Obama has had concrete proposals too:Containing end of life care
costs which Republicans demonized as "death panels". Comparative effectiveness research which Republicans demonized as
"rationing".Both sides pay this game, its disingenuous to
only blame Obama and the Democrats.
Wasserman's comments may be "old" but they are real. The Republican
plan will kill Medicare as we have known it in favor of private insurance.
Private insurance will increase health care costs as health insurers profit.
Privativation also means profit centered corporate decisions as to
who gets covered and at what cost. This alone ought to "scare" people,
old and othewise, but especially older people as their cost will be higher due
age and medical condition. The truth is that Debbie and other
Democrats are not trying to scare people, they are just trying to warn them.
The Ryan plan just unfairly shifts costs and rewards corporate interests, the
same corporate interests that fund the Republican Party. But, from the peoples
grass root reaction to the Ryan plan, I doesn't look the people are as dumb as
the Republicans think.
The article starts off with a false assumption..."an attractive?"
Then its point is well taken that the Dems can do nothing but demagog the
Repubs. The playbook has worked for so long it should not be changed. Keep up
the good work dems, and the pubs are helping you by spending like dems.
If it were the 1950s and the repubs came up with the smallpox vaccine,
Wassserman would run scare ads screaming that the repubs want to stick you in
the arm, it would hurt, and leave a scar in an attempt to discredit them. She would completely ignore the fact that the dems were doing NOTHING
about the problem (except make it worse).
To "Mike in Texas | 6:26 a.m." what should scare people is to know
that the government has a 30% overhead cost, while their insurance company runs
at 15% to 20% for overhead plus profit.Lets not forget that Medicare
has a higher claims denial rate is higher than private health insurance.
To Red Shirt: Absolute nonsense. Medicare pays out 97.5% of revenues for patient
care. No private insurance comes within a mile of that standard.
To "Roland Kayser | 9:37 a.m." but where does its revenues come from?
They come through the Federal Government. The Federal Government has a 30%
overhead rate. That statistic is like saying that your accounts payable
department pays out 98% of the money that they receive. That may be true for
the one small group, but does not take into account the company as a whole, wich
is what you have to do.
Re: "Medicare pays out 97.5% of revenues for patient care. No private
insurance comes within a mile of that standard."Close to true
[actually should be about 98.4%], but also wildly misleading, since the primary
administrative costs -- human resources -- are not even accounted for in that
figure.Figuring in all readily obtainable overhead [HHS budget,
$79.9B; Medicare Operations, $2.3B; CMS Program Mgt, $3.6B; General Trust Fund,
$54.4B] gets you to about 28% overhead.
Medicare currently has $24 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. What do
the Democrats propose be done about that? They claim that the Republicans are
trying to steal health-care from Medicare recipients, but they have already
spent that money and they have no way to repay it.$24 TRILLION means
that every man, every woman, every child in America would have to pay $80,000 to
pay that money back. Add in the unfunded liability for Social
Security and you have over $88 TRILLION. That means every man, every woman and
every child would have to pay over $293,000 to balance that liability.What do the Democrats propose about that $88 TRILLION liability? The DNC
spokeswoman is very good at blaming others. When is she going to take
responsibility for what the Democrats are avoiding?
Earlier I posted that it was sad Thomasson was complaining because
Representative Wasserman Schultz told the truth, and that he should open his
mind. I don't know what was objectionable about that, given the tone and
comment of the posts entered by some of the far-right posters here. So I'm
trying again.To repeat myself -- Representative Wasserman Schultz
told the truth. It's sad that Thomasson isn't willing to see and recognize the
Wasserman has somehow become a frequent guest on Face the Nation. I cannot
stand to listen to her. I tried the first several times. But she is so
grating, so antagonistic, so negative, so manipulative. I think that must be
the requirement for DNC chair, because the last guy was almost as bad. Except
he looked silly more often. Wasserman is simply manipulative, and it shows in
the way she says everything. She's probably right on some things, everyone is
right sometimes, but her personal style is so antagonizing I can't stand to
listen to her. Poor choice for DNC chair. I am a Republican who is sympathetic
to some planks on the D platform, but having someone like her for the face of
the DNC is poor thinking. She will never reach the moderates or
independents.(And I wouldn't bring this up, but it was the first
adjective the reporter used so I have to dispute it, "attractive"? I
mean, it doesn't matter, why the writer felt the need to bring it up at all I
don't know, but at least be right when you do).
I don't know, Joe Moe, she looks ok to me.
JOe Moe:; Are you saying Mitch Mcconnell, John Boehner, Paul Ryan and the rest
of the clowns leading the republican party, are positive? That they are trying
to work with this administration? The democraticly controlled house passed
hundreds of bills, some creating jobs, to help the economy. All were shot down
by fillabuster's in the senate. Republicans do nothing. Their partry is a joke.
Their agenda is obvious, to make the poor and middle class pay for everything
and give More tax breaks to the wealthy. Their message is a old tired one, that
didnt work with Reagan, or Bush's. Nancy Pelosi was one of the best speakers we
ever had. And she will be again, after the 2012 election. Kinda warms your heart
dont it?Speking of poor choices, Mitch mcConnell fits that bill. Along with the
entire GOP feild for president.
It is sad that when we are on a sinking ship, the only thing our politicos do is
wrestle for the helm.
Re-Publicans/Conservatives/Tea Party types just said NO from 11/08.In fact, they said "H" No!It too, got to be
"decidely old"."Decidely old" yet very
effective.The Democratic Party is just using the same tactic used by
R/C/T's.The fact that a right-wing newspaper would complain about it
proves it is working."...grating, antagonistic, negative,
manipulative..."If she was not spot-on target, the article
would have never been written.
Re:RedshirtWhere do you get your statistics?For the private
insurance market, a 2008 study by the Congressional Budget Office, the
nonpartisan number-crunching arm of Congress. CBO cited data, compiled by the
McKinsey Global Institute, that estimated administrative costs for private
insurers at 12 percent. However, data cited by CBO found that administrative
costs for private insurance were about 7 percent for employers with at least
1,000 employees, but 26 percent for firms with 25 or fewer employees. Meanwhile,
in the individual insurance market -- that is, plans secured by individuals on
their own, rather than through an employer -- the rate was nearly 30 percent,
CBO said.A 2011 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the
Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust
Funds -- the document prepared by Medicares fiscal overseers prorated
administrative costs of 1.3 percent. Other estimates, using different
calculations peg the cost between 3 and 5 percent. (politifact)
One of the biggest fallacies that republicans promote is that "For
profit" health insurance companies can save health care costs. Just the
opposite is true. Very few countries are still in that business. Almost all of
the other westernized countries have government sponsored programs or highly
regulated nonprofit insurance companies involved and their medical costs are
Why do the Democrats focus on health-care, insurance, and all the other
unconstitutional things that the government has decided is somehow
Constitutional?Do they know that if the government stayed within the
Constitution that every Democrat and 95% of the Republicans would be voted out
of office? Is that why they're arguing over health insurance instead of asking
what is legal and what is not legal for the FEDERAL Government to do?Who cares who the Democrats have chosen as their pointman (woman) when all of
their points are wrong? Finding someone who can talk over everyone else is not
much of a feat. It takes no talent to find someone who cares so little about
truth that she would tell us having a $100 TRILLION unfunded liability in Social
Security and Medicare is not such a bad thing - but that anything the
Republicans offer is to be mistrusted.The real question is why
anyone, man, woman or child would try to tell us that what the Democrats are
offering has any merit. Why would anyone agree to accuse the Republicans of
'shady practices' when the Democrats have offered nothing but empty promises in
Here's your answer Mike. First of all democrats and most of America realize
that we don't live in the 1800's anymore and that life and society are decidedly
different. One major difference is the power of a capitalist economy.
Capitalism has the power to produce enormous wealth. It however does not have a
wealth distribution system that naturally benefits society. In fact left
unaltered it produces enormous wealth for a few and poverty and enslavement for
the many. Unaltered capitalism also uses up and destroys any environment it
functions in. Most Americans find this unacceptable and long ago
realized that only a unified society can alter these natural outcomes.
Government is how a society is unified. Thus Democrats when in charge of
government concentrate on those outcomes of markets that they find unacceptable.
Seocndly your opinion of what is legal is just your opinion. It
may be supported by others, but the courts, the legal entitiy for such decisions
have decided against you many times. The tug of war between the
natural functions of markets and the good they produce and the harm natural
markets do to society will continue. In America it's called politics
To "Truthseeker | 7:42 p.m." ok, here is your proof.See
"Obama cuts pay raises for federal workers" at the Hill to find
"a 2.4 percent increase would cost $19.9 billion more than the 2 percent
increase" From here you have to do some math to see that about 30% of the
federal budget is salaries.Read "Medicares Refusal of Medical
Claims Continues to Outpace Private Rate" at the Independant Institute.
They quote the 2009 National Health Insurer Report Card produced by the AMA
where the AMA found that "Medicare denied only 4% of claimsa big
improvement, but outpaced better still by the private insurers. The prior years
high private denier, Aetna, reduced denials to 1.81%an astounding 75%
improvementwith similar declines by all other private insurers, to average only
To "pragmatistferlife | 7:54 a.m." its good to see that you are
sucking down the liberal Koolaid.What you should do is read "In
Defens of Global Capitalism" by Johan Norberg. It explains that what we
have is not a problem with distribution of wealth, but a distribution of
Capitalism. It explains how the best way to eliminate poverty is to adopt
capitalism. Also read "How Chile Got Rich" at Investors Business
Daily.The other problem is that if you don't have capitalism, what
system do you have for producing goods? If you answered Socialism or one of its
cousins, you would be right. The problem with Socialism is that it destroys
incentive to do things better, faster, and cheaper. It promotes medocrity,
which never leads to excellence. Part of the includes fostering a system that
promotes irresponsibility and does not allow for people to experience the
consequences of their bad decisions.If you have kids, you can run a
simple experiment with them. For a month, pay them for working around your
house, and see what they do. Then, pay them for doing nothing. Tell us which
benefitted your household the most.
Redshirt, no where did I advocate the destruction or abadonment of capitalism.
In fact I said that capitalism produces great wealth..a good thing. The issue is
simply where does that wealth go and who benefits from it. I also agree that
capitalism is a good means to eliminate poverty, however in order to do that the
capitalist society has to have a specific goal to eradicate poverty..America has
no such goal. Secondly socialism isn't the only alternative to
capitalism in order to produce goods. Lastly the capitalism of today bears
little resemblence to the economy of the 1700's. We can argue whether the 1700
economy was capitalist but it certainly wasn't the economy of today, with
globlization, fiat money, and, and finance based.
Re:RedshirtNoted. You pulled the figures out of your head. I'm
acquainted with the AMA figures. Two points: Medicare doesn't have the luxury
of dropping or declining coverage to people. They insure the most expensive
demographic of society. Point 2: statistics compiled in CA reveal the number
of denials by private insurers significantly higher-10 times more than what was
reported by the AMA.
To "pragmatistferlife | 11:35 a.m." go and read "In Defense of
Global Capitalism" by Johan Norberg. It explains how it is governments not
allowing capitalism to be practiced that is the cause of wealth being
concentrated into the hands of a few people.Just look at what has
happened in the past 3 years in the US. The government gave some banks unfair
advantages over others, and further concentrated wealth into the hands of a few
people. The problems isn't capitalism, it is government trying to control the
outcome of capitalism.
To "Truthseeker | 1:12 p.m. " where is your proof. "You pulled
the figures out of your head."Does it matter if the they insure
the most expensive demographic or not? The fact is that that Medicare denies
more claims than private insurance companies do. Basically, the government
doesn't want to pay.As for the overhead, if you can't do the math,
that is sad.Although, it is great to see that you don't let pesky
facts or math get in the way of you views.
Just one question: Has anyone every dealt with an efficient government agency?
To RedShirt: What you say is laughable. Capitalism is alive and well, in this
country as never before. In fact we got so drunk and greedy about our rapid
creation of wealth, with such little controls and oversight, we tripped over
ourselves and caused the collapse in 2008. A socialized program for healthcare
is no threat to capitalism, no more than adding resources to our education
system. where do you think much of our medical advances came from? You guessed
it, from government funded research. So shouldnt we all benefit from it?By the way the book by Johan Norberg has more to do with "Free
Trade" agreements and less about capitalism. In other words it was about
government policies between countries.
redshirt, haven't studied Norberg in detail but have purused him and don't agree
with his classic economic views out of the gate. Your example of what happened
to banks is flawed because of your implied position that not helping the failing
banks (a classical position) would have been the prudent thing to do, and simply
would have thinned out the herd, allowing healthy banks to survive. I, and
nearly all credible economists believe inaction would not have thinned the herd
but would have destroyed the world economy. Banks through
government inaction had truly become too big to fail. While the bank bailout
was clumsy it in no way exacerbated the wealth inequality that had transpired
over the past thirty years, it simply preserved it.
Re:Danish AmericanI know at least 2 healthcare providers which find it
much easier to deal with Medicare than private insurers.
To "pragmatistferlife | 3:39 p.m. " your position is flawed because
the government didn't help failing banks, they pushed weak banks over the edge
so that their cronies could take them over.Please name some of the
so called credible economists.You realize that if it wasn't for the
government that the banks would not have become so big that they were deemed
" too big to fail."
@lost in DC: "She would completely ignore the fact that the dems were
doing NOTHING about the problem..."You got that right. The
Dems couldn't even pass a 2011 budget. They decided to politicize it by making
Republicans come up with the hard choices so they could stand by and criticize.