President Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

[PropAddict]

I think one big problem with healthcare and health insurance also is that it is so huge, we have to work at changing it one component at a time. You can't just try to fix the whole thing at once, it's too big.

+1 I've been saying this since the start.

Everybody wants to re-invent the wheel and be Mr. Healthcare, the genius who overhauls a whole system, which is contrary to how the vast majority of progress takes place. Better we should go incrementally, e.g. start with opening care for children, learn from it, tweak it on that small scale, gradually broaden over time.

"Evolutionary beats revolutionary"

 

[ryan1234]

The problem is, we're confusing health insurance with health care and expecting insurance to cover or discount regular or affordable care. Insurance is for catastrophic costs. It'd be like using your auto insurance to pay for oil changes or your property insurance to pay for exterminators.

A good read on the (mis)incentives in our healthcare system:
www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care

Thanks..... that was a great article!!

All part of the age of entitlements I guess

 

[Random8145]

I agree that a VAT would be the way to go, if we put it in place of income taxes. A tax system based on consumption makes sense and avoids the unfortunate situation of penalizing the most successful via the progressive tax rates. But when you just add it on top of the existing tax codes, then nothing gets simplified and we all just pay more. But replacing income tax with a VAT is of course not on the table.

Yeah, I think when Pelosi mentioned it, she meant it on top of existing sales, income, etc...taxes, not in place.

 

[Beans]

Yeah, I think when Pelosi mentioned it, she meant it on top of existing sales, income, etc...taxes, not in place.

Care to back that up more than "I think..."? Leave your speculation to your blog.

 

[DukeAndrewJ]

Care to back that up more than "I think..."? Leave your speculation to your blog.

I would say it is generally pretty safe to assume the super-progressive that she is, would never propose to eliminate a progressive income tax to replace it with the more libertarian-style consumption tax. However, assumptions are bad so...

I would not go so far as to say she is 'proposing' a VAT, but she is certainly getting her defenses ready for it. And no part of that defense had to do with compensating by lowering or eliminating taxes elsewhere. I don't think Pelosi or any of the other Dems floating the VAT idea have ever mentioned implementing it to replace an existing tax - after all, it would only serve to lower taxes on the rich.

 

[Random8145]

Care to back that up more than "I think..."? Leave your speculation to your blog.

I couldn't be totally sure, so I said, "I think..." based on what Pelosi had said in the above video. However, as said, you really think NANCY PELOSI would be for eliminating income and sales taxes for a consumption tax?

 

[Spekkio]

Credibility with whom? Folks on internet boards?? You have people saying that the Nobel Peace Prize is meaningless, then in the next breath saying he shouldn't accept it. Well, which is it? Does it really matter to you (or most people, except perhaps the chattering class or the Right Wing Echo Chamber), whether he accepts it or not? Seriously, does it?

Credibility with an elected official's constituency is important. If Obama starts to be viewed as a joke by Americans, it will create problems in accomplishing his goals. It could also potentially cause the Democrats to lose the majority in Congress come mid term elections. That might be a good thing for many of the right-wing hard chargers on this board, but it's a bad thing for President Obama. So far, I haven't talked to anyone who doesn't think this whole situation is ridiculous. I'm sure there are some people out there who are proud of Obama for earning this award, I just haven't encountered any.

In regards to the Nobel Peace Prize being meaningless...I never claimed that it was, and I think that most people view it as carrying some sort of prestige. Would you be upset if someone were awarded and accepted with pride a Navy Commendation Medal after 1 year of service for intending to do something?

As far as it mattering to me, it matters to me that my President is respected both domestically and abroad. I do not know how other countries view this whole thing, but if they take it as another sign of a weak Presidency, then it matters a hell of a lot.

 

[HercDriver]

Credibility with an elected official's constituency is important. If Obama starts to be viewed as a joke by Americans, it will create problems in accomplishing his goals. It could also potentially cause the Democrats to lose the majority in Congress come mid term elections. That might be a good thing for many of the right-wing hard chargers on this board, but it's a bad thing for President Obama. So far, I haven't talked to anyone who doesn't think this whole situation is ridiculous. I'm sure there are some people out there who are proud of Obama for earning this award, I just haven't encountered any.

In regards to the Nobel Peace Prize being meaningless...I never claimed that it was, and I think that most people view it as carrying some sort of prestige. Would you be upset if someone were awarded and accepted with pride a Navy Commendation Medal after 1 year of service for intending to do something?

As far as it mattering to me, it matters to me that my President is respected both domestically and abroad. I do not know how other countries view this whole thing, but if they take it as another sign of a weak Presidency, then it matters a hell of a lot.

I'm guessing across the political spectrum there are few that think he should have gotten it. But the whole "accept/not accept" is just spin; the point is what was the Board thinking.

I'm guessing that after his acceptance speech (bet it's gonna be good) you'll hear the usual folks kvetching about it, then it will die down as other stuff comes up. His ability to push healthcare reform through congress could hurt him, or even DADT (it hurt Pres Clinton), but accepting this prize...just more crazy am radio talk.

Edit: Predicting the future is always difficult, but when it comes to politics especially so. We may have to agree to disagree on the level of importance of him accepting it.

 

[SkywardET]

You mean the insurance industry is raising people's rates making health care unaffordable for many, because of not having enough doctors? A person with insurance can have their whole savings wiped out after an accident because of not enough hospitals? People spend hours going over insurance forms for their kids medical billing, and re-submit numerous times to ensure it is correctly coded, not because of inefficiencies in the system, but because we need more nurses? Doctors spend a ton on malpractice insurance because, um...I'm not sure how to spin that one.

The debate is complex, but if you are gonna simplify it, it comes down to there are folks who can't afford insurance and the cost of medical care keeps increasing FOR ALL OF US.

If you do not take the time to examine exactly why the "cost" of medical care keeps increasing for all of us, then you will never address the problem. The reason why a given bill from the doctor is large enough to warrant insurance coverage is because of a shortage of medical assets. What you were venting about is health insurance and its price, which is a different but related beast. The insurance beast grew as a result of the price increases in the medical care industry to the point where you can be "insured against the risk of" a yearly checkup.

Don't get me wrong, as I rather despise the FIRE (Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate) industry for their uncanny ability to add cost with usually no added value to any amount of capital. However, insurance does not equate to health care. That being said, if you want to get down to it, insurance is too expensive because of its own supply and demand model. Here's how:

Many health insurance companies are microcosm monopolies, and all the rest are oligopolies that often collude with each other. The consumer has a very limited number of suppliers of health insurance because of the "state line" issue, and therefore the price naturally expands, as one would expect from a limited-supply service or good.

Imagine, for a second, that you could buy health insurance the same manner in which you buy car insurance--from an enormous range of companies ranging from big national corporations (Geico, Progressive) to state or local insurance companies, instead of how you must buy health insurance now, which is from your state's franchise of BlueCross/BlueShield or the like.

Now imagine for a second that you increase the demand for health care by around 8% (24 million people, or so), while simultaneously subtracting 0% (which absolutely no one is estimating) to 50% (which is the high estimate of the number of doctors that will leave) to the supply. Prices already are inflating at rates far exceeding inflation--all Congressional bills under consideration will not merely continue that trend, but perhaps drastically accelerate it.

 

[Flash]

Imagine, for a second, that you could buy health insurance the same manner in which you buy car insurance--from an enormous range of companies ranging from big national corporations (Geico, Progressive) to state or local insurance companies, instead of how you must buy health insurance now, which is from your state's franchise of BlueCross/BlueShield or the like.

That already exists for federal civil servants, the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program. Strangely enough though prices are still relatively high (well, at least compared the military.....) and rise at a relatively rapid rate.

 

[mmx1]

Many health insurance companies are microcosm monopolies, and all the rest are oligopolies that often collude with each other. The consumer has a very limited number of suppliers of health insurance because of the "state line" issue, and therefore the price naturally expands, as one would expect from a limited-supply service or good.

Imagine, for a second, that you could buy health insurance the same manner in which you buy car insurance--from an enormous range of companies ranging from big national corporations (Geico, Progressive) to state or local insurance companies, instead of how you must buy health insurance now, which is from your state's franchise of BlueCross/BlueShield or the like.

You're barking up the wrong tree. Consumers have a limited number of weight on the market because self-purchased policies account for only about 9%, while the bulk of the market is the 60% covered employee-purchased plans, as a consequence of a 1950's tax exemption on employee-purchased plans. You can buy insurance, but the companies aren't interested in competing for your dollars and due to the tax benefit it's by default cheaper to take the employer option. The Massachusetts connector is a great example of the state making insurance competition for individual consumers more transparent.

 

[SkywardET]

You're barking up the wrong tree. Consumers have a limited number of weight on the market because self-purchased policies account for only about 9%, while the bulk of the market is the 60% covered employee-purchased plans, as a consequence of a 1950's tax exemption on employee-purchased plans. You can buy insurance, but the companies aren't interested in competing for your dollars and due to the tax benefit it's by default cheaper to take the employer option. The Massachusetts connector is a great example of the state making insurance competition for individual consumers more transparent.

I realize this, and the system has reached a critical point. Employer-based health insurance was never an ideal system, and as the average length of employment with a given company decreases per person, the system is even less capable of doing what it was intended to do. Tax-exemption for single-purchasers, or a tax rate equal to employee-purchased plans (thus repealing their exemption), would go a long ways towards evening the playing field and improving the sustainability of the system, as well as the sustainability of the average American's health coverage.

Flash -- That's a flash in the pan, if you will pardon the pun. That's one program playing almost the same game as the rest. It's good to have options like that, but if anything, it proves that having just one "[ ] option" like that will not solve the problem.

The price crisis has been a long time in the making, and it will take a long time to undo.

 

[Clux4]

Wow, we are back full circle to the healthcare debate!

 

[Random8145]

So some smaller things we could do that would likely lower costs are:

1) Either eliminate the tax exemption on employer-based health insurance or make this same exemption also apply to single purchasers as well

2) Eliminate the exemption to being subject to anti-trust laws that the health insurance companies enjoy (I believe they are exempt from anti-trust laws)

3) Remove the law(s) preventing people from being able to purchase healthcare across state lines.

4) Cut the mandates -- this one I don't know if I get fully, from my understanding individual states mandate that health insurance companies cover all sorts of smaller things (for example, as stated, imagine if auto insurance had to cover oil changes or homeowner's insurance had to cover broken windows, etc...).

However, because this is a state-controlled area, the only way I could see to fix it for sure would be to take this regulation away from the states and give it to the federal government, then have the federal government undo those mandates required by the states.

This would probably be impossible though, maybe even un-Constitutional for all I know (states rights?), but otherwise, it's up to the states to each tackle this and try to fix it I believe.

 

[Afterburner76]

The truth about health care reform

If you really want to know the truth about Health Care Reform, read on. Unless you’re in the insurance business, you have no idea how discriminatory insurance companies are and how often claims are denied or policyholders are forced to jump through hoops to collect or how many times insurance companies brow beat their insureds or get them to settle for less than they are actually due. One final thought, if you are 65 years old you are participating in a single pay program called Medicare. And if you are a Veteran you are also participating in a single pay program. Both Medicare and the VA program are good, but if you want to demean them, they are pure forms of “socialism”.

If you have an open mind and are interested in learning what’s “real” read on.
Health Insurance Reform Reality Check

8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage

1. Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
2. Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
3. Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
4. Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
5. Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
6. Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
7. Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
8. Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/

8 common myths about health insurance reform

1. Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
2. We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
3. Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
4. Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
5. Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
6. Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
7. You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
8. No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.

Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq

8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now

1. Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html
2. Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html
3. Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html
4. Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes
5. Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline
6. The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction
7. Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html

The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf