybe they think if they say it enough times people just might believe it.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 5, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
10 ok, oh right..marxist, my mistake, 0bamas own words but every time I post it it gets deleted...
Comment by pammala — November 5, 2009 @ 1:04 pm
#11 If you are quote my President well then please do so, I am sure it might make the news. But the rant of the right is like a broken record, we all know the song but that does not make it real, at least here on earth.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 5, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
#8 Pitiful because you say so?
Coming from the same source that praised Deeds transportation "plan" I think that source can be properly discounted.....
Comment by Bob H — November 5, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
Bob,
We never praised Deeds' transportation "plan." We criticized his lack of specifics, but praised him for at least being realistic about the need for new revenue.
Slam us all you like, but at least attempt to be factual.
And, no, pitiful for the reasons I described in the post: it will leave 52 million Americans uninsured and offer no real reform of the insurance industry.
It's a pitiful, do-nothing plan.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 5, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
The GOP's Plan:
Cost: $61 Billion
The Dems Plan:
Cost: $1.8 TRILLION
Comment by T Witten — November 5, 2009 @ 2:19 pm
@15
The GOP's Plan:
Cost: $61 Billion
The Dems Plan:
Cost: $1.8 TRILLION
That might be because the Republican plan wouldn't insure 95% of the 47 million Americans without health insurance. That's some plan, alright.
Comment by Art Hill — November 5, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
AMA, AARP endorse House health care reform bill.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/05/health.care/index.html
Comment by Art Hill — November 5, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
#14, Dan
Here's the link: http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/220182
Show me the RTLEB criticism of Deeds in this piece. It says Deeds has been criticized but show me where you guys criticized him.
Comment by Bob H — November 5, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
Here's idea, if the GOP is so dead set against the health plain, well, lets take away their government health plan that they already have and see what they say. They sure could save the government some money.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 5, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
@Bob #18: Show me where we praise his "plan" in that editorial. We praise the approach and say it has a chance of resulting in a palatable, bipartisan solution, but acknowledge that "McDonnell might still find cause to criticize Deeds for failing to offer bullet points for funding transportation."
As I said near the beginning of the campaign, I think Deeds would have been better off formulating a specific plan and running on that. He thought the chances of actually getting something done on transportation would be better if he worked with the legislature to come up with a plan. I still think it was the wrong approach, but it was not unreasonable.
It was also, unlike McDonnell's, at least somewhat realistic.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 5, 2009 @ 3:06 pm
#17 - AARP endorsement? AARP members are quitting because of it.
Comment by Patrick — November 5, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
What, the AARP members who want the government to keep its filthy hands off their Medicare?
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 5, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
Dan #14 "We criticized his lack of specifics"
Dan #18 "Show me where we praise his "plan" in that editorial"
Earth to Dan: SHOW ME THE CRITICSM YOU SAID YOU LAID ON DEEDS IN THIS EDITOTIAL.
Dan, is this how you answer specific questions? By throwing back to me to answer a question you ask without ever answering the question I asked?
I will be glad to show you the "praise" just as soon as you show me the criticism that the RTLEB levied on Deeds. Hint: I know this is hard because it ain't there.....
BTW, virtually NO ONE, could read that editorial and not take it as praise to Deeds from you guys. No need to split hairs, it is an affirmation editorial. That was the intent and that was how it was written.
Comment by Bob H — November 5, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
Bob,
That's not the only editorial we wrote on the issue. I linked to a column I wrote criticizing Deeds. In the endorsement of Deeds, we wrote, "Deeds could have shown more political leadership by putting forth a specific proposal with clear sources of revenue."
Yes, we said what Deeds proposed was better than what McDonnell proposed. That remains true today.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 5, 2009 @ 3:27 pm
Art #16
An neither does the Democrats plan. After 10 years the Dems plan still has 15,000,000 Americans unisured. Wow!! What a plan that is.
Comment by Richard S. — November 5, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
@ Dan #22:
Gee I sure hope the government gets involved. I heard from a wise man that there's enough waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare to pay for helthcare for everyone else in the country!
When, oh when, will the government finally get involved and clean up that whacky program?
Comment by Mike — November 5, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
@Richard #25: "After 10 years the Dems plan still has 15,000,000 Americans unisured. Wow!! What a plan that is."
Better than a plan that would leave 52 million uninsured by the same point in time.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 5, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
@ 16
"47 Million Americans"
I beg to differ?
http://realclearthinker.com/2009/10/28/47-million-lies/
Even 0bama stopped using that number and now says 30 million. Gotta refill your cup of kool aid Art! They changed flavors a couple months ago.
Comment by Walker — November 5, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
Some interesting facts from the World Health Organization, the USA ranks 31st in the world with life expectancy. 37th in infant mortality, 34th in maternal mortality rate, and American woman is 11 times as likely to die in childbirth as a woman in Ireland.
So why is the party of NO (GOP) not getting on board? I wonder if it has anything to do with all that money insurance lobbyist are pouring into their pockets.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 5, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
#22 - "What, the AARP members who want the government to keep its filthy hands off their Medicare?"
No, Dan, the members who can see that the plan is a disaster and refuse to give their money to the organization if it supports it.
Comment by Patrick — November 5, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
Also - I can vouch for not carrying Health Care because I didn't think I would need it when I was 20 to 35. From the time I was 28 until now (9 years) the only time I have had full health care benefits was when the company I worked for paid for it in full, which has been a total of 4 years. I never thought I needed it. Thankfully I was right. It was always offered - but I didn't want to pay for something that I may or may not need. Now that I am getting older I am willing to pay for it.
Comment by Walker — November 5, 2009 @ 3:59 pm
Of course, that is part of the problem. Virtually no one except the media was paying any attention to the governor's race on 8-2-09 so expecting someone to remember your "criticism" of Deeds from back when it really didn't matter is a bit of a reach.
But more than that, the link you provided has MORE criticism of McDonnell than it does of Deeds. See the quotes below:
" I may be naïve, but I think that if asked to choose between the shell game presented by McDonnell and a genuine plan to provide secure and long-term funding for vital infrastructure, Virginians would do the right thing"
Calling McDonnell's plan a shell game is a crticism of Deeds?
More: "Maybe I'm being too hard on Deeds. McDonnell's plan, though long on specifics, falls well short on feasibility. It's mostly a collection of failed proposals to raid the general fund and short-change other important priorities such as education."
This is critcism of Deeds?
And still more: "But that's the most we've come to expect from the type of Virginia Republican McDonnell represents."
This is criticism of Deeds?
And it goes on:" Deeds, as a legislator, has cast tough votes on this issue for years."
How is that criticism of Deeds?
And then this little gem: "During his first gubernatorial debate against Bob McDonnell, Deeds rightly criticized the Republican's transportation plan as nothing but "robbing Peter to pay Paul." How is saying that Deeds rightly criticizing Mc Donnell a criticism of Deeds?
Or maybe this one: "Maybe it's well placed, but Deeds' shy-on-specifics strategy demonstrates a fundamental lack of faith in Virginia's electorate." Calling it "well placed" but "shy on specifics" and saying it demonstrates a lack of faith in the electorate is a criticism of Deeds?
BTW, I don't see you calling the electorate in this piece the fickle bunch you alluded to when endorsing all those democrats in that post the other day. In this piece you indicate the electorate are pretty smart.
It turns out they were....
Comment by Bob H — November 5, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
@29
Yeah, Bill! America sucks! Where is the honorable Rev. Jeremiah Wright when you need him. God Damn America! Land of the Greed, Home of the Slaves.
Comment by Walker — November 5, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
Bill..those infant mortality rates are bogus..WHO doesn't have a consistent time period country to country when plotting infant mortality.
I'm not saying our numbers are wonderful but other nations don't have anywhere near the minority populations we do. If one looked at our WASPs vs there WASPs in health numbers there's very little difference.
Comment by BUD — November 5, 2009 @ 4:07 pm
For several years when I was in college, I did not have any health insurance either. I was partly covered under the military plan my dad had, but that expired and I went about 4 years with no insurance coverage until i got a full-time job that offered it. Other than a couple of minor things, I haven't needed it either, but my wife has, so I keep the coverage. Otherwise, if the market prices for service were even remotely affordable, I would have cancelled the plan years ago, put that money in savings, and just paid out of pocket as things came up...kind of like the HDHP's out there. I think the figure of uninsured is vastly overstated with illegal immigrants and the willingly uninsured being lumped in to make the number seem a lot worse. I have a feeling when you get down to it, there might only be 1/3 that total amount that needs coverage, wants it, and has trouble getting it. Why we're trying to completely overhaul what we have to accommodate those folks, and poorly do so if all the news articles are right, I don't know. This is a definite case of bad legislation trying to help a small number of folks, but to the vast detriment of the rest of us. Yes we have some problems, and lets fix those first and then see where things stand.
Comment by Other John — November 5, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
@30
Before you start howling, remember, Media Matters is no more biased than Fox Noise.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200908190050
Comment by Art Hill — November 5, 2009 @ 4:27 pm
@34
those infant mortality rates are bogus...other nations don't have anywhere near the minority populations we do. If one looked at our WASPs vs there WASPs in health numbers there's very little difference.
What's wrong with this picture? You have ten seconds starting...
Comment by Art Hill — November 5, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
@31... Walker...
I have carried health insurance from day one regardless of age. Even at age 22 (when I came off my parent's policy) I considered it reckless and irresponsible not to have some form of catastrophic insurance coverage.
Some may like playing russian roulette...I didn't.
I've read and re-read the plans from both sides. The Democrats...want to revamp the whole shooting match...The Republicans want to put a band-aide on a gash the size of Texas.
I heard someone speaking today and forgive me for not being able to quote the source but I would agree that removing the state barriers of insurance coverage would be a good first starting point.
I would think that for younger people, pooling of those groups into lower risk categories could provide coverage at reduced rates given their general health and well being.
Insurance companies are not a friend of anyone. Their basic goal is profit...not healthcare. They never have been about healthcare.
Until healthcare is converted to a not-for-profit industry, we'll always have problems.
Comment by Will — November 5, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
#33 You are getting a bit out there and no to your rant. But that is how you guys lose a lot of folks when someone points things that can be better in this county. So, if you think they are just fine then you might want to take off your rose colored glass or go with those tea baggers. I am sure you would fit right on in.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 5, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
removing the state barriers of insurance coverage would be a good first starting point.
Actually not. It would allow insurance companies to relocate to the most industry friendly states and force you to buy inferior insurance at inflated prices. Also, open enrollments for high-risk patients would be eliminated, (Anthem is required by law to insure all applicants in the Commonwealth, regardless of medical history, as a condition of doing business in the state.) adding even more Americans to the roles of the uninsured. The only thing that will keep the industry in line is a robust public option offering an alternative to the monopoly they have enjoyed for decades.
Comment by Art Hill — November 5, 2009 @ 5:13 pm
#37..well don't keep us in suspenders, ART ..tell me/us what's wrong.
Comment by BUD — November 5, 2009 @ 5:15 pm
My question is why would we trust the CBO? They're the people who said tort reform would save the system a scant $11 billion while every other estimate puts the figure at $100 to $200 billion.
And in case anybody missed it, the House Speaker appoints CBO presidents. Nancy Pelosi put in leftwing crony, Douglas Elmendorf, previously an economist at the Brookings Institution. That tells you all you need to know about the CBO's "findings".
Comment by Suzie — November 5, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
Art..oh I see I used there instead of their in post #34..thanks for pointing that out..now is THERE anything else?
Comment by BUD — November 5, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
@Suzie #42: Funny how everybody trusted the CBO when it said the original House bill will add a trillion dollars to the deficit.
I think I'm detecting a pattern: If the CBO agrees with you, it's nonpartisan and trustworthy. If it says something you disagree with it, it's obviously partisan and not to be trusted.
And, oddly enough, I don't think that just applies to the CBO.
The Congressional Budget Office is nonpartisan and trustworthy - whether it agrees with you or not. It's numbers are accepted by both sides of the aisle.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 5, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
Pelosi breaks her pledge to post the bill for 72 hours. Gee, imagine that...ANOTHER Dem leader breaking a pledge.
I wonder why she changed her mind? Could it be the bill is a disaster and she's afraid to show it to the public? I wonder if she's hiding something?
Nah...that can't be it.
Comment by Patrick — November 5, 2009 @ 7:26 pm
Why hide it anyway? Who has time to read a 2000 page bill in 72 hours? And exactly why does this bill need to be almost 200 pages in length? Sounds like the start of another tax code, and we all know how well that works.
It is a common practice in corporate lawsuits, particularly whan a large company is sued by an individual. When the other side files a discovery motion that will include something the company knows will be damaging if disclosed, they bury the incriminating document(s) in reams of irrelevant paperwork, knowing that because they did include the items covered by the motion they have complied but also secure in the knowledge that because it was buried amongst thousands of other documents, it is unlikely to ever actually be found and used against them.
One has to wonder what might be hidden in a 2000 page law. Sounds like the start of another tax code, and we all know how well that works.
Comment by Another Chris — November 5, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
Dan,
I've never said the CBO was trustworthy at ANY time during this adminstration. Prominent conservatives thought the CBO's price tag analysis for this fiasco was laughably low. I laid out reasons why their results are questionable. Their leader is an ultra-liberal hack with a long history and his findings on tort reform are dramatically out of whack with other groups' findings.
I sense a pattern too, Dan. You take as gospel every liberal organization's pronouncement and deny it could possibly have a bias; whether it be the UN, WHO, IPCC, EPA, Fact Check, The Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, or the Nobel Committee.
Comment by Suzie — November 5, 2009 @ 9:55 pm
Suzie,
Elmendorf worked was a protege of economics professor Martin Feldstein, the director of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan. Sounds like quite the "ultra-liberal hack." In his long tenure at the CBO, he was part of the team that helped scuttle Clinton's health care plan because they concluded it would cost far more than Clinton claimed.
Yep, quite the liberal hack. Why would anyone trust him over someone as obviously unbiased as you?
Again, the bottom line is this: The CBO, whoever appoints the head, has developed a well-earned reputation for looking at the numbers and presenting as dispassionate and objective an analysis as possible.
You are, in fact, the only person I've ever seen dismiss their analysis out of hand.
Forgive me if I don't find that convincing.
Comment by Dan Radmacher — November 5, 2009 @ 10:06 pm
Nice try Dan, but Feldstein was just one of several members of the Harvard faculty on Elmendorf's thesis committee. So was Larry Summers. Elmendorf NEVER worked for Feldstein, as you imply. He did, however, work for the Clinton administration. He was an assistant at the CBO and on a team that found Clinton's health care numbers impossible, a verdict not all that earth-shaking. Then the guy went to work for Brookings, which is an extreme left think tank.
Now his CBO is saying only 12 million would apply for the gov't option over the next 10 years, a laughable claim, in addition to his lone-wolf undercutting of the effect of tort reform. TR, as we've seen, is a primary component of other countries' systems that have lower cost than ours. The guy's clearly a hack.
Comment by Suzie — November 5, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
Let's see, it doesn't reduce the deficit as much because it DOESN'T RAISE PEOPLE'S TAXES, and IT DOESN'T RATION EXISTING CARE, and IT COSTS A FRACTION AS MUCH AS THE DEM'S PLAN. Who wouldn't like that? And who couldn't claim to reduce the deficit by whatever magnitude they want by placing inordinate burdens on citizens and denying them healthcare that they would normally have had? Democrats get EVERYTHING backwards. No wonder RT endorsed candidates failed this election.
Comment by Jim — November 6, 2009 @ 10:08 am
You guys bragging how you have not needed insurance are part of the problem. Yea, you were lucky you did not get sick or have an accident. Those like you that did get sick costs the rest of us plenty in additional insurance costs for the medical care you get through emergency rooms and can't pay for. It costs the economy plenty when you file bankruptcy because you can't pay your medical costs. Wow, you really take the cake.
Comment by Richard — November 6, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
Richard, I never cost anyone other than myself anything. I used the emergency room once and paid that bill in full, otherwise I just went to the doctor like normal and paid the bills when they arrived. Now, maybe some folks were deadbeats and never paid up, but I was not one of them. Being a poor college kid with no insurance, there was no way I could have afforded coverage without the employer-paid portion. I mean heck, I had furniture made out of cinder blocks, used Army ammunition crates, racing slicks, and stuff I got at Goodwill! But, I paid my bills because I never let my debts lapse or go unpaid.
Comment by Other John — November 6, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
But had you had a catastrophic illness, Cancer, car accident, etc. you could not have paid. That is the point, those "deadbeats" are you with the illness you were lucky to avoid. You were extremely lucky to have avoided such.
Comment by Richard — November 6, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
#52 I hear your point but what happens when you have to put your house up and you have to sell all that you have to stay alive. It is very common and my question would be are you happy with that?
I am not saying I have the big answer to it all but there is something very wrong and it has to be fixed.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 6, 2009 @ 2:14 pm
What it boils down to folks is one very simple fact:
You're (we, you and me) are all going to pay for the cost of health care regardless of the form in which it takes. We'll either pay for it through health care premiums or additional costs for the health care we need (to cover the ones who don't have health care or we'll pay for it through a national health care system.
We've been paying for the uninsured and under insured since day one through higher costs at doctors and hospitals.
It's a matter of moving the money from one side of the equation to the other.
Comment by Will — November 6, 2009 @ 2:53 pm
55 Will - that is correct. Except, for many, it comes down to doing with out medicine and non-emergency care as they can no longer afford it. Consequently, they wait until it is an emergency to seek any type care; be it the elderly, the poor, the middle class with out coverage, the college student (Other John), or the illegal.
Comment by Richard — November 6, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
"That might be because the Republican plan wouldn't insure 95% of the 47 million Americans without health insurance"
The ORIGINAL reason for reforming Health care (at least 0bama's reason) was to LOWER the COSTS. It was pitched as a way to save the economy. Remember when 0bama used to call it "Health Care reform"?
Phrasing it that way really ticked people off, so he changed it to "Health Insurance Reform".
The GOP has NEVER said, "we are going to cover everyone with a UNIVERSAL GOVT. plan". This new GOP plan is about LOWERING the COSTS.
You know, the ORIGINAL idea?
The PELOSI/AbomiCare suicide pact RAISES costs and LOWERS quality for all. Not to mention it is totally un-sustainable without killing us with TAXES.
Comment by T Witten — November 6, 2009 @ 3:01 pm
I know the GOP Bill isnt perfect, nothing is. But, I'll be damned if I want the GOVT. in control of whether I live or die. Especially THIS government.
The Dems need to pull the GOP in an talk to them.
Comment by T Witten — November 6, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
57 Obama's plan which you opposed, required everyone to pay toward their health care by having coverage. Even the porrest person or illegal would pay something toward their treatment by being required to have coverage. That was a socialistic take over by the government. (Yet you complain when not everyone pays taxes.)
Everyone should pay something toward their healthcare (have insurance)and that would lower the cost for those of us paying all of it now. That was Obama's plan, but the Republicans and many Democrats fought it tooth and nail.
Comment by Richard — November 6, 2009 @ 3:22 pm
58 T Witten, I can't believe you still believe that Teaparty myth. Never in the proposals to decide whether yo live or die. In fact, the plan allows you to keep the same health care you have now only it attempts to lower your rates. That is a really bad gov't for you.
Comment by Richard — November 6, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
@56...Richard
I've seen many folks choose between food and medicine. It's an awful choice to have to make and when they wait until the emergency room is their only alternative...we pay for it there.
I found it interesting that a lot of insurance companies now are saying that if you go to the emergency room and your maladie is not considered an emergency (and I wonder who's going to make that determination), then the insurance company will not pay for the emergency room visit. Wonder where that cost will land?
Comment by Will — November 6, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
@58...T Witten
Tell me precisely what the difference is between an insurance company telling you what they will and won't pay for versus a government run health care program telling you the same thing?
Neither one doing it is right and I feel more comfortable that the government would be less prone to do it than an insurance company.
Comment by Will — November 6, 2009 @ 3:36 pm
The Dems need to pull the GOP in an talk to them.
The GOP lost their right to talk when they used photos from Auschwitz to score cheap political points. The Party of No has become the Party of No Shame.
Comment by Art Hill — November 6, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
#58 They have been doing just that but the GOP is becoming the party of NO to anything the President is working hard to do.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 6, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
T Witten,
What makes the Gov't that much worse than a board of directors who actually personally profit on whether you live or die?
Just curious why you have faith in people who get paid (sometimes more by denying healthcare) rather than people who don't get bonuses if they meet certain quotas and criteria for quarterly earnings.
Comment by scott — November 6, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
@60
"the plan allows you to keep the same health care you have now"
Really? What happens if you policy changes at all? Richard, you need to READ Pelosi's bill.
@62
If the govt controls your HEALTH care...Can you be as outspoken about them, if you disagree, as you would normally? I dont think so. Thats not even touching on the utter inefficiency and incompetence of the federal govt.
Art, if the Dems DON'T bring them in to talk...it is political SUICIDE.
Why do you think the Dems are SO up in arms that nobody in the GOP will back their plans? They need political cover.
The GOP has no power in this. The Dems could pass it on their own...why arent they? Why Art, why? If it is SO good.
Comment by T Witten — November 6, 2009 @ 4:16 pm
@ Will #62:
"Tell me precisely what the difference is between an insurance company telling you what they will and won't pay for versus a government run health care program telling you the same thing?"
A couple glaring differences include:
-If I do not like my insurance company, I can switch. Might it mean changing employers? Sometimes. Do I have a choice? Absolutely.
-If I choose not to have coverage from a private company, which was the case when I was 22 and bullet-proof, I accept risk. If I choose not to have coverage acceptable to the government, I could pay a tax or go to jail (at least in HR-3962; the Senate version removed such language).
Comment by Mike — November 6, 2009 @ 4:54 pm
@66...T Witten
Why would I not be as outspoken under one plan as I would another? There's no logic to that.
As for efficiency...insurance companies can take up to a year to pay a claim. I know because it took them that long just to process a dental claim. Is that efficient?
Comment by Will — November 6, 2009 @ 5:00 pm
if the Dems DON'T pass a bill with a public option by reconciliation, if necessary...it is political SUICIDE.
Fixed your typo.
Comment by Art Hill — November 6, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
@#66 T Witten Wrote "The GOP has no power in this. The Dems could pass it on their own...why arent they? Why Art, why? If it is SO good."
-----------------------------------
Because the GOP has scared so many people who, like you, have no real idea of what is in the bill, people who are screaming out insults and labels, that the Democrats are worried they will lose their jobs due to GOP fear mongering and misinformation creating a backlash.
The GOP - along with their talk show mouthpieces has plenty of power in this - The same power they used for the last decade - Fear and mis-information.
------------------------------------
@#66 T Witten Wrote "If the govt controls your HEALTH care...Can you be as outspoken about them, if you disagree, as you would normally? I dont think so. Thats not even touching on the utter inefficiency and incompetence of the federal govt."
You can complain to a politician, and if enough do so, change occur - Try that with the CEO of a private insurance company.
"utter inefficiency and incompetence of the federal govt"? Guess that means we should privatize The Armed Forces, The NSA, The CIA, The FBI, The IRS? I mean if they can't run health Care should we be trusting them to administer the laws? Our Nations Security? Our Nations Secrets? Our Nations Taxes?
Hmmmm.
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 6, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
@68 As for efficiency...insurance companies can take up to a year to pay a claim. I know because it took them that long just to process a dental claim. Is that efficient?
crap company ya got there, I get mine processed and completed in a few days...
Comment by pammala — November 7, 2009 @ 9:36 am
#58 They have been doing just that but the GOP is becoming the party of NO to anything the President is working hard to do.
Comment by Bill Hudson — November 6, 2009 @ 3:56 pm
I will definitely say "NO" to this.....
http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583
Comment by Jim W. — November 7, 2009 @ 12:02 pm
I'm going to add my two cents to this debate. I find it dubious that there are so many supporters of healthcare reform. I haven't seen them on ANY news network to the extent of the rallies OPPOSING this bill.
Also, isn't it ironic that the very people who will eventually be FORCED to BUY insurance are the very ones that can't afford the healthcare in the first place as a member of the "uninsured"? And if you don't BUY, you'll be penalized. So either way, the "newly insured" class of citizens will be forced to be responsible for carrying their share of healthcare costs; be it direct or indirect.
Has anyone considered increasing the tax breaks for not-for-profit hospitals to provide more "charity care" for the uninsured? Has anyone considered a "Work for Coverage" program that would exemplify the "volunteerism" that Obama promotes?
Why does ANY healthcare reform have to be packaged as a "free handout"? Why is the government taking away incentive and pride in achievement through these proposals?
It is disconcerting to be a tax-paying citizen with a good insurance policy that may be in jeopardy as competition is thwarted by BIG Government's buying power; and my personal liberties regarding my own healthcare being restricted or stripped.
I take pride in my work ethic and my ability to strive to achieve to provide for me and my family. As a tax-paying citizen, it is demoralizing to know that those taxes I work hard to pay are being converted into subsidies that promote reliance on the government.
As a tax-paying citizen, it is frustrating that my "employees" (Congress and Senate) have become arrogant, corrupt and unwilling to listen to valid debate and concern. It is frightening that America is falling into the trap of governmental control by their increasing their reliance on he same.
Yes, healthcare COSTS need to be reformed. Yes, the uninsured are a concern and need assistance. But to impact the entire citizenry as well as provide coverage for illegal aliens (JOE WILSON WAS RIGHT- HE LIED!) is just poor judgement and an ill-advised governance.
Comment by Proud2B@TeaDrinker — November 10, 2009 @ 8:48 pm
It is disconcerting to be a tax-paying citizen with a good insurance policy that may be in jeopardy as competition is thwarted by BIG Government's buying power; and my personal liberties regarding my own healthcare being restricted or stripped.
"I've got mine and to Hell with you" is not a valid argument.
Comment by Art Hill — November 10, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
Proud #73,
The reason you haven't noticed many 0bamacare supporters is because there aren't many. See, this bill has nothing to do with what the people want; it has nothing to do with people's health it has only to do with securing long-term power for Democrats, and health care is the vehicle which will open the door for total control. 0bama, Pelosi, and Reid could care less that only 42% want this fiasco.
Comment by Suzie — November 10, 2009 @ 9:57 pm
@74. I was not speaking in terms of argument, just my opinion and concern. But if you wish to "choose sides", show me in the Constitution where it says I have to pay for yours.
Comment by Proud2B@TeaDrinker — November 10, 2009 @ 10:03 pm
Art 74,
""I've got mine and to Hell with you" is not a valid argument.
Nor is "I neglected to get mine, so I'll steal yours" a valid argument.
Comment by Suzie — November 10, 2009 @ 10:29 pm
@75
Suzie, you continue to deny reality on so many fronts. The majority of polls show strong support for both reform and the public option. The reason you don't "see so many supporters" is that they don't sell soap or have millions of dollars in corporate backing. BTW, is your "O" key broken?
@76
Show me where it does not. But we'll leave those interpretations to the pros.
Comment by Art Hill — November 10, 2009 @ 10:51 pm
@75...Suzie
Don't stand there and preach that the Republicans aren't consumed with the obcession of wanting long term power over the country. Otherwise, why would they be screaming and yelling like they are.
Neither group really seems to give a rat's A$$ about the long term well being of the nation. It's all about control for the next 4 years or the next 8 years. The only ones who reap are the handlers of the politicians on both side. The handlers do their level best to get someone elected regardless of the good or the bad it does for the nation.
I doubt seriously that there has been an original thought to come out of Washington or Richmond since about 1955.
Comment by Will — November 10, 2009 @ 10:54 pm
Suzie wrote " Nor is "I neglected to get mine, so I'll steal yours" a valid argument."
Theft. Hmmmn.
The fact that Millions of Americans cannot afford health insurance due to insurance companies pricing them of of the market is a valid reason for creating a system to provide these people with an alternative.
Sounds Like to conservatives, Social Security is theft. Wonder how they would feel about Mom, Pop and Grams becoming their responsibility.
Sounds like to Conservatives, Medicare/Medicaid is theft. Wonder how they would feel if they were Stuck with Mom, Pop, and Grams medical bills?
Hmmm, sounds like paying taxes to support Government programs that one doesn't agree with is theft. Carried to the logical conclusion, we should only pay taxes for things we agree with.
So, conservatives feel healthcare is theft, they shouldn't have to pay taxes to support it. Liberals should also stop paying taxes for programs they don't agree with, Like the wars in Afganistan, Iraq. Like the military bases around the world - bring them all home.
Wonder how long the government, and society would survive if everyone who decided being taxed for something they didn't believe in was wrong, and just stop paying?
Wonder how long wealthy people would survive the defunding of the Police?
Wonder how long those who own stocks would survive the defunding of the SEC, and other regulatory agencies that prevent insider trading?
Theft is easily seen as different depending on ones viewpoint.
Why should everyone fund your protection simply because you cannot fund your own private protective force?
You neglected to get yours so why should you be allowed to steal the funding from us?
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 10, 2009 @ 11:25 pm
Proud2B@TeaDrinker wrote "@74. I was not speaking in terms of argument, just my opinion and concern. But if you wish to "choose sides", show me in the Constitution where it says I have to pay for yours."
Right here:
-------------------------------
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
------------------------------
And they thought so highly of that term "General Welfare" they included it twice in the constitution, first in the Preamble as the statement of intent, laying out the purpose and intent of this proud document, but again under section eight which outlines the powers granted to congress.
----------------
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
---------------------------------------------
The power was first upheld in Chief Justice John Marshal's Supreme court, and has withstood numerous challenges over the last two hundred and fifty years, each challenge being knocked down, and the power of congress to levy taxes for the necessary functions of government and the American society being reaffirmed in every one of them.
This power was realized by several of the drafters of the Constitution, Such as Gouverneur Morris, James McHenry, Alexander Hamilton, and it is indicative in theirpapers that indeed the General Welfare clause meant to confer the power on the Federal Government to tax and spend on purposes outside of those enumerated in the constitution.
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 10, 2009 @ 11:39 pm
Will 79
"Don't stand there and preach that the Republicans aren't consumed with the obcession of wanting long term power over the country.
The very essence of conservatism is a weak central government and thereby little inherent power for its leaders. This is a paradox foreign to liberalism, whose leaders benefit when government gets more powerful.
Conservatism is the most selfless type of leadership. Think of it. When conservative leaders do their jobs well, the populace is the most self-determining it can be, the treasury is as small as it can be, and therefore leaders have as little power as is possible. The only way they get reelected is to continue to defer their own power and stay out of the way so people can flourish.
Can there be a more perfect philosophy than that?
Comment by Suzie — November 10, 2009 @ 11:40 pm
Joe 80
"Sounds Like to conservatives, Social Security is theft. Wonder how they would feel about Mom, Pop and Grams becoming their responsibility.
Sounds like to Conservatives, Medicare/Medicaid is theft. Wonder how they would feel if they were Stuck with Mom, Pop, and Grams medical bills?
That's the point. Conservatives already pay for mom and pop, both mine and yours. It's not fair we should subsidize your parents just because they didn't plan for retirement or pay for health insurance.
Comment by Suzie — November 10, 2009 @ 11:47 pm
@82
We're going need stilts here shortly. Time to convene a blogger ethics panel.
Comment by Art Hill — November 11, 2009 @ 12:25 am
Suzie wrote: "That's the point. Conservatives already pay for mom and pop, both mine and yours. It's not fair we should subsidize your parents just because they didn't plan for retirement or pay for health insurance.
---------------------------------------
Oh? And we don't subsidize your protection? Your roads? It's not fair we should subsidize your comfort and security just because you didn't plan for what you needed.
See? Works both ways. As I stated before - If people beging to pick and choose what taxes they want to pay, pretty soon the USA will be like Zimbabwe or Somolia. What conservatives seem to fail to realize is that People require shelter, food, medical care, work, and a sense of fairness, or justice. When the Government does not provide the opportunity for these things,or when laws and regulations create a major disparity between those who have and those who do not, revolutionaries spring up to do so, and civil guerrilla wars become the norm.
The French Revolution and The Russian Revolution were examples of what happens when a populace gets pissed at your "let them eat cake -I got mine to hell with the rest of 'em" attitude.
Suzie, ALL of us pay taxes, such as Medicare and Social Security. These are programs funded via payroll deduction. And as much as you're on this forum, I have serious doubts that you earn a paycheck and pay taxes. I've paid taxes and Social security since I was 15 years old, working in a sawmill, and have never been out of work. And my survivng brothers and sister's - Similar story. So you're offensive little tirade about people not providing for retirement or insurance is the ultimate filth.
Many workers are priced out of retirement plans -or like my father in law and two of my brothers - saw their 401K's totally wiped out after years of paying in. Who saw the cost of their employer provided health insurance reach the point it cost more to have insurance than they made.
Many of the products people enjoy are the results of long hours of poorly paid labor - which means to have the products people like Suzie use, the Government, (we the taxpayer) subsidies the low prices on them by tolerating a wage that cannot provide a living.
As for you subsidizing my parents (or anyone else's) the vast majority of individuals on Programs such as social security paid into it all their lives. Many workers will draw less than 5 years of benefits due to having a below average lifespan.
Many workers die after paying into the system for decades.
My mother passed at 63 - Never drew SS or Medicare.
My eldest sister died at 40 -Never drew SS or Medicare.
My father died at 67 - drew SS for two years.
These people worked all Their lives, paid into the system, and received very little in return.
So Suzie, your point is bogus. And you ignored the following :
Hmmm, sounds like paying taxes to support Government programs that one doesn't agree with is theft. Carried to the logical conclusion, we should only pay taxes for things we agree with.
So, conservatives feel healthcare is theft, they shouldn't have to pay taxes to support it. Liberals should also stop paying taxes for programs they don't agree with, Like the wars in Afganistan, Iraq. Like the military bases around the world - bring them all home.
Wonder how long the government, and society would survive if everyone who decided being taxed for something they didn't believe in was wrong, and just stop paying?
Wonder how long wealthy people would survive the defunding of the Police?
Wonder how long those who own stocks would survive the defunding of the SEC, and other regulatory agencies that prevent insider trading?
Theft is easily seen as different depending on ones viewpoint.
Why should everyone fund your protection simply because you cannot fund your own private protective force?
You neglected to get yours so why should you be allowed to steal the funding from us?
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 11, 2009 @ 8:23 am
Suzie wrote "The very essence of conservatism is a weak central government and thereby little inherent power for its leaders. This is a paradox foreign to liberalism, whose leaders benefit when government gets more powerful.
Conservatism is the most selfless type of leadership. Think of it. When conservative leaders do their jobs well, the populace is the most self-determining it can be, the treasury is as small as it can be, and therefore leaders have as little power as is possible. The only way they get reelected is to continue to defer their own power and stay out of the way so people can flourish.Can there be a more perfect philosophy than that?"
------------------------------------------
Essentially what you have described is the "law of the jungle" where the strong will have everything and exploit the weak.
A weak central government would lack the power to regulate corporations, which would result in corporations making all the laws, and everyone else doing as they are told.
A weak Central Government would lack the power to regulate banks, meaning the money supply would be regulated by the people who have the majority of it.
A weak Central Government would lack the power to govern in a world where the power of finance creates quasi-governments called corporations. Corporations have their own agenda, their own morality, and have only two goals, power, and the acquisition of wealth. People become "resources" to be used and discarded like any other tool.
The USA government is the representation of the people. The only entity big enough to protect the interests of the individual, and the only entity created for that specific purpose.
When business, and corporations grow to the point they are larger, stronger and more influential than an elected government, then that elected government ceases to be a representative of the people and becomes a tool of the corporation for controlling the population and exploiting the resources of the territory under their control which can span nations and even continents.
Your conservative philosophy ceased to have relevance when the USA stopped being an agrarian society and entered the industrial age.
Much like the libertarians who long for the unobtainable personal freedom of the individualist lifestyle, the conservative fails to grow and adapt to a changing social reality.
Here there be dragons - and the only way to keep your life, and possessions in a society where there are powerful entities who can take it away from you, you better have a dragon of your own to look out for your interests,which in the case of the USA, our pet dragon happens to be our government.
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 11, 2009 @ 8:46 am
@Joe,
"WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the GENERAL welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America."
Key words for me: "We the People". Federal government was established to REPRESENT "the people". After two personal trips to Washington, I can say without a doubt that government corruption prevents true and fair representation of "we the people" as established in the Constitution. Special interests and GREED are running our country and the decision-making of our representatives in Washington. Regardless of which side of the debate ANY citizen is on, the above mentioned corruption drives our governance.
Please refer to the Declaration of Independence where there are several CURRENT governmental actions similar to the repression of liberty by England:
"He has called together legislative bodies at places, unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Repository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures." Compare this to midnight votes called by Sneaker of the House Pelosi.
"He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harrass our people and eat out their substance." Equivalent to CZARS who answer to no legislative power other than Obama.
And the last one I will share, "For imposing Taxes on us without our consent." This healthcare bill will cost TRILLIONS. Since the government does not PRODUCE (except printing more money, therefore devaluing our dollar FURTHER), where does this money come from? TAXPAYERS. I do not consent to even higher taxes. I've already been forced to bail out banks and prop up GM (Government Motors) with my tax dollars and I do not wish to now overhaul a health system that provides healthcare that I consider to be "general" and available to all.
EMTALA exists to extend healthcare to any person that presents to an ER regardless of ability to pay (even illegal aliens). EMTALA is directly linked to providers that participate with Medicare. Why not extend EMTALA beyond the doors of the ER which would drastically reduce costs and place EMTALA within the outpatient clinic setting? Why not offer tax cut INCENTIVES to the private physicians and not-for-profit to promote charity care and to define our focus on the citizens that truly NEED healthcare; the uninsured. Why force each American to HAVE insurance when it should be personal CHOICE?
I find it sad that the very repressive government that our Founding Fathers risked their lives to escape is now within our own establishment.
For those that wish to live in a society that is government-reliant, you do have the freedom to leave.
Comment by Proud2B@TeaDrinker — November 11, 2009 @ 8:53 am
86 great job Joe, as always right on the mark. As for the Teadrinker, perhaps you have been into the wrong tea.
Comment by Richard — November 11, 2009 @ 9:05 am
During the last eight years multinational corporations had become more powerful than governments. They have controlled Congress and other World governments for their own purposes and lobbied for wars, supplied armies, and controled money supply and commerce. Fortunately, their greed went too far and they have lost much with the recession. To protect our United States and our freedom, we have to place restrictions and controls to prevent that type of power from ever becoming vested in the multinationals again.
Comment by Richard — November 11, 2009 @ 9:09 am
Richard,
I would much rather have powerful corporations than I would powerful government.
Multinationals provide jobs and real economic growth. Government doesn't. If somebody messes up in a corporation, is rude, etc. they are held accountable. Not that way in government. To be corporate leader, you have to be competent and experienced. In government, you can be a zero or a total buffoon and get the job (think the Democratic ticket last year).
Comment by Suzie — November 11, 2009 @ 9:23 am
@87 Proud2B@TeaDrinker you should reread that preamble. You asked where the Constitution gave Congress the power to create the health care bill, one need only look at the Preamble and Article 1, Section 8.
The preamble outlines the intent and purpose of the Constitution:
"WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the GENERAL welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America."
Which means your offensive last line:
"For those that wish to live in a society that is government-reliant, you do have the freedom to leave - Proud2B@TeaDrinker."
I, and millions of other Americans are a integral part of that "WE THE PEOPLE" and will continue to work for a government that represents our interests as well as everyone elses.
You want to create a different government? Get enough people together and you can do it - over the dead bodies of those who will oppose you.
The last time this occurred was in the 1860's and then, just as now, a group of people were arguing their right to make money, and indulge their greed should take precedence over the welfare of the country, That they had greater rights than other individuals.
Hundreds of thousands died, and the fabric of our country torn apart fo many decades after it ended.
You like to quote the Declaration of Independence as proof that you have the right to oppose our elected, representative government. You fail to take into account that the government the Declaration was opposing was not an elected entity, did not represent by consent (via being voted into office) and had no members of the native population as a part.
We elected Obama, We elected our Senators, We elected our Congressmen. They represent via those elections the will of the citizens.
Further, so long as the abide by the covenants embedded into the Documents that give them their authority, we are legally bound to accept what they pass as laws.
Midnight votes are not "He has called together legislative bodies at places, unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Repository of their Public Records"
Nor are the Czars equivalent to "He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harrass our people and eat out their substance.""
All presidents have advisers and heads of agencies, like Reagan's drug Czar, the use of appointments has been a standard practice for agency heads who have an informal or press imposed title of Czar:
George W. Bush had 47 such entities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars
;
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 11, 2009 @ 9:32 am
Suzie wrote : I would much rather have powerful corporations than I would powerful government.Multinationals provide jobs and real economic growth. Government doesn't. If somebody messes up in a corporation, is rude, etc. they are held accountable. Not that way in government. To be corporate leader, you have to be competent and experienced. In government, you can be a zero or a total buffoon and get the job (think the Democratic ticket last year).
----------------------------------------------
Well, that would certainly explain the huge bonuses at the corporate banks that the taxpayer bailed out, both before during and after the economic collapse.
The guys really had the interests of Americans in their corporate minds when they destroyed the economy.
And I for one wouldn't mind being paid 40 or 50 million dollars as a reward for losing my company hundreds of Billions of dollars.
Yep, Corporate America, compassionate, moral, and filled with high ideals and totally held accountable.
Just like here:
Regulation and oversight
In richer countries, recycling of lead batteries is regulated. Most U.S. states require anyone who sells lead-acid batteries to collect spent ones and ship them to recycling plants licensed and regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Europe has similar oversight.
"It's when you get to Third World countries where you don't have regulations or attempts to control the movement of this product that you see these kind of tragedies occurring," says Maurice Desmarais, executive director of Battery Council International, a U.S.-based trade group.
http://www.blackherbals.com/lead_for_car_batteries_poisons_african_town.htm
Or here:
One search turns up thousands of examples of "Corporations being good neighbors"
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&num=100&newwindow=1&q=oil+company+pollution+sickens+villagers&fp=afed019fec372588
Seems some people find wealth and prestige, regardless of how it's obtained, to be the ultimate excuse for any atrocity, and totally able to justify any action.
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 11, 2009 @ 9:46 am
90 Suzie, the Gov't is controlled by elected officials that can be replaced when they do not perform, i.e. your Congressmen last year and two years before. Multinationals operate for greed and profit, manipulate the rules, and enslave anyone they can for profit. Without Gov't to control, you would be working in a Company town, paid only with Company script to buy Company products. Or, you could have been of a race that was owned by the Company and not paid at all. Or, if they currently have their wish, you could not be working at all as they will move all jobs to India, China, Vietnam, and Mexico. As an individual you have no control over Companies whereas you have voting rights with your Govt.
Comment by Richard — November 11, 2009 @ 9:51 am
@90...Suzie
You may want to try that argument again...and say it with meaning:
"To be corporate leader, you have to be competent and experienced."
By the way...the word bafoon adequately describes the period between Jan 2001 and Jan 2009.
Tell me about the competence of the AIG's of the world, the Dominion Banks of the world (Warner's last great erection), the Wachovia Banks of the world, Chrysler, GM, TWA, Braniff, Eastern and the list can go on and on.
Comment by Will — November 11, 2009 @ 9:58 am
Will,
It's a shame government had to screw up the derivatives these banks invested in, due to immoral incompetent government leaders.
Comment by Suzie — November 11, 2009 @ 10:20 am
95 Suzie, now you are going way off. The Gov't (Right Wing) stayed out of the derivative market. The SEC (GW Administration) chose to let them do whatever they wanted. No controls, no limits. But you are right on the immoral incompetent leaders.
Comment by Richard — November 11, 2009 @ 10:29 am
Suzie wrote: "It's a shame government had to screw up the derivatives these banks invested in, due to immoral incompetent government leaders."
--------------------------------------------
Wonder how the government screwed up the derivatives swaps, one of the most UNREGULATED forms of market trading?
Can Suzie tell us how exactly "immoral incompetent government leaders" did this?
Or is it another "It is true because I say it is true" proof?
From 1998 Alan Greenspan:
"In particular, the Board supports a standstill of attempts by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to impose new regulations on OTC derivatives as a minimalist approach to our longstanding concerns about CFTC assertions of authority in this area."
http://www.federalreserve.gov/Boarddocs/testimony/1998/19980724.htm
And 2008 Alan Greenspan:
He noted that the immense and largely unregulated business of spreading financial risk widely, through the use of exotic financial instruments called derivatives, had gotten out of control and had added to the havoc of today’s crisis. As far back as 1994, Mr. Greenspan staunchly and successfully opposed tougher regulation on derivatives.
But on Thursday, he agreed that the multitrillion-dollar market for credit default swaps, instruments originally created to insure bond investors against the risk of default, needed to be restrained.
“This modern risk-management paradigm held sway for decades,” he said. “The whole intellectual edifice, however, collapsed in the summer of last year.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html
Comment by joe Mostowey — November 11, 2009 @ 10:38 am
@95...Suzie
You might want to go take a look at the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and then take a look at what party (cough Republican) and what head of the Senate Finance Committee in 1999 (cough Phill Gramm) pushed the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999.
It was with the passage of that bill that allowed the co-mingling of commercial banks, investment banks and insurance institutions to all play in each others sand boxes without regulation and oversight.
It makes for an interesting read and speaks volumes about what happens with less intervention.
Comment by Will — November 11, 2009 @ 10:48 am
Joe, Thousands of bad loans encouraged by the government undermined the basis of the derivatives. It's like building a skyscraper in quicksand.
Comment by Suzie — November 11, 2009 @ 10:51 am
@99...Suzie
The Federal Government never put a law, code, requirement, regulation or any other form of mandate on any financial institution to make a bad loan. Banks have underwriters and it was up to the underwriters to determine the repayment capability of the borrower.
With the comingling of the various financial centers as pointed out in my post 98, the lines between risky investments became blurred because everyone was playing fast and loose to make a quick buck.
Comment by Will — November 11, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
@91.
Not sure why the freedom to leave this country in pursuit of government-reliance elsewhere is "offensive". That in itself speaks volumes for the direction in which this country is heading.
Comment by Proud2B@TeaDrinker — November 13, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
How "oppressive" do you imagine 300 million free and independent people would be? A country this size has to have a strong central government and frankly people this ornery have to be forced to do the right thing throughout our history. We fought a civil war FGS! You look at that awful, terrible carnage and tell me that we could long survive without a strong central government. Anarchy is not pretty either. 300 million people are not going to agree on much without a strong government structure and the consent of the governed. You may not like it, but the governed have spoken and for the next four years Obama is President and until 2011 swearing ins, this is our Congress. These paltry protests are NOTHING compared to the Jim Crow era and the literal fight for Civil Rights. We can handle it and we will come out better for it.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 13, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
#99 Suzie you are saying the Mtg were making these loans because of Govt interference. That is blatantly false. Mtg made these loans because they were collecting 10, 12, 14% interest and up on them. They were raking in big bucks and happy to do so. Wall Street wanted to buy them because of the high return, and AIG was making a fortune off the insurance. Gov't was lobbied to keep allowing this not being asked to stop it. The banking and insurance lobby is and remains the strongest lobbys in Washington and they got just what they wanted.
Comment by Richard — November 13, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
Getting back to health refirm. Several of you say you have gone with out health insurance while you were young. That was great, but who would have paid for your care had you had cancer, an auto wreck, or other cronic disease. Your parents, you would have wanted them to sign away their retirement for you? Or the rest of us as you would have relied on the emergency room for care? Or would you have filed bankruptcy, again having the rest of us pay for you? Or would you have just told your parents to let you die in the gutter because you were stupid? The Gov't plan forces all to carry insurance so we do not have to pay for you that would try to sneak by the system. Some of you were lucky to get by, many are not and the rest of us can no longer pay for those not covered.
Comment by Richard — November 13, 2009 @ 4:09 pm