Comments on: What Would Teddy Do?

By: Barry

Barry — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 16:47:37 +0000

Still waiting for the apology, Joel…………..

By: Joel Levine

Joel Levine — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 06:51:58 +0000

Bernard:

Under the proposed health care legislation,

1. The federal government would have required substantially all individuals to purchase health insurance and would have dictated through taxes the constituent elements of the insurance policy that could be purchased.

2. Risk and pricing based on risk, which are at the heart of the insurance product, would be abandoned as insurers are forced to provide unlimited (in duration and amount) coverage to everyone no matter the risk. Is that what you call a “private insurance company?”In a piece by Professor Epstein, he discussed how the insurers would have faired far worse than the public utilities, who are least guaranteed a fixed rate of return.

3. Currently the Federal government spends from 50 to 60 percent of every health care dollar. (My guess is that the percentage would have been considerably higher under the proposed legislation. As Charles Krauthammer said, only a child could believe that 30 million new insureds are added and health care costs go down). This buying power allows the Federal government to control prices paid for a number of medical goods and services. I have no doubt that the federal government’s pricing for flu vaccines is what caused all but one of the U.S. flu vaccine makers to abandon that business and was responsible for the shortages in I believe 2002 and the most recent one in 2009.

So yes, I do believe that the government take-over of medicine which began with Medicare and has steadily increased over the years, would have been much closer to completion had the proposed health care legislation passed, especially if it contained a public option. And the day it happened would not have been a yom tov for anyone.

By: David

David — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 05:02:43 +0000

Do people really not know there are subsidies in the bill? Complaining that the out of pocket limits in the bill are too high? There are no limits now, how is at least setting them worse? The GOP will filibuster anything it can and the Senate isn’t passing anything else.

It’s the Senate bill or nothing. No reconciliation. No House bill. No do over. Pass the Senate bill and be done with it.

By: Finn

Finn — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 23:10:37 +0000

Mark, the Senate bill sets the yearly out-of-pocket plus premiums maximum for 133% FPL at 23% of that income. That assures you that a family at that income level will not be bankrupted? If you got sick tomorrow, could you afford 23% of your income?

By: Mark Kleiman

Mark Kleiman — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:12:31 +0000

Assured heathcare that’s also assured not to bankrupt them. This bill is as much about preventing financial catastrophe as a result of illness as it is about preventing death from lack of health care.

By: Maynard Handley

Maynard Handley — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:09:11 +0000

“which, while hardly perfect, would provide insurance to 30 million Americans who don’t currently have it.”

I would say NO_ONE GIVES A DAMN ABOUT INSURANCE. People want HEALTHCARE. Insurance is a means to that end, not an end in itself. Every indication is that, as handled in the US, it’s an insanely expensive, insanely inefficient means to that end which doesn’t even work many many times.
So why exactly do we care about how many people now get insurances? Why is that the goal, rather than the goal being ALL Americans now have assured HEALTHCARE?

By: Barry

Barry — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:07:12 +0000

Bernard, Joel has problems with facts and suchlike.

By: Finn

Finn — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:53:04 +0000

Of those 30 million Americans, something like 98% don’t have insurance because they can’t afford it. Reducing the costs of insurance such that most of them still can’t afford it if they actually need it (i.e. having health problems) isn’t much of a fix. Especially when they are then forced to spend, at minimum, something like 10% of their income on health insurance or pay a much smaller fine. These people aren’t stupid, they will pay the fine and still not have insurance. Also, increased tax revenues from rising salaries offsetting reduced benefits? Who ever said that was true hasn’t been paying attention the last 20-30 years. The best thing this bill had was the end to recission and yes, I think you can pass that handily even now.

By: Bernard Yomtov

Bernard Yomtov — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:03:03 +0000

the near completion of the federal government’s take-over of the health care system,

Huh? A plan run by private insurance companies according to federal rules is a “take-over?” Talk about ignoring the meaning of words.

By: SP

SP — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:24:06 +0000

Let’s see, each bill requires 3 cloture motions (to introduce the bill, to cut off debate on the bill, to cut off debate on moving to a final vote) each requiring 30 hours. Let’s break it into 6 bills (donut hole, Cadillac tax, rescission, community rating, subsidies, Medicaid expansion). That’s 540 hours, or about 5 weeks of 24 hour sessions, just to deal with the procedural hurdles involved in the filibuster. Spend a minimum of 2 more months on health care- sounds like a great plan.

By: Barry

Barry — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:01:32 +0000

Still waiting for your apology, Joel………………………

By: Bruce Wilder

Bruce Wilder — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:54:41 +0000

The issue is the Senate’s filibuster rule.

By: Brett Bellmore

Brett Bellmore — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 11:47:21 +0000

Yeah, why not send the Senate small bills? The fact that they can’t pass a huge monstrosity of a bill doesn’t imply that incremental reforms can’t pass.

By: Joel Levine

Joel Levine — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:20:36 +0000

Professor: You profess your belief that words have meaning, yet you repeatedly refer to the health care legislation or its proponents as “progressive.” In what sense of the word? The legislation you proclaim “progressive,” will effect the near completion of the federal government’s take-over of the health care system, which is neither new nor progressive; the legistlation is yet another expression of the religious left(“I am my brother’s keeper”) and their tribal mentality and a set-back for the extended order on which modern society is based. Be true to your professed belief, use the word that applies-”retrogressive.”