For the Good of All

Funny thing, The stock market went DOWN today and before you think that may be due to other forces, please know that hospital stocks went down and insurance stocks were mixed,     SO, after the results of the election were known,  the insurance stocks did not soar.  Interestingly, following the passing of the Senate version of the bill last Dec, stocks soared also, note this exchange from last month,

On Sunday's  Meet The Press, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough was asked a simple question about health care: What has President Obama achieved? His answer: "He has made a lot of people with insurance stock a lot richer."
"This [bill] is great for insurance companies," he explained. "They were going to reform the system [but] neither side wanted to take on the insurance companies. Neither side wanted to get rid of anti-trust exemptions. Neither side really pushed hard to allow you or me or anybody here to buy across state lines. And as Howard Dean said -- and this is a devastating fact -- insurance companies' stocks reached [52-week] highs on Friday after this so called reform bill got its 60th vote. So David Axelrod, who I love and respect, but David Axelrod kept saying 'we took on the insurance companies, this is real reform, they're against it.' Really? I don't think so."

However, I do not think that the insurance Companies love this bill, on the contrary I think that they would love to have things stay the same BUT they also were anticipating increasing their rolls if it did pass.  Obama sought their input and had them ON BOARD.  To try to make it out that they were not complicit in mandating that every man woman and child buy from their companies is just dishonest.  You really think they thought this would be a bad thing?  Ha ha  ( I got a bridge in Alaska to sell you).

    Now I have 2 major points to make.  First regarding our economy.  Our economy is not a free market economy (especially  in regard to health care ) so the “enlightened self- interest” comments goes only so far..  Now I am not an economist and my understanding of things are entirely self taught so bear with me.  We have  a mixed economy and there is heavy  intervention in the health industry from the federal and state governments.  Frankly, I think we would actually be better off it was a free market economy Insurance companies can’t help but have some power over individual markets as the government does not allow for true competition.  States regulate and in some areas only one or two companies hold the whole shebang,  How can you create market forces in that type of atmosphere?  The people are only able to buy one or the other and both probably offer only one or two  rigidly controlled policy that mandates so many benefits (whether needed or not).  How can that work?  If companies were allowed to sell across the country and offer different plans for different customers then we could have a good result where the market forces would prevent any one company from taking advantage of their customers, those customers would be able to find other companies to sell to them if the prices got to high.  (I acknowledge that some people would need subsidies to purchase their own policies but by having them purchase and take ownership they then become involved in making decisions and keeping some companies in business and others run them out of business). True competition (and I do not mean from the government) is missing.

    OK my second point is regarding this idea that insurance companies are inherently evil.  They make money, yes they do, ooohhhh .   They earn money for their “rich stockholders”  Hmmm….Yup they do,  and I am certain that not all the shareholders are “rich”  but must admit that you actually must have money to buy stock.  The profit margins for insurance companies range from 2-4 %  depending on who you are looking at, this does not seem (to me) to be some kind of an obscene amount.  It is easy to point out, (like many do to the oil industries also)  “Oh, look at the BILLIONS they made in profit“,  but fail to realize this is not a large amount when looking at their overall gross or expenditures.  Anyway, I don’t want to get in over my head, but count me in for companies in business to make money, lets allow them to compete in a fair manner and let ‘em go..  Don’t  you think that doctors or hospitals (well maybe not the Catholic ones) or medical device people ALL make money off of us? (in fact Johnson and Johnson profit margin is 20%!). Guess what they do, they exploit our illnesses and accidents and actually make money!!!. Why are the insurance companies the bad ones?  If we hate them do much lets get rid of them and do direct pay to the providers?  Maybe only have catastrophic care policies for hospitalization.  Fine with me but lets not castigate one aspect of health care  and pretend that everyone else is in it for the goodness of mankind.

 

OK. One last point, Scott Brown made an excellent point today when correcting the newswoman when she expressed surprise that he called Vicki Kennedy and how could he call and talk to the widow of Ted Kennedy when he is responsible for defeating Ted Kennedy’s legacy and current Health care reform ( implying that was arrogant and presumptuous) and he said something to the effect  “I am for Health Care Reform, just not the reform that is currently in Congress”  I have high hopes for True BI-PARTISIAN health care reform, something in which we will all benefit from.  I hope you see that as well soon.  ( and I certainly will be thrilled to tell you, “I told you so”)

cheers and I am still basking in the glory that one feels when they are FINALLY validated!

KABOOM

 

Did you hear the Democrats entire leftist agenda exploding?  did ya?

Steve, sorry I will have to address all your post and accusations  tomorrow as I am too busy tonight celebrating the joy that I feel over the death knell for Obamacare.  If Massachusetts ( my Goodness, could it be any better?  how do you spin this away? ) can reject Obamacare and the one party rule and all the crap that is being pushed on the American people, well.... perhaps I am not so far out on the fringe after all.  There are decent Democrats that feel this process and Washington arrogance needs to be addressed and now the Senate will be forced to come to the center and include all (even those evil self centered Republicans).  Balance has been given (however small a margin).Our country is Center Right and if Obama is wise he will take a hard tack to center, else this will be a Republican controlled Congress in the fall.

YIPPPPPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

Market reaction to Mass. Election

Here's the lead story for Marketwach.com today: (excerpt from http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocks-gain-as-health-stocks-rally-2010-01-19?dist=afterbell)

"The stock market hit a new 15-month high Tuesday, spurred by the biggest jump in health-care shares since the summer as traders bet on the outcome of a Senate race with big implications for proposed health-insurance reforms."

Sue, as much as you want to believe that insurance companies & big pharma love this bill, the reality is they would prefer NO BILL!  Today's stock market action clearly shows this.  Looks like these stocks are soaring in lockstep with Mr. Browns election chances!

In addition, here is a comment from a Wall Street insider, in the same article:
------------------------
"Not only could today's race turn out favorably, but the signal here is that we could also be headed for November elections that would cause some real gridlock" if the balance between Democrats and Republicans tips further in Republicans' favor, said Peter Cardillo, chief market economist at Avalon Partners in New York.

"From the market's standpoint, that would be exactly what the doctor ordered."
------------------------
So please, please, please, don't try and tell me that big business is on the side of the Democrats on this bill or anything related to healthcare in general.  It's so clearly NOT the case.

With this in mind, I stand by call to invest in healthcare stocks if the Republicans are in charge of healthcare reform.  Looking at the market action and comments, I'm not the only one who sees this as an obvious and rational course of action.

And lastly, I only saw two digs on Republicans in my last blog.  Here they are with some clarification:

"So if I were looking at this issue solely in terms of 'enlightened self-interest' I would have to vote no.  But then I was never one to look at these types of problems like an accountant or a Republican."
--All I meant here was that Republicans have traditionally espoused free-market thinking, in which the market works best when everyone acts in accordance to their own enlightened self-interest.  Enlightened self-interest means, in effect, acting on behalf of others because doing so will help yourself.  If that is not a central conservative economic tenet, then I have thoroughly misunderstood people like Thomas Sowell, who seem to live by this.

"Because, as I see it, the only people who will benefit from a Republican healthcare solution are the insurance companies and their rich shareholders."
-- As indicated by today's market action in response to the Mass. election.

None of this, for the record, reflects my thoughts toward you personally.  I disagree with you, but I in no way find you disagreeable.  We are family, after all!

Something is not always better than nothing

    I am surprised, well maybe not, at your cynicism and stereotyping of Republicans, and I will do my best to not take it personally that you have basically said I, as a Republican, only care about my own self interest.  That is supremely unfair, not to mention, not true.  Interesting how you seem to attack the motives  and personal characteristics of republicans in a rather mean spirited manner as we debate these things.  I try not to disparage you for your thoughts and positions in a personal way.  Further, I do not believe that I have ever done anything to give you an indication that I am a self serving person, but perhaps I have.  I wonder, what do you really think of me?  Ah well,  I will thicken my skin.

I disagree that Health Care is dead if this deal does not go through, in fact I believe it has served as  a catalyst to get people talking about what needs to occur.  I have, for many years, been complaining and decrying the out of control health care costs that are happening.  Perfect example,  I have had 4 babies.  Each approximately 2 years apart (give or take a month), each pregnancy was almost identical, each hospitalization was 2 days long, normal delivery, similar experiences, drugs, monitoring, etc. etc. etc.  ( maybe Ben, the first, there was a bit more intervention as there were a few hairy moments in the final moments of delivery whereby numerous doctors and nurses ( say 12 extra people) were called in to assist but the last 3  were same hospital and everything.  Perry has been with the same company and we have had the same insurance for all 4 babies.  My first  child the out of pocket expense (total) cost me $25.00 ( for everything); my second, it was around $350.00 ;  Jenny, my third, costs were $3200.00; and Nate ran us around $7100.00 .  That is a problem.  SO, before you jump into the belief that Republicans want to keep the status quo; let me reassure you, that is not the case.  Most intelligent and knowledgeable people recognize and want to address the problems that are  in our health care system.

    Now did Republicans raise it as a centerpiece or push for it while in power? No, but times are different and the issue is front and center and the desire is out there from the American people and I think that we can come up with a plan that will address the problem.  You state that no bill is better than the status quo, but what if this bill increases health costs?   What if this bill reduces choices and coverage for the majority of people. What if this bill creates a more pronounced ‘class’ system of care, where by only the rich will be able to get the best services? ( you may state that happens now but I  think this bill could make it more pronounced) What if this bill fails to insure all the uninsured?  Even you can acknowledge there are many scenarios whereby this bill IS worse than the status quo.  

    I think if this bill gets squashed ( and I am fervently praying for the Tuesday election to do this) then this does not mean that everything is done for.  It simply means that if Democrats are serious, they must address the concerns, and listen to the majority of America and what must happen is that the Democrats and the Republicans will then have to  come together and make laws that will fix the problems.  Perhaps this can also be done in a less sweeping and more  piecemeal fashion, instead on one giant unproven experiment, lets address and perhaps tackle the issues in separate bills. ( no more 2500 page monstrosities)  Doing things in a more cooperative, open,  process, where each piece can be examined and solutions discussed. And certainly if you have more broad support you will have less, deal making, and corruption.  I think most people recognize that there are real problems with the spiraling costs that are happening in our country.    Look at increasing coverage as one piece.  Look at improving services as another, look at reducing costs as a third, etc.

I find it fascinating that you have turned a blind eye to the fact that insurance companies and Big Pharma are all in bed with the DEMOCRATS with this bill.  You think that the insurance companies are  not making out like bandits with this new bill?  Why has their stock soared with news of this moving through and passing in the Senate.  Insurance companies stand to make millions and millions with this plan, after all we are now MANDATED to purchase private insurance ( even Rush Limbaugh who can privately pay for it)
Yet you claim this is a Republican tactic.  Not one republican has been able to influence this bill in any significant manner, though Olympia Snowe stuck in for a long time trying,  Dems own it lock stock and barrel so if it does pass I think you ought to invest with those insurance companies but you can thank the Dems .

For the record here are a few of my thoughts on health care reform, feel free to attack them:

• Medical care services need to be paid for by people, not insurance companies,  this creates a separation from what is being bought and like anything else, people can make better decisions if they are doing the buying, not insurance companies or the government.
• Tort reform MUST be a part of this plan.  I was speaking to a neurologist at Chuck E Cheese ( a fellow Homeschooler) who, after clarifying she was WAY off record, told me 80% of her tests are run to cover herself against future lawsuits.  Anecdotal fro sure but in our litigious society people ring the malpractice bell like they are playing the lottery.  I mean Obstetricians, in MD, can be sued for any problem the child can have up to the age of 18.  My current OB/GYN is defending herself against a lawsuit of a 13 yr old who has ADHD.  Her insurance has risen 300% recently and tons are closing up shop.
• Catastrophic care policies ought to be promoted ( maybe mandated) to eliminate bankruptcies due to medical illness.
• Insurance companies need to be able to truly compete to be able to reduce costs and improve service.  When there are so many restrictions as to what can be sold in one state vs. another, there IS no competition,  Government can never provide competition as they have an unfair playing field.
• I agree we are already paying for care for the uninsured, lets figure out how to get them insured. There will be people who are chronically ill and need subsidies for all their care, and some that need supplements to afford coverage.  We do need to help these people but that should be a small segment of the population. Many, many people CHOOSE to not have coverage and instead buy cars, or go on vacation or get a bigger house,  Like taxes everyone should pay SOMETHING, even if it is only a few dollars, because then they get invested in the choices and services and coverage they have/ need.   When things are given to people there is an absence of responsibility , and a dependency that is created,  For many people the incentive to stay dependant overwhelms the ability to become self-sufficient.    I feel very very strongly about this people need a hand-up  NOT a hand out. 
• People need to take a more proactive role in managing their own health.  Paying for medical conditions and problems that are  a result of lifestyle choices should not fall on the shoulders of everyone.  If you choose to smoke and weigh 100lbs more that you should, I shouldn’t have to completely support you medical bills.  Sorry if that sounds self serving but we need to promote responsibility.

SO there you have it,  This issue is not black and white and is so very complex, even the few ideas I have put forth create numerous questions and decisions.  Does something need to happen, YES!!!  This bill is not it, and is much, much worse than nothing.

Cheers,  I will so look forward to another discussion if Scott Brown pulls off the biggest miracle since Cana.

I vote yes.

Am I for or against this healthcare bill?

I'm for it.  Unenthusiastically.  I consider it to be like chemo for the healthcare industry: the medicine makes you sick, but doing nothing will kill you.

For me, personally, as in what's best solely for Mr. Sweet and family, this bill costs me money and I get no real benefit from it, because I'm healthy, insured, employed, and fairly well off.  So if I were looking at this issue solely in terms of 'enlightened self-interest' I would have to vote no.  But then I was never one to look at these types of problems like an accountant or a Republican.

Why, then, do I give this watered down milquetoast bill a reluctant thumbs up?

1)IT'S BETTER THAN NOTHING:  The realistic alternative before us is pass this bill or pass nothing for a long, long time.  And this bill, warts and all, is still better than doing nothing. Not because it helps democrats get elected and stay in power, which I doubt will be the case in any event. It's because the current system is so flawed, so broken, that even this piece of crap bill improves it. This bill is costly, unnecessarily inefficient, watered down, and in many areas does more harm than good.  Guilty as charged.  But it's STILL an improvement.

2) IT MAKES ECONOMIC SENSE: All those uninsured today are still gonna need healthcare.  When they do, who pays?  Currently, we do.  And we pay a lot. It shows up as extra taxes to pay for county hospitals.  The welfare costs are driven up as the uninsured move to the streets to pay for their unplanned medical bills and the astronomical cost of drugs.  It is a drag on the economy when totally preventable illnesses keep people in hospital beds instead of punching a timecard and earning a paycheck.  Add these not-so-hidden taxes up and it would not surprise me one bit to see they actually cost us more than paying to cover the uninsured outright.

3) IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO, DESPITE THE COST: Even without the economic argument given above I would still be for this bill.  It's simply wrong to continue to let the insurance companies dictate who gets coverage based on the risk to the companies profit margin.  Let me be clear: It's NOT wrong for insurance companies to decide who they cover or not (this is where I part company with the democrats and how they structured this bill.) They are for-profit companies; they can refuse anyone they want if they think it hurts their shareholders. It IS wrong that we as a people do not provide an alternative to those who have been turned down by the insurance companies. In a country that pays for two wars simultaneously and homeland security at any cost there is no moral justification for denying health insurance to millions by claiming we can't afford it. 

Since this is a political blog, I'll end with a POLITICAL COMMENT:  What will be the future of healthcare reform, democrat or republican led, if this bill is defeated? The democrats will clearly be too weakened to mount another assault on this issue, so I doubt any reform will come from them. And the republicans?  Well let's just say that if healthcare is left to the conservatives I'll be investing in insurance, Republican style. I'll buy stock in the insurance companies and use the profit to pay for my medical bills if I'm ever turned down by them.  If I'm blessed with continued good health then I'll donate the excess to those with pre-existing conditions who don't have the luxury of having capital to invest.  Because, as I see it, the only people who will benefit from a Republican healthcare solution are the insurance companies and their rich shareholders. 

We the People

Not being a complete idiot, I do realize that this bill has not actually passed, my earlier references were to the passing in the various chambers.  Actually, I am quite surprised at your assertion that it may be possible that some Republicans will end up voting for this.   Also, I am not certain that no one has changed their minds either, we haven’t heard it but like you said, the final vote has not happened.  The Democrats have convinced their people that NOT passing it would be politically worse than passing it, that is why they are passing it ( not for their original reasons)   Does this make sense to you?  How can that be the reason we are going to make this enormous change in our society, economy and  health care?  Were going to do this to be less politically damaging to the democrats?  This is reason to support this bill as a democrat? (Or do you believe this bill will increase coverage reduce care, improve and increase services and reduce our deficit as claimed?)    How about what is best for our country?  How about something that might actually help keep people from going bankrupt if they get sick ( catastrophic care politics) How about reforms that will really bring costs down?  ( TORT REFORM and interstate competition, free market competition, providing a variety of plans to choose what works for each person as opposed to mandated coverage for everything in every policy), What about increasing personal responsibility so people can have control and be involved in the decisions? ( make health care be paid for by people themselves, not insurance companies and fine, give subsidies to people to let them purchase for themselves instead of being a nanny state and purchasing for them).  What about addressing looming doctor shortage if they actually do the things they are planning? I feel like I could go on and on. 

So to a more, ummm, intimate question regarding this bill.  Specifically whether you , Steve Sweet, support this bill, (yes I understand we do not have a final bill, and there are some differences between the senate and house, but I hope you will not use that to not answer).

I agree the watering down of this bill removes any and all pretense to achieve its original purposes ( at least from a left view; as from a right (and correct ) view it never did anyway.  Thus, I have a hard time wondering how anyone can actually support it, and why they are continuing forward.  You use a lot of statements reporting that the majority of people support free universal health care.  I suspect if you asked people if they ought to have free universal housing, they would also enthusiastically back that.  Or free universal food,  or how about free universal gold bricks.  Who could not support that?   Ultimately, someone has to pay for these things ( and it cannot be done simply by taxing those evil rich people) and polls show that when people find out it may be THEM that has to pay for it, their support drops off dramatically.  Those same people also acknowledge ( overwhelmingly) that we as a nation can not afford this (especially at this time).
The fact remains this bill is hugely unpopular and no poll shows that majority of the  people support it, and I guess many of them ( not only republicans) have representatives in Congress, why are those Dems not representing the views of their constituents?  That fact alone should be enough to go back to the drawing board. I agree we have a looming problem with health care costs and availability.  This bill will do NOTHING to help those problems.  Something does need to be done it improve the issues but the hardest question is how do we do these things and not turn our country into a socialist or communist one, which dooms us for generations.

and finally:

GO SCOTTIE THE HOTTIE!!  SAVE US ON TUESDAY!!! 

More Healthcare Scrutiny

She lied, you say --- prove it without perjuring yourself.  Do that and you'll be invited to join Sarah and Glenn on Fox.  Just kidding.  You'll be invited for saying it, whether you can prove it or not.

You decry the quick vote as a lack of scrutiny?  Tell me, would the vote had been any different had the senate bill been scrutinized for an extra day? Or a week or month? Don't think so! The vote would have been exactly the same. Not convinced?  Well, it's been about 3 weeks now that the Senate bill's been out and scrutinized.  Has anyone changed their mind or regretted their vote? Republicans reject the proposals in the bill on principle.  Reading the fine print was not going to change their minds.  The democrats, on the other hand, largely agreed in principle but differed on details.  They met for weeks ironing out those details.  Did they need more time? No, they knew what was in the bill because they wrote it themselves and sat in on all the meetings! If the democrats are guilty of anything in rushing this through the senate it is simply this: EFFICIENCY.  To their credit they got the senate bill passed without wasting their time trying to convince the unconvinceable.

You keep hammering that this bill was not scrutinized before passed.  This would of course be true if Congress has actually passed the final bill.  The house and senate bills are not the final product, only steps along the path.  If the final bill becomes law before the public is aware of what Congress is proposing, then yes, shame on us all. 

The contrasts you made between the Healthcare bill to Medicare and Prescription drugs are bogus. First off, as discussed, there is no final healthcare bill yet to contrast with the Medicare and Prescription Drug bills! Second, there were a number of Congressmen who had cried bloody murder while they were in the process of making those Medicare and Prescription drug bills before there was consensus on the final versions of each.  That is no different that what we have seen to date in the healthcare bill.  Third, there were all manner of closed door meetings, compromises made & deals struck during the making of Medicare and Prescription Drugs. So far the Healthcare bill process is no different.  That's not a crime or a shame: even a moment of reflection should be enough to convince you that some closed door meetings are essential during the trial and error of reaching a consensus in a large group.  Closed door meetings and deal striking can be a breeding ground for corruption, but they (the meetings, not the corruption :)  are necessary in the process of negotiation and compromise.  I would guess that blaming Democrats for having them speaks more to conservative mistrust of Democrats than in the process of bill making itself.  I doubt seriously that closed door meetings and deal striking and consensus building on a Republican bill, driven by conservative principles, would be at all objectionable to Republicans.

Lastly, weeks and months of debate and effort went into developing a consensus within Congress on healthcare, just as occurred in Medicare & Prescription drugs.  The only difference is that this time the Republicans have stood firm in their opposition to a principle that the majority of people back: we as a nation will benefit by giving as many people as we can access to affordable healthcare.  It's no surprise that all Republican congressmen see in it the destruction of the free market and socialized medicine.  This is as it should be: they represent their constituents, the majority of whom feel likewise.  So they did not join in this process of making this bill and now make every attempt to derail it.  I've got no problem with that.  But a healthy majority of Congress, backed by a majority of their constituents, agree with this principle and DO see the debate in those terms.  What makes the current incarnations of this bill unpopular with this majority is not the principle of having near universal, affordable healthcare.  It is rather that the bills are watered down to the point that they are only marginally effective in providing access to affordable healthcare.  And why is it so watered down?  Because the Congressmen writing and re-writing these bills have been listening and responding to criticism of the proposals they have made.  So here's what has me baffled: how have the public, press, and Republican congressmen for months been able to scrutinize and spew detailed criticism of these proposals if they have been kept such a secret by the Democrats all this time?  This could only happen if Democrats have been, oh, what's the word...TRANSPARENT.

I totally get Republicans objecting to this Healthcare bill on principle.  There's no hypocrisy or dishonesty in that, and they should be vocal in their opposition (they are the opposition party, after all).  But Republicans who decry the processes and procedures of how this bill is being made really ought to think twice before lobbing stones from their glass towers.