Disqus - Latest Comments for Andy

Re: The Affordable Health Care for America Act

kathykattenburg — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 21:04:41 -0000

I thought I made it pretty clear that I don't think my ideas are possible at present since neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are interested in real reform.

Uh-huh. So. If your ideas were possible at present, how would they get done? What specific steps would you take to implement them? How would this look in terms of actual policy?

Actually I did - I listed the three general principles I think are necessary.

Uh-huh. But how would they serve to deliver health care to uninsured Americans at a lower cost? What makes you believe that setting a payout cap at $100,000 for private insurance companies would induce them to sell policies with lower premiums that provide comprehensive coverage? How would your principles help uninsured Americans to purchase insurance on the private market? I mean, I see your general principles and they are very nice, but I can't say if I think they are good or bad ideas if I don't know how they will change anything.

Uh-huh. But, um, how would they

Re: House Democrats Say They Will Not Vote for Final Bill if Stupak Amendment Is In It

Andy — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:03:57 -0000

It seems there is a lot of disagreement over what the actual bill and the stupak amendment would or would not cover and would or would not force people/insurance companies to do. This is one of those times I really wish there were fewer lawyers in Congress.

I'm not sure why someone doesn't offer an amendment to extend the long-standing Hyde amendment to this legislation. That seems to be President Obama's standard - that the legislation be consistent with that long-standing, if unsatisfying, compromise. I have to wonder why that kind of simple solution isn't considered, much less attempted. I suspect the answer is that both sides of the debate are attempting to change the status-quo in their favor through parliamentary trickery and confusing, lawyer-y legislation. Frankly, the American people deserve better than the travesty this process has become.

Re: The Affordable Health Care for America Act

Andy — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:20:24 -0000

What I'm trying to determine is if this new law will use the same standard as the hyde amendment. The language I quoted is from that.

Re: The Affordable Health Care for America Act

Andy — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:19:22 -0000

Kathy,

You say, "Here is a short list of general reform principles," then after you list them you say, "Once that is done," without ever telling us *how* they would get done.

I thought I made it pretty clear that I don't think my ideas are possible at present since neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are interested in real reform. Here's the sentence you seem to have missed: "Unfortunately, the established political parties aren't interested in the kind of systemic reform I advocate for because they each have powerful vested interests." You originally - and speciously - claimed I didn't have any solutions - I think I do, but they are not politically possible given the vested interests that support your party and the GoP. I'm actually quite cynical on that score and believe that the system will, at a minimum, have to stand the precipice before real reform occurs, but I think it's much more likely we'll go the way of Argentina first. Our Congress too often doesn't act until after a crisis occurs.

So go ahead and criticize my politically impossible ideas all you want, but you should at least acknowledge that your solution doesn't solve any of the fundamental problems in the system either. It's quite amazing for you to lecture me about costs - the drum I constantly beat - on one hand while the other hand supports a bill that is likely to affect costs in the wrong direction. If you want to engage in wishful thinking and believe this bill you support will somehow reduce costs or even the rate of cost growth, then don't let me stop you. Maybe you'll get lucky and the train will somehow derail before it hits us - or at least those of us who will still be around to bear the brunt and clean up the mess.

And you give no specifics at all about how you would lower the cost of health care so 50 million uninsured Americans could afford it.

Actually I did - I listed the three general principles I think are necessary. Those are changes that would really be structural change. If you were expecting a thesis or detailed explanation, sorry to disappoint you, but this is just a comment thread after all.

Your "government-sponsored catastrophic insurance plan" is a hoary chestnut by now. It completely ignores what the problem is to begin with -- that health care costs are catastrophically out of control, getting higher every day, and totally out of the reach of most Americans. The 50 million Americans who are uninsured cannot afford private insurance. That is the point.

Maybe you missed the part where I said that would come after the necessary structural reform, which I believe should be the priority above all else - a priority the current legislation ignores. Of course if we simply adopted the model I suggested without those structural changes then it would fail - just as this current legislation will fail should it become law. At the risk of repeating myself, we need systemic reform, not the window-dressing that both political parties advocate.

The argument that compares health insurance to car insurance is specious, and has been debunked many times before. The value of human life and health is not analogous to a car. A car is optional; my life is not. And it's a good thing that cars are optional, because I can't afford the cost of automobile insurance in my state anyway. I'm glad I can live w/o a car. I can't live w/o my life.

Of course, but you completely missed what I was saying which related to the fiscal aspect of health care coverage. If you can't understand the financial implications of unlimited liability vs capped liability then I don't know what to tell you. Capping liability by requiring government to cover costs above that cap would tend to reduce premium costs. I'm not sure how you got the impression that I was comparing the value of life to the value of a car or a house, but whatever.

Re: The Affordable Health Care for America Act

kathykattenburg — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:53:49 -0000

Andy, Almoderate was quoting from my comment about the language that IS in the amendment and the language that ISN'T in the amendment. The language "physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself" IS in the amendment. The language *I* described and Almoderate quoted is NOT in the amendment. And that is the point.

Re: The Affordable Health Care for America Act

kathykattenburg — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:20:28 -0000

You say, "Here is a short list of general reform principles," then after you list them you say, "Once that is done," without ever telling us *how* they would get done. And you give no specifics at all about how you would lower the cost of health care so 50 million uninsured Americans could afford it.

Your "government-sponsored catastrophic insurance plan" is a hoary chestnut by now. It completely ignores what the problem is to begin with -- that health care costs are catastrophically out of control, getting higher every day, and totally out of the reach of most Americans. The 50 million Americans who are uninsured cannot afford private insurance. That is the point.

The argument that compares health insurance to car insurance is specious, and has been debunked many times before. The value of human life and health is not analogous to a car. A car is optional; my life is not. And it's a good thing that cars are optional, because I can't afford the cost of automobile insurance in my state anyway. I'm glad I can live w/o a car. I can't live w/o my life.

Re: The Affordable Health Care for America Act

DaGoat — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:17:02 -0000

Since, as you've now said, you're completely cognizant of the systemic fiscal problems and the unsustainability of the system, one wonders why you support a bill that ignores those problems and the problem of unsustainability and, indeed, is likely to make those problems worse.

Kathy is hardly alone here, indeed her viewpoint is shared by the majority of Democrats and especially the ones in Congress. It's pretty clear all the left's moaning about Bush's fiscal irresponsibility was just so much hogwash geared towards getting Obama elected. Just as the GOP was happy to embrace big government if it meant getting a pet program, Democrats are happy to embrace dishonest budgeting and huge spending increases if they get their pet programs.

Re: The Affordable Health Care for America Act

Andy — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:11:41 -0000

Almoderate,

The standard today, for medicare/medicaid at least, is that "life of the mother" means abortion is permissible when a threat to the mother includes "physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself." I would like to see where, exactly, the specific language you quoted exists in the bill.

Re: The Affordable Health Care for America Act

Andy — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 08:45:12 -0000

Kathy,

Touche' on your patronizing response! So my apologies for assuming you didn't the fiscal reality, but you are actually one of the few. Most people simply don't know that health costs have always risen faster than inflation and I made a wrong assumption based on your laying so much blame at the feet of one President.

Now, getting to your solution... Oh wait! That's right! You don't have any ideas for a solution. Or, on second thought, maybe that's not fair. You do have a solution. Don't throw money at a broken system. And that makes so much sense, Andy. When a system is broken, it has to be fixed. And you don't fix it by throwing money at it. You fix it by using the faith-based repair program: doing absolutely nothing and hoping the problem goes away. Or better yet: Pretending the problem doesn't even exist anymore!

I do actually have ideas, if you cared enough to ask. Unfortunately, the established political parties aren't interested in the kind of systemic reform I advocate for because they each have powerful vested interests. Yes, that includes the party that you seem to identify with. The Democratic plan which you support does nothing to change the existing system - its the equivalent of rearranging deck chairs. Since, as you've now said, you're completely cognizant of the systemic fiscal problems and the unsustainability of the system, one wonders why you support a bill that ignores those problems and the problem of unsustainability and, indeed, is likely to make those problems worse. It would be interesting to hear your defense on that score.

Just so you're clear on where I stand, here is a short list of general reform principles I think are necessary:

1. Get employers out of the health care business. Employer-provided health care favors corporations over small business and is one of the primary factors of wage depression over the last couple of decades.
2. Get rid of the fee-for-service system.
3. Change incentives and increase transparency within the system so that the consumers of health care better understand what they are getting and how much it costs.

Once that is done I would favor a government sponsored national catastrophic insurance plan where government would pay medical costs over a set amount (let's say $100k a year, adjusted yearly, as an example). This would effectively set a cap on what private insurance would pay out and make health insurance operate more like auto and property insurance (ie. your property insurer knows that your house and belongings are worth X amount and know they won't have to pay more than that. For health insurance, there currently is no limit, raising risks and premiums). Then individuals could buy private insurance to cover whatever they'd like and government could assist those with low income to enable them to purchase insurance.

Of course, that's just one idea and one that has flaws, as any plan would. There are other plans that could work, obviously. The bill that was recently passed in the house is not one of those.

Re: The Affordable Health Care for America Act

kathykattenburg — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:42:25 -0000

Just so you are aware, health care costs have outpaced inflation since the 1950's. We have long-standing systemic problems in the system that have nothing to do with GWB.

Whoaaa. I mean, whaaa? Picture Kathy's jaw dropping. I mean.... reeeaallly? You are serious? Wow! I never knew that!

Okay, snark break. Yes, Andy. I know that, Andy. I am fully aware of that, Andy. I am so very, very aware that the health care crisis has been building for the last 60 years -- almost my entire lifetime, Andy! I know that it was Eisenhower who first tried to solve the health care problem, and I know that various administrations have tried since then without success. This Congress is the first EVER to get a health care reform bill passed. That may be why all these weird little people out here are so thrilled and happy and have some idea that something good has happened.

And yes, you are absolutely correct that we have long-standing systemic problems that predate GWB. GWB did his humble little part, as one mediocre person and very substandard president, to make those systemic problems even worse than they already were, but he did not start the problem. He was only an itty-bitty boy when the problem had its beginnings.

Now, getting to your solution... Oh wait! That's right! You don't have any ideas for a solution. Or, on second thought, maybe that's not fair. You do have a solution. Don't throw money at a broken system. And that makes so much sense, Andy. When a system is broken, it has to be fixed. And you don't fix it by throwing money at it. You fix it by using the faith-based repair program: doing absolutely nothing and hoping the problem goes away. Or better yet: Pretending the problem doesn't even exist anymore! Bush perfected that one. Lord knows nothing ever got fixed or accomplished by spending money. NOT spending money -- now that's the ticket to making everything better.

Thank you for this little discussion, Andy. It's been.... enlightening.

Re: The Affordable Health Care for America Act

Andy — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:39:30 -0000

Rayne at Firedoglake lists the 64 Democrats who, in her words, “ask[ed] for primary opponents.”

Gee, I thought Congressional representatives were supposed to represent their constituents and not party apparatchiks.

Re: The Affordable Health Care for America Act

Andy — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:21:57 -0000

Kathy,

Just so you are aware, health care costs have outpaced inflation since the 1950's. We have long-standing systemic problems in the system that have nothing to do with GWB. There is no tax rate or spending cut that will make the system sustainable when costs are increasing at three time GDP growth. This bill, while it has a few merits, is simply throwing money at a broken system and will only add fuel to fire of financial unsustainability. And I'm sure when the system finally crashes the Partisans will be pointing fingers at GWB or Clinton or Obama or whatever President they like the least.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

Andy — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:15:44 -0000

GreenDreams,

Let's get a few things straight. To begin with, I don't need you to tell me (wrongly) what I think or believe. So quit with the "you teabaggers" crap. I am an abortion rights supporter and on the question of whether government should fund abortions or not as part of any medical care government provides or pays for, in general I think government should do that. But I have enough of a brain to realize that many - even a majority - of people in this country do not agree and I am not one to force such things down the throats of people who believe differently from me.

Additionally, what government ought to do is not the same thing as what government is required to do. Kathy apparently believes that failure to cover abortion violates the 14th amendment, which I think is poppycock, particularly since medically-necessary abortions are covered by government through medicaid and elsewhere and considering that not every medical procedure is covered by government programs.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

GreenDreams — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:35:33 -0000

No, Andy, it is you who are trying to create this false distinction in which one legal procedure is denied by law from coverage but others are not. You think tax money should not be allowed to cover, or partially cover, abortions. It is just as sensible for me to say tax money should not be allowed to cover the results of ANY risky activity. The point I'm making, just to clarify, is that denying the ability of private insurers (who form the exchanges) to cover legal procedures one by one, is exactly the "government takeover of health care" that you teabaggers have been yammering about. It is YOU who want the government to micromanage what private corporations can offer.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

Andy — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:15:53 -0000

You see, this is why I don't like lawyers writing legislation.

It appears the amendment would prohibit elective abortions for any subsidized plan, though abortion riders would be allowed. Non-government subsidized plans could offer what they want.

There's also a big disagreement over exactly what "public funds" means since federal money can come from a variety of sources.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

Andy — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:46:31 -0000

Almoderate,

If what you say is true, then I'm misinformed about this amendment. As I said before, I don't think the government has any business telling private insurance what it cannot insure, particularly a legitimate and legal procedure like abortion.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

Andy — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 22:13:21 -0000

It's only contradictory if you think the obligations and rights of government and the private sector are the same. Obviously, they are not.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

kathykattenburg — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:29:26 -0000

Your second paragraph appears to contradict the first.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

Andy — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:24:23 -0000

There are lots of things that insurance can deny coverage on. While we may agree that government should cover abortions, I think the argument that government MUST cover abortions as a matter of constitutionality is a completely bogus argument.

The provision making it illegal for insurers to provide abortion coverage through the exchange I think is completely unconstitutional and should be removed (or fall in the courts). I don't see where the federal government has that kind of authority.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

kathykattenburg — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:06:04 -0000

Refusing to pay for coverage is not the same thing as denying coverage.

In effect, yes it is, as Ezra Klein pointed out. Poor women cannot afford to buy private health insurance on their own. So as a practical matter, cutting out insurance coverage for abortion IS denying coverage. Especially since none of the insurers competing in the exchanges would be allowed to offer coverage for abortion under this amendment, even on the condition of no public dollars being used. That was one of the key demands of the supporters of this amendment. A woman should have no choice, no place to turn, even if her abortion *isn't* being funded with taxpayer dollars.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

Andy — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:28:43 -0000

Refusing to pay for coverage is not the same thing as denying coverage. Your comment to Leon is a strawman. There is no constitutional guarantee that any or all medical procedures must be covered by insurance or must be paid for equally through taxes.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

GreenDreams — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:33:28 -0000

Andy, see my comment above to Leonidas. Same comment to you. You subject yourself to risks that the federal government partly pays to insure you against. "Like it or not there are a lot of people" who don't want to partly foot the bill for your selfish risk taking. If one legal procedure can be denied the possibility of insurance coverage, so can others.

Re: The Price for Health Care Reform: Poor Women’s Health

Andy — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 19:01:27 -0000

Kathy,

I don't see how you can claim this is a constitutional issue. The fact that abortion is legal does not mean there is some constitutional requirement for government to fund abortions. Gun ownership, for example (among many other things) is also legal and constitutional but no one claims that government has a duty to buy guns for people who can't afford them.

Like it or not there are a lot of people in this country that don't want their tax dollars funding abortion. That's not a legal or constitutional issue - it's a political issue. It's the same with your examples of the death penalty and the military. The difference with those is that both have much more political support than abortion does.

Re: Republicans Disrupt Debate on House Floor

Andy — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:34:07 -0000

Pretty tame and typical,actually. Shouting-down in the house isn't all that unusual and used to be a lot worse.

Re: Details Emerging About Accused Fort Hood Massacre Shooter Maj. Malik Nadal Hasan

redbus — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:36:53 -0000

Thanks, Andy, for the link. There are many soldiers of faith in the military. A frequent commenter on TMV is Jefferson Davis (an apparent pen name), and he apparently is Army, and a conservative Christian, judging by his comments. Likewise, my nephew (a retired Army Captain) appreciated the work ethic of a Mormon soldier in his platoon. So it seems that loyalty to a Christian or Mormon God does not preclude doing ones duty to country. I wonder: Is there something inherent in Muslim faith that would have put Maj. Hasan in an impossible dilemma, a choice between following the dictates of his faith or following the orders of his superiors? I'm asking the question, and I'm sure I'm not the only one doing so today.