home

Obama in Grand Junction: Live Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 04:26:47 PM EST
Tags: health care reform, Grand Junction (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Air Force One is on the ground in Grand Junction. The town hall expected to start half hour early, at 3:45 pm MT. Local news in Grand Junction reports 4,000 protesters showed up earlier at Lincoln Park.

Grand Junction NBC page with live feed here. CNN is and MSNBC will also carry it live.

Let's keep comments to this thread on Obama's talk in Grand Junction and your reactions to it.

< Saturday Afternoon Open Thread | Reactions to President Obama in Grand Junction >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama in Grand Junction: Live Thread | 158 comments (158 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Hmm, I'm not sure it's (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by brodie on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:15:18 PM EST
    a great selling point by Obama to declare that after the whole process is complete, "the vast majority of people will still be getting their insurance from private insurance companies."  Oh joy.

    Undoubtedly true, but depressing to hear from the perspective of a strong reform viewer.

    Employers will get tax benefits (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:19:50 PM EST
    so they don't mind providing health care coverage to employees, says Obama. But I think there are a lot of small employers who don't want more tax credits, they want to limit the cash going out. In order to benefit from a tax credit, you have to have enough income for it to make a difference.

    Speaking only for me (none / 0) (#28)
    by Bemused on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:24:57 PM EST
     I'd be happy to take a tax credit. My plan is now costing me nearly $40K. a 50% credit would enrich me by 20 while allowing me to provide the same coverage.

       I'm an advocate of single payer and eliminating private insurance altoghether but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want the credit if we stay with the insurance model.

    Parent

    Credits are nice (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 08:52:06 PM EST
    but as Jeralyn points out, they are of absolutely no use to small business and individuals who don't pay enough in taxes to equal the credit for the outlay. IOW, tax credits benefit only the already reasonably comfortable, not the folks and businesses struggling on the lower tier.

    Parent
    That's true (none / 0) (#159)
    by Bemused on Mon Aug 17, 2009 at 08:24:55 AM EST
     I own a law firm and this is a business with relatively low overhead in many respects including employee wages and benefits compared to other businesses of similar revenue. Businesses with lower profit margins might not receive the full potential benefit of a tax credit.

      Obviously, if you get a credit applicable to $20K of federal taxes and would otherwise owe less than that the benefit to you is reduced by that amount But, for example,  even for the person who pays $40K for employee health insurance and would otherwise  owe only $10K in taxes he gets a $10K advantage over today. If you are in that position then $10K is lot of money to you.

       If you own a business and don't pay a significant amount of federal taxes, you have many things about which to be worried.

    Parent

    Sigh (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:21:32 PM EST
    Ultimately, deciding to trust that insurance companies and drug companies are going to do anything contrary to their inhumane bottom line, without forcing them to by law, is simply so naive that it verges on the clinically insane.  

    Forcing By Law (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:22:58 PM EST
    This is all about writing law aka legislation.

    Parent
    if you think... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:26:34 PM EST
    ...that whatever is written is really going to cut into the excessive profit-taking of insurance companies to any meaningful degree, guess what, i have some really nice land in the Pacific to sell you.

    color me highly skeptical.  these industries are not, for ANYthing, going to sign into law anything that seriously cuts their profit-taking.

    Parent

    or go along with, i should say (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:27:34 PM EST
    since the companies don't actually write the laws.  oh wait, i forgot, this is america, corporations actually DO write our laws.

    Parent
    Witness credit card "reform" (none / 0) (#68)
    by Spamlet on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:01:53 PM EST


    Parent
    Uh-Oh (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:21:41 PM EST
    to keep your health insurance plan if you like it, there will have to be changes. Then he mentions the costs of medicare.

    when is obama going to say... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:30:45 PM EST
    ...healthcare, in this day and age, is a fundamental right?  and fundamental rights in this country are what the government exists to promote, protect and nourish.  they are not what corporations exist for.  corporations exist for one reason--to make as much money as they can while spending as little as they can.

    the concept of fundamental rights (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Bemused on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:36:52 PM EST
     is premised on the social compact theory and that certain inherent rights enjoyed by people in the state of nature are inalienable and were not forfeited by forming civil society. It's pretty difficult to make a sensible argument that there was a right to affordable health care when there wasn't really any health care.

    Parent
    we're talking NOW (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:42:37 PM EST
    not then or any other time.  the potential impact of contagious diseases ALONE, and what we NOW now about that as opposed to what they new long ago, makes it OBVIOUS that this should be a fundamental right for the security and health of the nation as a whole.

    this, to me, is axiomatic to modernity.

    Parent

    well then you are redefining what are fundamental (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Bemused on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:54:27 PM EST
     rights so  it means they are what you think they should be. Does everyone get to that in your world?

    Parent
    when it comes to (none / 0) (#65)
    by Jen M on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:59:41 PM EST
    epidemics of communicable diseases health care ceases to be a right of the individual and becomes the responsibility of public health officials. Sometimes this trumps individual rights.

    Typhoid Mary was the first time, I think, this became painfully clear. She would up being imprisoned because she would not obey the courts and stop taking cooking jobs. (she did not believe in germs)

    Parent

    but wouldn't that be a (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Bemused on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:06:32 PM EST
    derogation of fundamental rights rather than the discovery of new ones based on Dadler's politics?

    Parent
    It can be (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jen M on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:13:50 PM EST
    http://www.amazon.com/Typhoid-Mary-Judith-Walzer-Leavitt/dp/0807021032/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=12 50377814&sr=8-1

    But when people are dropping dead...

    Parent

    please put urls in html format (none / 0) (#95)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:25:50 PM EST
    long ones skew the site and I have to delete the comment as I can't edit comments. Use the link button at the top of your comment box or see the html coding at the bottom.

    Parent
    oh doolypoo (none / 0) (#107)
    by Jen M on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:42:38 PM EST
    I forgot! SORRY!

    Parent
    Link for after the original is deleted: (none / 0) (#108)
    by Jen M on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:45:46 PM EST
    Link

    Parent
    oh doolypoo? (none / 0) (#111)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:50:43 PM EST
    Never heard that one... nice.

    Parent
    i think (none / 0) (#103)
    by Bemused on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:33:37 PM EST
     you are confusing the constitutional POWER of the government to act in the public welfare with with the fundamental rights of individuals.

       I don't think (in broad terms, some specifics might execeed government powers and infringe rights)people are arguing it would be unconstitutional for government to provide helath care to everyone. that's entirely different from the untenable argument that everyone has a fundamental right to affordable health care and the government must act to provide it.

    Parent

    Obama said this (none / 0) (#45)
    by Spamlet on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:39:18 PM EST
    in the final (I think) debate with McCain. I cheered him for it. Did he mean it?

    Parent
    healthcare consumers, ugh (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:39:27 PM EST
    We should not be referred to as consumers of health care.  We are patients of doctors.

    The paradigm cannot be broken for anything, I suppose.

    medicare costs are rising due to (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:41:37 PM EST
    the health care delivery systems not inflation, Obama says.

    Again he says if you like your plan, you can keep private insurance. But he doesn't address what happens if your insurance company decides to no longer offer your plan because it becomes too financially non-lucrative given caps on doctor payments, etc. Then you'd still be able to have private insurance but it might not be as good as the plan you have now.

    As to "competitive pressure", what if all the health insurance companies agree to reduce benefits in their plans?

    what if (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Jen M on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:43:21 PM EST
    your employer decides to change it? did he adress that?

    Parent
    Nope, he didn't (none / 0) (#56)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:47:13 PM EST
    other than say companies would be better able to afford to provide coverage through tax credits.

    Parent
    So that doesn't address millions (none / 0) (#158)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 10:13:15 AM EST
    of us whose employers are not private sector.  If your employer is a city or state government, no tax credits for them.  Insurance companies already are gouging those employers, with employees' costs soaring, and it will get worse under this "plan," I bet.

    Parent
    we all sue for collusion (none / 0) (#52)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:44:55 PM EST
    lol.  as if that would happen.

    i get a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

    he can't even muster any righteous anger over death panels, instead he gets soft (in a personal and touching way, sure, but still...get MAD for heaven's sake).

    Parent

    "that feels dishonest to me" (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:47:40 PM EST
    jesus h., what kind of sentiment is that.  tell it like it is.  be hard and unsparing.  humiliate these idiots.  

    Parent
    And, since the current plan is to not (none / 0) (#53)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:45:12 PM EST
    implement anything until 2013, the insurance companies have ample time to shave the benefits while raising the rates to protect their bottom lines, and investors (for those that have already gone public).

    Parent
    fear factor (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:46:06 PM EST
    Obama says Medicare is going broke. If we don't pass health care reform, we'll have to either cut medicare or raise taxes.

    He says Medicare has to change delivery systems or incentives. Those are shorthand buzzwords that don't mean much to me. Does John Q. Public know what a delivery system or incentive is? Or what changes in them he's referring to?

    "Medicare Going Broke" (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by KeysDan on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:35:01 PM EST
    in eight years, otherwise need to cut benefits or raise taxes.  But this is a worrisome argument.  This being so, Medicare, in turn, is expected to finance a major portion of the new assurance for insurance for those under 65. Two-thirds of the $90 billion/year program cost is to come from recapturing "waste" in existing systems, i.e., Medicare primarily---yes, Medicare advantage can go, but, boy, that is a lot of "fat" to re-direct and provide for inflation and benefits from advances in health care. The president uses the "penalty" for bad care as a frequent example, but these are difficult to ascertain, other than sawing off the wrong leg, for example.

    Parent
    Wait a minute, (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:27:19 PM EST
    Didn't he say that he could save billions on medicare by being more efficient and those efficiencies dollars could be used for his new program?  Is he now saying that can't be done?

    If he can make medicare more efficient, why don't they do that now?  He could show everyone how it CAN be done!

    I must admit, I am not sure what he's talking about.  

    Parent

    Here's hoping (none / 0) (#58)
    by Spamlet on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:48:15 PM EST
    the shorthand buzzwords are not deliberate word fog.

    Parent
    From what I've seen, Doctors (none / 0) (#63)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:58:23 PM EST
    drive the greatest share of Medicare usage. I don't know any seniors who want to spend their days in the inconvenient process of seeing doctors and getting tests taken. The doctors get that in motion. The only way to stop that is to educate the public. I learned why seniors now need medical advocates to keep them from being used by the system.


    Parent
    Not my experiecne. Preventive care, which (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 08:08:07 PM EST
    is an excellent way to try and keep or get patients healthy.

    Parent
    Here is a Senate finance site (none / 0) (#145)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:25:38 PM EST
    that show current rules regarding medical delivery systems and proposed changes.
    Link

    It is a 47 page document and it is too late in the evening for me to shift through it and decide if I can make heads or tails out of it without first obtaining a legal and a medical degree.

    Parent

    my light just came on (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:57:34 PM EST
    he cannot answer any question about private insurance competiting vs. public providers because he is not willing to say, or believe, that people's health is not a widget to sell to the highest bidder.

    he cannot answer any of this unless he wants to admit that the health of the nation cannot be auctioned or thought of as simply a product like detergent.

    Except, he's already called us (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:01:55 PM EST
    consumers of health products.

    Parent
    yep, i commented on that (none / 0) (#74)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:05:29 PM EST
    and i repeat, we should not be consumers of healthcare, we should be simply patients of doctors.

    Parent
    Consumers (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:18:57 PM EST
    Interesting, in that in the mental health care empowerment movement, the preferred term for those who are often called patients or clients is consumer or recipient.

    It's viewed as a more assertive and independent label, defining yourself in terms of your action seeking care as opposed to your dependent role as  related to a provider.

    Myself, I don't really care, but I found it interesting that the word you find objectionable others prefer.

    Parent

    i find it offensjve (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:28:15 PM EST
    because it feeds into the current paradigm, which is wretched and broken and needs to be trashed yesterday.  consuming healthcare is, after all, more like consuming yourself than it is anything else.

    we are the ultimate commodity in the healthcare game.  and we are not commodities as citizens, or are we?  i suppose we all might just be widgets.  

    obviously, mental health is a different game in important respects, especially psychologically for the patients, and i can see why it might be preferred.  

    Parent

    the entire paradigm here... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:00:41 PM EST
    ...is that whatever we do we have to make it so these poor insurance companies can compete.

    sigh.

    sigh.

    boom.

    Parent

    can he not just say... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:04:54 PM EST
    ...these large insurance companies have seen their profits rise 500 percent in the last several years.  What bill do they have a problem paying that the government doesn't with that kind of excessive return?

    Can he not just say...at what point do they make ENOUGH?

    Enough!

    Parent

    One of Obama's better (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by brodie on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:25:14 PM EST
    performances on talking health care reform.

    Overall I thought he was on top of most of the issues, but didn't overburden the listener with too many details.  

    He tended to still be speaking too defensively about his plan, but I thought he hit some good points about why the current system is costly and awful, and why his proposed solution would improve the situation.

    He needs to keep doing that, and keep reminding people how much the insurance companies are making in excess profits from rising premiums at the expense of the middle class.  He's getting better at messaging, but there's still room for improvement.

    A- for today ...

    I thought he was pretty good as well (none / 0) (#98)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:28:50 PM EST
    more understandable than usual, but still some gaps. B to B+ for me.

    One other thing not discussed: After the Republicans get their compromises into the bill, will it still be better than what we have now?

    Parent

    Depends on who you are (none / 0) (#105)
    by Bemused on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:38:16 PM EST
      If, and i think it's an if at this point, the Republicans can force further concessions I imagine --surprise, surprise-- they will be more significant in shifting more of the financial cost to relatively poorer taxpayers from the wealthy than in the "plan" itself.

    Parent
    I'm concerned about (none / 0) (#113)
    by brodie on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:53:09 PM EST
    what's going to come out of the Finance Comm'ee and the talk about a Kent Conrad co-op type of solution as a public option.  

    That one makes me nervous as it seems to be a mostly novel experiment on a large scale that would seem even more trouble than it's worth compared to the simple gov't public option.  Right now I'm 50-50 about whether we'd be better off doing nothing rather than letting something like that be sent out to probably fail.

    Parent

    If this doesn't take effect until 2013 (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:49:40 PM EST
    Couldn't a new Congress dismantle all of it, before anything takes effect?  

    Why the delay?  Why are they discussing a law that won't take effect for 4 years?  

    I believe so (none / 0) (#152)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:52:17 PM EST
    And the way things are shaping up, it looks like that could be the Republican major campaign theme

    Parent
    Why give them this opportunity? (none / 0) (#153)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:55:08 PM EST
    Why not pass a law that takes effect sooner, like within months?  Or a year, at the most?  

    Parent
    Do (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 04:30:05 PM EST
    all those flags seem defensive to anybody else? It seems that he's trying to prove to the GOP that Yes!!! he is patriotic or something. It also doenst gibe ( to me at least) with a forum on health care.

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 04:35:53 PM EST
    It seems pretty patriotic to me to strengthen the country by improving the health of the people.   I rather like it.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 04:43:34 PM EST
    I guess I'd rather see a background more relating to healthcare. Flags just dont bring healthcare to mind.

    Parent
    But with no flags (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:38:37 PM EST
    you'd criticize his tie choice or suit fit or some other such nonsense.

    Parent
    How (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:28:02 PM EST
    is this criticizing Obama? I seriously doubt that he made the choice. They (his team) probably did some polling and decided that he had a "partiotism Problem" or some such and decided to use flags.

    Parent
    SOP since GWB, no? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Spamlet on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 04:43:42 PM EST


    Parent
    I think it goes a lot further back than that (none / 0) (#15)
    by Bemused on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:07:06 PM EST
    Leutze's "Washington Crossing the Delaware" from the 1850s shows George standing valiantly in the boat while James Monroe (not sure why he was chosen) holds the flag. The imagery is even more forced there because the flag did not exist when the crossing waqs made.

    Parent
    Actually RR (none / 0) (#140)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 08:44:56 PM EST
    GWB just took it to comic lengths.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#142)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 08:54:03 PM EST
    He has competition.

    Parent
    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by NYShooter on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 04:45:24 PM EST
    Obama could announce a gold-plated health plan for everybody.....that would cost (0) Zero!, and tomorrow the only thing the media would report is, "reports are streaming in that President Obama ordered "no flags," because, as an anonymous source told us, "I'm tired of being a hypocite."


    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 04:50:44 PM EST
    the flags are a total cave. I'm not surprised to hear that.

    Parent
    Perhaps he should have gone with... (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Tony on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:27:10 PM EST
    Greek columns?

    Parent
    And did you think (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 09:31:30 AM EST
    Obama breathed in a manner that was disrespectful, man a real president would have held his breath the whole time.

    Parent
    First thing I noticed. But not (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 04:58:21 PM EST
    all that different from flag multiplication during primaries.

    Parent
    CNN says for the past hour you won't miss (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 04:57:40 PM EST
    any of the speech due to its punditry, and then misses his first sentences. I switched to MSNBC which started on time.

    msnbe is keeping camera on obama (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 04:59:25 PM EST
    and not showing the Colorado officials he is introducing. They couldn't spare two cameras for the event?

    Parent
    Hmmm (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:01:49 PM EST
    Maybe the networks sponsors are soft on health care reform.. lol

    Parent
    For some inexplicable reason, (none / 0) (#102)
    by prittfumes on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:32:05 PM EST
    some (all?) of them seem to think that their inane chatter is more important than the first few words of the speaker.

    Parent
    I caught that too. (none / 0) (#11)
    by brodie on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:01:52 PM EST
    CNN says it was getting a pool feed and had no audio, but at the same time Msnbc was running the speech with sound.  Peculiar.

    Parent
    Did exactly the same thing (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:03:44 PM EST
    Big mistake by CNN.

    Parent
    The idiot (none / 0) (#88)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:20:44 PM EST
    was too busy twittering to notice that the speech had started.

    Arghhh!!

    Parent

    The Idiot? (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:23:57 PM EST
    Wouldn't it be the twit?

    Parent
    let's see how much time he spends on (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:02:31 PM EST
    seniors and medicare.

    Jeralyn, please let us know if any of (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:02:54 PM EST
    your concerns are addressed/answered.

    so far he's on (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:16:05 PM EST
    no denial of pre-existing conditions. "If you like your health care plan, you keep it. No one will force you to give it up." But he doesn't address health care companies deciding to drop plans we like.

    Parent
    I don't really see how you think that would happen (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:20:20 PM EST


    Parent
    I think you may be too young (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Spamlet on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:27:22 PM EST
    and, up to this point in your life, too sheltered to see how what Jeralyn refers to could happen. Others here have long memories--and the scars to go with them.

    Parent
    Well, that's not a point, that's an insult (none / 0) (#39)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:31:34 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm very sorry it sounded that way (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Spamlet on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:37:58 PM EST
    It was not meant as an insult.

    But you're a smart guy, and I can't think of any other reason why you don't seem to understand the history of insurance companies' behavior, and its effect on people who are self-employed and unemployed, to start with.

    Again, I sincerely apologize for insulting you. I don't regard age and inexperience as a crime. Wish I had been able to phrase this in a way that had not offended you. That was not my intention.

    Parent

    Understood, none taken (none / 0) (#49)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:42:31 PM EST
    My question was, what in particular about this reform proposal makes Jeralyn think plans will be cancelled? If there were a particular reason to worry about that, I'd like to know about it.

    Parent
    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Spamlet on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:46:24 PM EST
    I didn't perceive the close focus of your question. No wonder my comment sounded like an insult. Again, so sorry.

    Yes, if there's something in this proposal itself that would create a particular reason to worry, inquiring minds do want to know.

    Parent

    for profit corporations exist (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Bemused on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:03:08 PM EST
     to maximize return for investors. If you place constraints, establish mandates or distort the market so that a certain line of business becomes unprofitable or even significantly less profitable than a line which a corp can move to then it is inevitable fewer will work that market.

       It's also more cynically a way private industry can coerce government action or inaction. It we say if you want to be permitted to offer health insurance you have to do a,b,c,d... people who dislike that can say OK then we won't offer it and then the people who lose it will scream that the government do something to bring suppliers back to the market.

       Insurers pulled this with med mal coverage in several states to get docs to scream for tort reform. It was not w/o success.

       We shouldn't play these games. Single payer would eliminate this among its other benefits.

    Parent

    Sounds like a great reason for a public plan (none / 0) (#75)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:06:01 PM EST
    I predict we will have one.

    Parent
    If you have insurance through (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:23:53 PM EST
    your employer, and the employer changes carriers, or decides to go to HMO from a more expensive PPO, or even decides to drop coverage altogether, it is very likely that you will be giving up the doctors you like.

    Anyone who has employer-based coverage knows this.  Even though I do no have insurance through the plan my firm offers, there were several  years where they changed carriers every year, and people were forced to find new primary care doctors, found themselves with higher co-pays and higher deductibles.  And even in years when the carrier stayed the same, there were changes to the prescription drug formulary, such that drugs that people were taking moved to a different tier and became more expensive.

    I think it would help a lot if Obama would just be honest about where we are.  If he said, "what we are trying to do with health care is make is more likely that your employer will find it economically feasible to keep the good plan you like and ensure that you can keep the doctors you have come to know and trust," that would make so much more sense to people than what he is saying, which people absolutely know is something he cannot guarantee.

    Parent

    Yeah, my employer-based (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by sallywally on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 08:16:25 PM EST
    insurance first had decent out-of-network benefits, then crummy ones, then eliminated out-of-network entirely.

    Another nice thing about Medicare. No networks!

    Parent

    we didn't get to hear (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jen M on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:07:24 PM EST
    the guy who had the story :(

    A dumb twitterer (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:14:08 PM EST
    Obama's spoutin' off in Grand Junction, I can hardly listen.

    Right, don't listen and just make stuff up later about what you think he said. Some people are just dumb.

    Some finesse on how he refers to the AARP (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:18:49 PM EST


    Well, is AARP "on board" (none / 0) (#106)
    by prittfumes on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:40:55 PM EST
    or not?

    Parent
    AARP has not endorsed any of the (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 07:03:34 PM EST
    bills being considered by Congress. They made that quite clear in a recent memo after Obama said that they had endorsed the bill. They are on board with some of the objectives of health care reform.

    Parent
    Not True (2.00 / 1) (#120)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 07:09:09 PM EST
    AARP to Endorse Offer Of Drugmaker Price Cuts

    AARP, the nation's largest seniors lobby, will give its blessing today to an offer by drug manufacturers to contribute $80 billion over the next decade to reduce the cost of comprehensive health reform, in part by discounting the price of Medicare prescriptions.

    That is certainly part of the unfinished health care plan on the table.

    Parent

    What I said is completely accurate (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 07:34:06 PM EST
    The drugmaker's offer of price cuts is not a bill. I specifically stated that

    AARP has not endorsed any of the bills being considered by Congress.

    Here is a direct quote from AARP that deals with BILLS not offers:

    "AARP has been working with Democrats and Republicans to fix our broken health care system.

    

"While the President was correct that AARP will not endorse a health care reform bill that would reduce Medicare benefits, indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate.

    AARP



    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#126)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 07:41:00 PM EST
    Frame it however makes you comfortable. It is a fact that AARP has endorsed part of the yet uncompleted bill.

    Barry Rand, chief executive of AARP, will join President Obama at the White House to announce the endorsement of an organization that boasts 40 million highly engaged, politically active members.

    "This is an early win for reform and a major step forward," Rand said in remarks prepared for delivery at the event.

    WaPo

    It is also a fact that AARP is supporting Obama's attempt at health care reform.


    Parent

    It has absolutely nothing to do with framing (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 07:55:52 PM EST
    I made a completely accurate statement which you then said was not true. It even acknowledged that AARP did support some of the objectives of Obama's health care reform. .

    If anyone is doing any framing, it is you. You know perfectly well that an offer for cutting drug prices is not a bill. You are also fully aware of the fact that AARP denied endorsing any bill currently under consideration by Congress. Yet, somehow you felt the need to claim that my statement was not true.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#129)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 08:04:12 PM EST
    My Initial Comment:

    Yes (none / 0) (#112)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:52:33 PM EST
    On board with the drug plan and the fact that we need health care reform.
    Considering that there is no bill yet, they are not endorsing the bill.


    Parent

    MO Blue never disagreed with you (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by sj on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 12:57:52 AM EST
    S/he was responding to prittfumes

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#156)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 16, 2009 at 01:01:50 AM EST
    Got that, although a bit late.. thanks.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#112)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:52:33 PM EST
    On board with the drug plan and the fact that we need health care reform.

    Considering that there is no bill yet, they are not endorsing the bill.

    Parent

    Ah, 'Hope' Reappears (none / 0) (#25)
    by daring grace on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:21:42 PM EST
    The president refers to the same scare tactics that were used against Medicare in the 1960s as are being used today against health care reform: The conflict between hope and fear.

    "Stand for hope..."

    Now comes the tough part (none / 0) (#26)
    by brodie on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:22:06 PM EST
    with the crowd.  LBJ never had to do this.

    I just hope the SS is on their toes today ...

    Im sure (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jen M on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:26:45 PM EST
    They are

    They always are.

    Parent

    Why can't there be a provision in (none / 0) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:27:43 PM EST
    the new law preventing health insurance companies from canceling plans currently offered and from raising premiums on them for a period of say two years? That way the public would know the money for this plan isn't coming out of their pocket. (Or would that be an unfair restraint on trade?)

    I seriously doubt (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Bemused on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:30:24 PM EST
     any court let alone our current Supreme Court would find that constitutional.

    Parent
    another clear argument... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:31:26 PM EST
    ...for single payer.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Bemused on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:12:31 PM EST
     but that appears to be off the table so we have no choice to look to the specifics of the very flawed ideas that are on the table.

    Parent
    Of course we have a choice (none / 0) (#86)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:17:25 PM EST
    we can make sure our congressional representatives know that we are not going to sit still for anything that doesn't meet the needs of the majority. If they want to be re-elected, they have no choice but to listen.


    Parent
    but they don't have to (none / 0) (#99)
    by Bemused on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:29:48 PM EST
     and are unlikely to agree with your assessment of their electoral chances based on this. They may be of a mind that the huge money contributions will buy them more votes than they will lose from their position on this single issue.

    Parent
    My congressman gets very little $ (none / 0) (#118)
    by shoephone on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 07:07:33 PM EST
    in the way of corporate contributions. Because he is a doctor and because he is a longtime health care advocate, he does receive some contributions from pharmaceuticals (not much) and insurance (life insurance, not health insurance co's.) but they are minimal.

    Bottom line: he doesn't collect much overall because he is in a safe district, in a safe seat, so he can ignore the corporate contributors. On the other hand, if he were to vote against the interests of his constituents, who are overwhelmingly liberal, he would pi$$ alot of them off, enough for them to withhold their votes. That is the reality in this case.

    Parent

    Wouldn't it be great to (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by Anne on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 07:17:03 PM EST
    have all elections publicly financed, so those in not such safe districts would not have to be beholden to the corporate interests?

    I have to wonder where we would be on health care if the insurance and pharmaceutical industries were not in control; I'm pretty sure we would have had a single-payer system in place years ago.

    Thank goodness for reps like McDermott, who can act in the best interests of their constiuents; I wish I knew why we could not have a system that encourages more of that.  What am I saying?  It's the corporations again.

    Parent

    I really think McD is an anomaly (none / 0) (#124)
    by shoephone on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 07:30:35 PM EST
    even here in western WA, which has five other (D)s in the House. He gets vilified by the wacko righties on a regular basis (sadly, we do have some of those here too) but his CV helps him fight off a lot of the flack: Navy vet, one of the very first psychiatrists to work with Vietnam War Vets suffering from PTSD, one of the strongest advocates for AIDS/HIV sufferers (back before it was popular) and the sponsor of WA State's Basic Health Plan in 1987, which funds healthcare for low-income families and self-employed -- and could be a model for the public option! He has a lot of gravitas on healthcare issues. If he was representing Inslee's district, or Adam Smith's, or Brian Baird's, he'd have a much harder time with his constitutents.

    Incidentally... if Maine and Arizona can both become full-fledged public campaign finance states, why can't the rest of us??? That's the disconcerting part. It has to begin at the local and state level and move wider from there.

    I hope Jeralyn won't delete me for going somewhat off-topic... But honestly, if Max Baucus didn't get all that Pharma and insurance $, this fight for reform might have a better chance of succeeding.

    Ah, shoot. Laptop battery running out.

    Parent

    Is Jay Inslee your congressman? (none / 0) (#121)
    by shoephone on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 07:09:51 PM EST
    By chance, if you took part in his health care conference call last week, you know there are a lot of uninformed conservatives in that district! It was distressing to realize that. But he fended them off brilliantly, I thought.

    Parent
    Inslee is mine.... (none / 0) (#128)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 08:03:53 PM EST
    I think the Seattle area is really fortunate to have such great Democratic representatives.

    McDermott would be a really good spokesperson for healthcare when the plan being presented is worthy of being passed.

    Parent

    The problem is, (none / 0) (#154)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 11:33:34 PM EST
    the polls are showing that the majority now don't want it.  Will Congress vote against their constituents?  I doubt it.  That's why Obama has to turn around public opinion.  Maybe all these appearances will do that.  

    Parent
    Based on what? (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Steve M on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:25:04 PM EST
    The unenumerated right of freedom of contract?

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#148)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:33:21 PM EST


    Parent
    IIRC existing policies are (none / 0) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:42:05 PM EST
    "grandfathered" in the proposed bills and are not subject to any of the regulations that will apply to new policies. Just something to think about.

    Also, according to the CBO the provisions in the bills will not do anything to contain costs.


    Parent

    Well my plan is based on annual renewal (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Bemused on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:49:33 PM EST
     which i believe is pretty typical so the grandfathering effect would be very short term.

      As for costs.this is where he is losing support. We all know costs can be contained by a) reducing what's coverage; b) reducing reimbursement for the allowed coverage and c) administrative efficiency.

      One need not be an expert to know that a and b are where the vast majority of cost saviings are possible. But, we get no specifics on that and ridiculous claims of 2/3 savings by better management. That's not true and it hurts his case to say that.

    Parent

    You may be right about the annual renewal (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:03:51 PM EST
    I will have to go back and look at the wording (if I can find it again). Somehow I got the impression that annual renewal would not effect the grandfather status.

    I agree with you on the costs. Especially

    But, we get no specifics on that and ridiculous claims of 2/3 savings by better management. That's not true and it hurts his case to say that.

    Nothing I can see in any of the proposed legislation will prevent the insurance companies from continuing to increase rates drastically while reducing coverage just as they are doing now.

    Parent

    Then do it now! (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by BrassTacks on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:40:59 PM EST
    I know that I am broken record on this, but if all this money can be saved, why isn't he pressing Congress to pass such a bill NOW?  Why are we wasting all that money?  Save all that money and then use it for health care for everyone!  

    Parent
    first two questioners... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:28:39 PM EST
    ...are in the healthcare business.  hmm.  interesting.

    He's now on the public plan (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:34:22 PM EST
    to provide insurance for those currently uninsured. Describes it: Set up a health insurance exchange where you would have an array of options, mostly private insurance companies by those who want to participate. If they can't afford a plan, the Government would provide subsidies. No exclusion for pre-existing conditions, no caps on lifetime coverage, limits on out of pocket expenses.

    One of those options would be a government run insurance program. The insurance companies object because it would be too tough to compete against the gov't. It would collect premiums and compete on a level playing field.

    He lost me on the medicaid vs. medicare payback rates. Didn't understand what he was talking about.

    Yes, this was confusing. (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by KeysDan on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:27:03 PM EST
    He said that the "public option" would not have Medicaid rates (to provide a level playing field, but he may have meant negotiated rates, but not those of Medicare).  Competition in health care, is a race to the bottom.  The problem with a public plan sent out with both hands tied behind it, is that it will become a pool for the sickest patients and make premiums non-competitive.  Equal playing field, indeed.

    Parent
    he just lost me here (none / 0) (#41)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:35:00 PM EST
    he's doing the industry's bidding right now, i don't get it.  for phuck's sake, does he not believe American citizens have a fundmental right to non-profit healthcare?  i guess not.  i guess, tough sh*t, you all have to be the profit arteries for the industry to suck on.

     

    On small business now (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:53:35 PM EST
    He has no perfect, free solution. To provide health insurance to 46 million people with no insurance, it's going to cost money. His plan will cost $900 billion over 10 years. $80 billion a year. 2/3 could be paid for by eliminating waste in the current system.

    $18 billion a year being paid now in subsidies for insurance companies running Medicare Advantage. No proof Medicare Advantage is better than Medicare. We could use that money.

    For the rest, he proposes people making more than $250k a year, they will have their itemized tax deductions capped out at 28%. Just that alone would pay for the remainder.

    If you are an employer providing insurance to employee's, you will benefit because of the number of subsidies to employers. Employers should gain from the plan. The only people who might not like it are employers who can afford to provide insurance but aren't doing so.  If you don't provide insurance, you are going to be asked to make a contribution to help them afford insurance.

    He does not sound very convincing (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:59:49 PM EST
    that small employers will save money.

    Next question is about how private insurance companies can compete with a government run non-profit that doesn't have to pay taxes, etc. Obama acknowledges that its a good question because the private companies have to worry about property taxes, cost of capital and borrowing, which the govt. run company wouldn't.

    He thinks we could craft a system in which the public option works. He doesn't say how, he switches to it being a small part of the overall plan. He says they working on solutions to that problem. In other words, he can't answer that question.

    He says BCBS is a non-profit. I didn't know that.

    Parent

    a lot of things are non-profit in name (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:01:54 PM EST
    and name only.  

    Parent
    It is not NON-Profit, it claims to be NOT FOR (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:06:59 PM EST
    Profit. Big difference.

    BCBS claims to be Not For Profit. The BC franchise in Western Washington tried to go public a few years ago, but was kicked down. Hard to believe a claim to be Not For Profit would look for investors who would want some ROI.

    State Farm is a Not For Profit (or, at least they used to be). On their profitable years, their profit was returned to their "members" (the people who bought their insurance through them and were considered part of the ownership of the company). That's how Not For Profit works.

    BCBS, on the other hand, hands out giant bonus checks to their employees with any profits they make in a year. It's a huge incentive for the employees to deny coverage wherever and whenever they can.


    Parent

    State Farm is (none / 0) (#110)
    by Bemused on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:48:03 PM EST
     a mutual insurance company-- that's a little different than a non-profit corporation.

    Parent
    Then, they've changed their model (none / 0) (#115)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:55:06 PM EST
    because I used to get annual refunds of premiums when they had profitable years and knew they were NOT FOR Profit based on the information they provided.

    Non Profit

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#117)
    by Bemused on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 07:03:37 PM EST
    State Farm Auto has always been and is  still a mutual company and all the other SF entities are wholly owned subsidiaries of it.

      Not for profit is an IRC designation. State Farm does not have that and pays taxes on its profits as do other private corporations. Not for profit corps do not have to pay those taxes but must operate under (arguably loose) specific regulations to maintain that status.

    Parent

    BCBS started as a non-profit (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by caseyOR on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:07:33 PM EST
    many years ago. And, while the parent company keeps up a thin veneer of being a non-profit, the many subsidiaries are now for-profit companies. It is a total sham on the part of BCBS, and I don't understand how they get away with it.

    Parent
    I worked for BC (none / 0) (#80)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:12:01 PM EST
    They claim to be NOT FOR PROFIT.

    Parent
    Thats funny (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:23:41 PM EST
    If BCBS is non-profit, how come their premiums for Medigap coverage are as high or higher than for profit companies.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#85)
    by Bemused on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:17:24 PM EST
     if I get a tax credit that saves me 20 grand on employee coverage and my taxes are increased by less than that amount I would save money. However, without either limiting coverage or reducing reimbursement someone has to pay more. I think the idea is that burden will be borne by the "wealthy" who either are not employers so they won't benefit from the tax credit or those who are employers but in brackets where there tax increase will exceed the amount ofr the credit.

       

    Parent

    Of course this is speaking (none / 0) (#94)
    by Bemused on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:25:28 PM EST
     as a small businessman  who currently provides health coverage. Obviously, thoswe who are not and would be  required to assume the effective cost of 50% of coverage will lose money.

    Parent
    Well $18 Billion a year by (none / 0) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:12:09 PM EST
    eliminating Medicare Advantage is $180 billion in 10 years. That still leaves $220 billion in Medicare cuts unaccounted for.

    Parent
    Well evidently there are different (none / 0) (#109)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:47:37 PM EST
    rules for people on Medicare.

    "If you like your health care plan, you keep it. No one will force you to give it up."

    If he eliminates Medicare Advantage, wouldn't senior who chose that option be forced to give it up. Some people must like it or it wouldn't still be in business.

    Parent

    Medicare Advantage (none / 0) (#138)
    by sallywally on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 08:39:23 PM EST
    is run by private corporations and their profits move directly from our taxpaying pockets to their bankbooks.

    My Ohio Public Employees Retirement System pension went to Aetna Medicare Advantage recently. So did my sister's Michigan employees retirement system (BCBS Advantage).

    The pension systems are saving money in some way by doing this, apparently.

    I don't think it's an option for individuals to choose, but I could be wrong because I haven't investigated Medicare until I've lived with my sister the past five years, and she's been on Medicare since a stroke in 1993. They just moved her to the "Advantage" program a couple of years ago.

    The coverage is good but we're totally subsidizing their profits and other high administrative costs.

    Parent

    Individuals can choose Medicare (none / 0) (#150)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:47:17 PM EST
    Advantage Plans.

    I am not personally against eliminating them. OTOH, if I were a Senior that currently had such a plan and I was happy with it, I would be upset if I Obama eliminated my plan after he promised everyone else that they could keep theirs.

    Parent

    Ah, business management (none / 0) (#64)
    by brodie on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 05:58:25 PM EST
    students ... always worried the gubmint is going to take away big corporations' profits ...

    Final question (none / 0) (#78)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:07:16 PM EST
    from a naturalized citizen. Had polio as a child, and 52 surgeries in several states and the Mayo Clinic. She has good insurance but costs were too high with out of network doctors. Why should our treatment choices by limited by geography? (She got so flustered and had such trouble reading her question I wondered if it was really her question.)

    Answer: Tough choices. The solution to that particular problem isn't part of this plan. This plan is about things like providing lower reimbursement to hospitals that make a mistake. If you get a bad surgery, the hospital will have to fix you on their dime. That will save money and give consumers better options and protection.

    Even if we pass the bill in October, we'll have several months of debate and years of implementation. We can't tell insurance to take everyone if you have lots of people who are young and healthy and don't get insurance. If we're going to eliminate pre-existing coverage denial, we'll have to fix the insurance coverage issue.

    How can we afford this? First, by understanding the source of our federal deficit.

    Who would be willing to return to a hospital (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 08:13:49 PM EST
    in which the surgeon amputated the wrong leg?

    Parent
    Or took out the wrong lung? n/t. (none / 0) (#139)
    by sallywally on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 08:42:49 PM EST


    Parent
    Ok that's a wrap. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:12:31 PM EST
    What did you think?

    I'm resigned (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Bemused on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:22:14 PM EST
     to a lowest common denominator scheme for redistributing the costs of heaqlth insurance and a modicum of helpful reforms, so that is not my criticism at this stage

       The inability to articulate any real specifics as to what savings he euphemistially refers to as reducing waste actually means is troubling as is the evasiveness on how the burden of paying for it will be distributed.

    Parent

    he should talk about it like the military (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Dadler on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:29:58 PM EST
    we don't want to leave our troops without the proper equipment, why do we want our citizens left without proper medical care?

    turn the right wing b.s. right back on them.

    Parent

    lol (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 06:54:35 PM EST
    Well considering that the Military has provided substandard equipment and lost a war, incompetently destroyed an entire country, lost billions of dollars somehow, etc..

    I do not think it would be the best argument for health care reform.

    Parent

    And not forgetting! (none / 0) (#136)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 08:28:38 PM EST
    At an estimated cost of over a trillion dollars, and growing daily. That sure would put a sizable dent in that health care budget.

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#137)
    by squeaky on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 08:33:34 PM EST
    It shows where we are as a country. Our priorities are focused on deathmachine industry and killing and healthcare is a blip.

    The socialism of war. Catchy book title, no.

    Parent

    BCBS as a "non-profit" (none / 0) (#119)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 07:08:28 PM EST
    Wikipedia article about BCBS as a "non-profit".

    Link

    It was really misleading to point out that they're a non-profit.

    Well many of BC franchisees (none / 0) (#123)
    by Bemused on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 07:19:19 PM EST
    are now for profit and i think people misuunderstand what not for profit means.

      It does NOT mean the corporations are not allowed to have revenues that exceed expenses. It means that they have not for profit status under the internal revenue code because they do not distribute profits to equity investors (stockholders) and comply with other internal revenue regulations. Corporations with not for profit status are exempt from paying federal corporate income taxes (and I believe state taxes in all states)

    Parent

    The BSBC (none / 0) (#131)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 08:11:37 PM EST
    organizations DO pay federal taxes, per the Wikipedia article.

    Parent
    The for profit (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Bemused on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 08:19:28 PM EST
    franchisees/licensees pay corporate income taxes. BC/BS today is not what it used to be. There are regional franchisees and licensees around the country many of which are for profit. The "national" BC is still not for profit but as I understand it is not actually in the business of writing insurance and is more of an advocacy organization/trade association type entity serving the regional entities for a a fee.

    Parent
    BCBS pays Federal Corporate Taxes (none / 0) (#135)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 08:19:40 PM EST
     

    Parent
    Taxing benefits? (none / 0) (#143)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Aug 15, 2009 at 09:18:27 PM EST
    I didn't hear anything about declaring health care benefits as income and taxing them. Hopefully that idea has died on the vine. With the health care plan for Congress, it would hit everyone of them in the pocket!

    Obama in Grand Junction: Live Thread | 158 comments (158 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment