U.S. health bill "thingie" passed -- What is it exactly?

[horowitzian]

[...]

Finally, the Post Office is heavily subsidized, and yet there is private competition.  It's obviously not impossible.

[...]

Competition against the Postal Service by large international corporations like UPS, FedEx, and DHL is a good bit different than 'competition' between private insurance and subsidized insurance would be, since to the best of my knowledge most of our insurance companies operate only in the US.

[rachfan]

Hi  Walter,

You raise some interesting rebuttals, but I firmly believe that the bill that just passed is Phase I of a full take-over of the healthcare system.  So yes, there is more to come.  The public option and then the default to a single payer system will surely follow.  Obama is a calculating pragmatist who can justify any means to an end. If Obama made a secret deal with the insurers to drop the public option strategy, it will be quite moot once the regulators turn the screws on pricing, thereby squeezing the insurers, until they withdraw on their own accord, at which time Obama will say to the American people, "We placed full faith in the insurers to be efficient and competitive, but instead they became unprofitable and could not do the job of providing the healthcare that the public demands.  Because they have been the problem, government now needs to step in with a solution to assure every citizen adequate healthcare coverage.  Therefore, we are implementing a public option and will be announcing the details shortly." He definitely sweet talked Stupak into believing that a flimsy executive order would absolutely prevent public funding of abortions and would be a silver bullet.  Stupak was had.  If there was as secret deal with the insurers, I would bet they were had as well.  So I stand by my prediction of Phases II and III yet to come.  We'll see.

Now, I do make one important disclaimer: IF (yes IF) the GOP in the November by-elections recaptured control of Congress, the entire game will change overnight.  The Republican majority will 1) refuse to appropriate any funds to ObamaCare leaving it an empty Act, 2) the existing status quo will continue on without a blip, and 3) they'll repeal the act with an offer to restart healthcare reform in a bipartisan way, but more incrementally to assure that the reform will be much less costly and will not threaten the financial foundations of the U.S.  Why will Obama not fight the appeal?  Because with no appropriations, ObamaCare will be dead--period.  By collaborating with the GOP, he and the Dems can get some of the loaf.  That was always Ted kennedy's way--take whatever part of the loaf you can get, as they'll come another day.  And we may end up with with a healthcare reform that most can live with.  

[goldentone]

I won't disagree with you, but only point out once again that your idea is based more on distrust of an administration, than any evidential reality.  I think you have to confront certain facts before you can argue this is remotely any kind of government takeover.

I will agree with you, Walter, that one's political lens will affect to an extent whether one views the government's intentions with healthcare as benign or cancerous.  However, the move to take over the auto industry, the Cap 'n Trade legislation--those are facts to be interpreted.  And I believe they give us the true bird's-eye view of what Obama is after.

[gyzzzmo]

I won't disagree with you, but only point out once again that your idea is based more on distrust of an administration, than any evidential reality.  I think you have to confront certain facts before you can argue this is remotely any kind of government takeover.

Walter Ramsey

Seconded.

May i also note that there is no 'european system', there are alot of big differences in healthcare systems in europe.

[gyzzzmo]

Hi  Walter,

You raise some interesting rebuttals, but I firmly believe that the bill that just passed is Phase I of a full take-over of the healthcare system.  So yes, there is more to come.  The public option and then the default to a single payer system will surely follow.  Obama is a calculating pragmatist who can justify any means to an end. If Obama made a secret deal with the insurers to drop the public option strategy, it will be quite moot once the regulators turn the screws on pricing, thereby squeezing the insurers, until they withdraw on their own accord, at which time Obama will say to the American people, "We placed full faith in the insurers to be efficient and competitive, but instead they became unprofitable and could not do the job of providing the healthcare that the public demands.  Because they have been the problem, government now needs to step in with a solution to assure every citizen adequate healthcare coverage.  Therefore, we are implementing a public option and will be announcing the details shortly." He definitely sweet talked Stupak into believing that a flimsy executive order would absolutely prevent public funding of abortions and would be a silver bullet.  Stupak was had.  If there was as secret deal with the insurers, I would bet they were had as well.  So I stand by my prediction of Phases II and III yet to come.  We'll see.

Now, I do make one important disclaimer: IF (yes IF) the GOP in the November by-elections recaptured control of Congress, the entire game will change overnight.  The Republican majority will 1) refuse to appropriate any funds to ObamaCare leaving it an empty Act, 2) the existing status quo will continue on without a blip, and 3) they'll repeal the act with an offer to restart healthcare reform in a bipartisan way, but more incrementally to assure that the reform will be much less costly and will not threaten the financial foundations of the U.S.  Why will Obama not fight the appeal?  Because with no appropriations, ObamaCare will be dead--period.  By collaborating with the GOP, he and the Dems can get some of the loaf.  That was always Ted kennedy's way--take whatever part of the loaf you can get, as they'll come another day.  And we may end up with with a healthcare reform that most can live with.  

Astronomy.
Again you use arguments against a sound healthcare law based on vague future things that are quite unlikely.
I'd vote against crime-laws if i were you, because thats just the first step into a government takeover, wich can only be bad.

[thalbergmad]

May i also note that there is no 'european system', there are alot of big differences in healthcare systems in europe.

Indeed, which is why in England we get a lot of "Healthcare Tourists" and not a lot of people go to Romania for an eye operation.

Thal

[richard black]

not a lot of people go to Romania for an eye operation.

That may be literally true, but actually there's big business in Britons going to Hungary, Czech Republic and other E. Europe countries for operations and dentistry, including cosmetic stuff not available on the NHS.

[rachfan]

And, as I've pointed out twice previously, many Canadians cross over to the border states in the U.S. once they have serious conditions and find themselves on wait lists queues for appointments and tests.  They don't want to take a chance and instead get immediate attention and service here in the U.S.  That will stop once ObamaCare takes hold, as we will definitely have serious rationing of care of our own with which to contend (with 32 million added to the rolls and 33% of physicians leaving the profession).  I also believe that Canada has always invested less than they should in testing facilities, viewing the border states as a spillover safety valve.  That valve will be clogged shortly.  Then Canadian citizens will really be in a jam.  I feel bad for our citizens and the Canadians too.

[gyzzzmo]

And, as I've pointed out twice previously, many Canadians cross over to the border states in the U.S. once they have serious conditions and find themselves on wait lists queues for appointments and tests.  They don't want to take a chance and instead get immediate attention and service here in the U.S.  That will stop once ObamaCare takes hold, as we will definitely have serious rationing of care of our own with which to contend (with 32 million added to the rolls and 33% of physicians leaving the profession).  I also believe that Canada has always invested less than they should in testing facilities, viewing the border states as a spillover safety valve.  That valve will be clogged shortly.  Then Canadian citizens will really be in a jam.  I feel bad for our citizens and the Canadians too.

that 33% is utter nonsense.

[ramseytheii]

And, as I've pointed out twice previously, many Canadians cross over to the border states in the U.S. once they have serious conditions and find themselves on wait lists queues for appointments and tests.  They don't want to take a chance and instead get immediate attention and service here in the U.S.  That will stop once ObamaCare takes hold, as we will definitely have serious rationing of care of our own with which to contend (with 32 million added to the rolls and 33% of physicians leaving the profession).  I also believe that Canada has always invested less than they should in testing facilities, viewing the border states as a spillover safety valve.  That valve will be clogged shortly.  Then Canadian citizens will really be in a jam.  I feel bad for our citizens and the Canadians too.

HOnestly I have always heard it the other way around, that Americans go into Canada for health care (in fact the former Governor of Alaska has admitted to doing such a thing).  But who knows in the end, obviously our information sources are different.

One cannot really complain about rationing of care in this case.  Americans care is already rationed; people who have paid their insurance their whole lives are dropped for being too expensive; all kinds of conditions are pretexts for being denied insurance (which in this country is essentially denying care) and so on.  Our health care is being rationed by profit-seeking corporations, who have every incentive to ration that care in order to maximize capital.  I personally believe that is an immoral way to approach the health of citizens.

Would this law that just passed create all kinds of queues and waiting lists?  I have no idea.  But what would you rather be the case: that you have to wait for a procedure, or that you think you have the insurance to pay for the procedure, you are dropped with no warning, and you can't have the procedure at all without going bankrupt?

Those who claim that the new health care laws will ration care, need to first admit the reality that our care is being rationed already.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

Hi  Walter,

You raise some interesting rebuttals, but I firmly believe that the bill that just passed is Phase I of a full take-over of the healthcare system.  So yes, there is more to come.  The public option and then the default to a single payer system will surely follow.  Obama is a calculating pragmatist who can justify any means to an end. If Obama made a secret deal with the insurers to drop the public option strategy, it will be quite moot once the regulators turn the screws on pricing, thereby squeezing the insurers, until they withdraw on their own accord, at which time Obama will say to the American people, "We placed full faith in the insurers to be efficient and competitive, but instead they became unprofitable and could not do the job of providing the healthcare that the public demands.  Because they have been the problem, government now needs to step in with a solution to assure every citizen adequate healthcare coverage.  Therefore, we are implementing a public option and will be announcing the details shortly." He definitely sweet talked Stupak into believing that a flimsy executive order would absolutely prevent public funding of abortions and would be a silver bullet.  Stupak was had.  If there was as secret deal with the insurers, I would bet they were had as well.  So I stand by my prediction of Phases II and III yet to come.  We'll see.

*shrug* Sounds a little like spouting off!  Wasn't MediCare supposed to be the end of freedom as we know it?  And wasn't Social Security the first step towards a Communist USA?  I think you belong in a very long, very strong tradition here.

Now, I do make one important disclaimer: IF (yes IF) the GOP in the November by-elections recaptured control of Congress, the entire game will change overnight.  The Republican majority will 1) refuse to appropriate any funds to ObamaCare leaving it an empty Act, 2) the existing status quo will continue on without a blip, and 3) they'll repeal the act with an offer to restart healthcare reform in a bipartisan way, but more incrementally to assure that the reform will be much less costly and will not threaten the financial foundations of the U.S.  Why will Obama not fight the appeal?  Because with no appropriations, ObamaCare will be dead--period.  By collaborating with the GOP, he and the Dems can get some of the loaf.  That was always Ted kennedy's way--take whatever part of the loaf you can get, as they'll come another day.  And we may end up with with a healthcare reform that most can live with.  

That's amusing that you trust the GOP to "assure that the reform will be much less costly and will not threaten the financial foundations of the U.S."  I wonder how they achieved such credibility in your eyes?  They had the biggest expansion of the entitelment presc. drug program which ballooned the deficit, and was totally unsustainable.  Not to mention the two wars that they never budgeted, and claimed would cost less than $200 billion or something; or the tax cuts which put the burden totally on the middle class and dried up revenues for the government.  And those tax cuts were made during two wars.

What exactly is responsible about all that?  I just fail to see it completely.  Why does this country not have enough money for social security, but it has enough money to permanently create hundreds of bases in the Middle East, which are under constant threat?

Those who complain about the fiscal irresponsibility of the current government would be so much more credible - credible at all - if they had been heard from back in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006.  But where were these complaints?  Where was the outrage of the theft of federal financial security?  Silence.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

I will agree with you, Walter, that one's political lens will affect to an extent whether one views the government's intentions with healthcare as benign or cancerous.  However, the move to take over the auto industry, the Cap 'n Trade legislation--those are facts to be interpreted.  And I believe they give us the true bird's-eye view of what Obama is after.

Well then why didn't he nationalize the banks?

I don't know much about those two issues you mention but I will say one thing which I believe to be practical.  From my understanding, the whole auto industry bailout was to save it in order to prevent a huge hemmoraghing of jobs.  If those companies had gone down, all the factories across the country would have shut down, state governments would have collapsed from loss of revenue, there would probably be chaos, etc.

Was it right or wrong?  I can't answer that.  But think of it this way: you know something catastrophic is going to happen.  You also know you have the power to prevent it, and save suffering.  Do you do it?  I would challenge anyone who holds a libertarian or anti-government philosophy to be in that position, and see if they can resist.  Does your philosophy trump your humanity?  Do you shrug your shoulders and say, that is the risk of the free market?  I seriously want to know.

For all they claim to adhere to conservative values, the last president's administration didn't feel they could sit idly by while banks and stock markets were collapsing.  I have a friend who believes that was totally wrong, and they should have let those things take their course.  But then again, Alan Greenspan didn't think that.  He didn't let his pre-determined philosophy, impede on the consequences of reality.

So I think your attitude that they are "taking over" for the sake of control needs to consider two things: they didn't take over any banks, and also, what would the consequences have been if they didn't help the auto industry?

Walter Ramsey

[rachfan]

On rationing of care in the form of queues, does anyone here seriously believe that if you simultaneously take the double hit of adding 32 million people to the rolls at one end of the system as 33% of physicians quit the profession at the other end of the system (see The New England Journal of Medicine reporting above) that service to patients will remain unaffected or at worst produce a few minor waits?  If so, I believe there will come a terrible rude awaking.  That's like saying that if in a bank lobby a third of the tellers are laid off, and the customer queque in the lobby increases by 10% that service will be just as prompt, there will be no delays, and the line will be the same length as if nothing happened. Or it's like a factory production line with 10 machines, and orders have just increased by 10%, but now were going to shut down 3 machines for maintenance and expect to get the increased number of finished units off the line in the very same timeframe.  Huh???  If you truly believe that even for a moment, then we need to stop discussing this impending negative outcome, as it will produce no agreement on either side.  It's certain not change I can believe in!  By the way, I spent 15 years as a senior executive in healthcare, retiring as a Chief Operating Officer, and I understand wait lists first hand better than most.

Here is a brief article that just came out today addressing the sorry status of Social Security, as it's part of the larger entitlements picture. Here is a brief bio on the author, Douglas Mcintyre.  I didn't have it notarized, buy hopefully it will be acceptable.

Douglas Mcintyre
View all Articles »
Business and Investing News

Douglas A. McIntyre is the former editor-in-chief and publisher of Financial World Magazine. He was also president of Switchboard.com, which, at the time, was the 10th most visited website in the world. He was CEO of On2 Technologies, which proved the video compression for the nearly 800 million Flash players on PCs around the world. McIntyre has appeared on CNBC, Fox Business, CNN, and BBC News.

"Economists have said for some time that the Social Security fund would run out of money sometime between 2035 and 2040. At that point, it won't be able to provide older Americans any safety net at all. This year the fund will take its first step toward the grave as payouts exceed collections, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The red ink will be $29 billion. That's against total payouts of $7.08 trillion.

Chief actuary of the Social Security Administration Stephen C. Goss explained to The New York Times: "Payments have risen more than expected during the downturn, because jobs disappeared and people applied for benefits sooner than they had planned. At the same time, the program's revenue has fallen sharply, because there are fewer paychecks to tax."

The reasons that the problem will worsen are clear. The American population is aging, unemployment is near 10%, and many economists don't see it dropping below 8% until the end of next year. After that, creating new jobs may be so difficult that persistent high unemployment could last for years. The base for the Social Security tax will simply have fallen too far for the fund to make up the ground to refill its coffers.

Years of Austerity Ahead?

It's much more difficult to forecast what the federal government will do about the problem. The national deficit will remain high for a decade, according to both White House and CBO estimates. The national debt will become so large that interest on it alone will reach $700 billion a year by 2019, so the Treasury won't be a realistic source for money to replenish the Social Security fund.

A number of economists, including prominent Harvard University Professor Kenneth Rogoff, have predicted years of austerity for Americans as they face the need to pay higher taxes to offset budget deficits, combined with lost services that the government can no longer provide.

While no one is suggesting that Social Security will go away altogether, its payments may need to drop for the fund to survive. Americans will face less generous benefits for their retirement years, but that process has already begun in privately funded retirement plans because many Americans who put aside money for their golden years saw much of that cash wiped out by the stock market crash. Adding to the problem, many corporate and government pension programs are underfunded, and the money to rebuild them may not be available as payouts to retirees rise while less money comes in from corporate profits or from taxes at cities and states.

The end game for Social Security may be that future American retirees won't get that social safety net they had counted on, at least compared to what was available in the past."

See full article from DailyFinance: https://srph.it/cZMzTt

Wow!  Talk of serious and prolonged austerity!  Sound familiar?  That's exactly what I had brought up.  

So this tells us yet once again that SS as an entitlement is in dire trouble.  I also gave you the dates above when Medicare and Medicaid, the other entitlements, will run out of money, which are considerably sooner.  So here we have three very shaky entitlement programs.  Yet now Obama and crew have piled on with another gargantuan entitlement program! Does nobody get it, folks?  WE'RE OUT OF MONEY!  WE'RE FACING NATIONAL BANKRUPTCY!  And Moody's is signaling that it's likely going forward to lower the U.S.' credit rating which will make the cost of borrowing soar, and this is despite their acknowledgment that it will pose a serious threat to "social cohesion" (surely you know what that is).  Have we gone mad???    You'll undoubted say, "Oh yeah, everything's just fine, merely business as usual.  No need to be concerned." Sorry, but I reject that notion out of hand.  

[birba]

This is a question intended for Rachfan, because he does sound like he knows what he's talking about (although I don't agree with him).  You said in one of your posts something to the effect, that when the insurance companies are no longer able to handle the mess that is definitely going to follow, the government will step in and health care will fall on the shoulders of the the government.  But you said it as if it were the worst thing that could come out of all of this.  To me, this IS the job of the government.  Health care IS a right and NOT a privilege.  But this is beside the point.  I have a real question to ask you, because it's asked of me constantly over here and I never know what to answer.  I have gone through 3 major operations in the past 6 months.  Followed by physical therapy and an antiangiogenesis therapy that costs about 350$ a day.  Not to mention pet scans, MRIs, X rays, etc. etc. etc.  I think I've had the best care and treatment possible, and things are definitely looking up.  I conferred with my cousin, who is a doctor in the states, during this whole ordeal.  She was amazed and delighted with the treatment I was getting, and said it was EXACTLY what they would have done with me in the states.  I have been asked frequently over here, how would I have paid for all of this if I lived in the states, was unemployed, and had no insurance.  My answer is usually (because I'm damned proud of being an American!) no hospitol will ever refuse a patient and they will get the treatment they need.  They're credit rating might be ruined for life and they're house posessed, but they will have the medical care they need.  Is this true?  And I want the truth.  I saw Moore's film on health care in America, and was quite disappointed and shocked.  You, who, I assume lives in the states now, tell me what would have happened in my case.
Thanks!

[gyzzzmo]

Douglas Mcintyre is a very enthousiastic Republican who states social security is all bad and terrible for economic. However he's also very enthousiastic about playing war in other countries wich are ofcourse very good for the economy and a right for every american.
You're sure you want to use this guys statements as a sensible argument ? You dont have any doubt about the 33% leave rate of physicians? Or to see any political statement like this in perspective?
 

[oxy60]

What ever they write in the law still must be administered. It's in the practice where the law will be realized.

[richard black]

Simple common sense dictates that 33% of doctors (or indeed any other professionals) are not going to quit their profession just like that. Ever. In any situation. I think it's important to apply a reality check to some of the statistics one sees bandied about.

[rachfan]

The 33% figure of physicians leaving the profess had nothing to do with me.  It originated from a poll of 1,195 doctors speaking for themselves.  I can't justify or condemn what they had to say.  That would best be left up to them.  I can surmise this though: The closer and closer we move toward socialized medicine, for legions of doctors, just the thought of becoming salaried as opposed to fee for service providers will cause many of them to lose interest instantly. 

[rachfan]

Hi birba,

Generally, if someone has become unemployed and needs continuity of healthcare insurance, they fall under COBRA, which continues group health benefits provided by the former company.  The person then pays the entire premium (say for the individual), rather than the portion of it previously paid.  Coverage continues for 18 months or longer for disabilities.  A person can also apply for a premium subsidy of 65%, knocking the total cost down to 35% of cost. 

If COBRA, even with the subsidy, is too expensive, the person could look into Medicaid, which is available to low income people.  Eligibility rules include age, disabilities, income and resources (i.e., a means test), and citizenship.  If someone were on unemployment insurance, for example, and met the other criteria, they could probably quality.  Medicaid is a federal program as you know, is administered by the various states, so rules vary by state.

[rachfan]

Regarding healthcare being a "right".  It's not a right or a privilege.  It's simply a commodity for sale and purchase. 

The Declaration of Independence in part says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to assure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The government, including Obama, has nothing whatever to do with the creation of rights, and for very good reason--the government could just as easily take those rights away, as we've seen in the case of totalitarian regimes.  The government's sole role is to assure our rights, no more.

[ramseytheii]

Regarding healthcare being a "right".  It's not a right or a privilege.  It's simply a commodity for sale and purchase. 

The Declaration of Independence in part says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to assure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The government, including Obama, has nothing whatever to do with the creation of rights, and for very good reason--the government could just as easily take those rights away, as we've seen in the case of totalitarian regimes.  The government's sole role is to assure our rights, no more.

I don't see how a person of your philosophy, which seems even more extreme than Ayn Rand (who thought the government had the function of defending contracts and borders as well, not just rights), can vote for any party in the United States.  The Democrats believe in entitlements and government activism, and the Republicans believe in a controlled national security state (universal wire-tapping, indefinite detention, torture).

Walter Ramsey

[rachfan]

Excuse me, but since when does referring to the Declaration of Independence make one "extreme"?  Yes, I'm a Republican, and like most, believe in the power of the individual, volunteerism and charity, limited government, lower taxes, free markets, and a strong national defense.  And since when have those principles become extreme?

[birba]

Thanks rachfan for your info.  It's not as bleak as I and most europeans think it is.  I still disagree with you, of course.  Health is NOT a commodity - I insist, it's an unalienable right  which I think falls under the category "pursuit of happiness".
But I have to admit, you're very coherent and your arguments convincing at times.  I think, being an American, I can appreciate your views in a certain sense, because I, too, was brought up republican and my ideas do tend towards the right.  But in regards to health care, I think the good ol' US of A is (was?) the last stronghold of privatization in this area.

[gyzzzmo]

The 33% figure of physicians leaving the profess had nothing to do with me.  It originated from a poll of 1,195 doctors speaking for themselves.  I can't justify or condemn what they had to say.  That would best be left up to them.  I can surmise this though: The closer and closer we move toward socialized medicine, for legions of doctors, just the thought of becoming salaried as opposed to fee for service providers will cause many of them to lose interest instantly. 

So the question to them was if they liked getting salaried. That is a totally different situation than what Obama's new law is about, and you can't use it as an argument, even not with your tendency to futuristic 'what ifs'.

[rachfan]

I perhaps should have mentioned that of the 33% physicians that will either quit outright or retire and go on to other endeavors (because of a projected 21% in cuts in fee reimbursements), 46% are primary care (or family practice) physicians, who are the key to the entire medical care system.  That high proportion is even more worrisome.  Once the federal government is manipulating and controlling fees in any way, you're effectively on the U.S. payroll as a salaried doc.  This statistic is also from the survey reported in the NEJM.  But you need not worry about any of this, as you're getting the information from someone who's not a leftist.  Just ignore it!  If you find that later on access to the system is getting difficult, you can try to deal with it then.  

[rachfan]

Thanks, birba, I appreciate your perspective and can relate to it. Also I'm sorry to hear of your health travails while overseas.  But it sounds as though you received very fine health care there, and I'm glad to hear that you're recovering well. 

[oxy60]

I perhaps should have mentioned that of the 33% physicians that will either quit outright or retire and go on to other endeavors (because of a projected 21% in cuts in fee reimbursements), 46% are primary care (or family practice) physicians, who are the key to the entire medical care system.  That high proportion is even more worrisome.  Once the federal government is manipulating and controlling your fees in any way, you're effectively on the U.S. payroll as a salaried doc.  This statistic is also from the NEJM survey.  But you need not worry about any of this, as you're getting the information from someone who's not a leftist.  Just ignore it!  If you find that later on access to the system is getting difficult, you can try to deal with it then. 

You don't' sound old enough to have experienced care under Midicare. When I first became eligible all sorts of HMO's solicited my membership under part C (you give them complete control over part A, B, and D, in exchange for a small premium). If you decide to go with an HMO you will seldom see an M.D. Your illnesses will be handled by departments and you will talk to nurses, techs, etc., all under supervision of an M.D.

This is the cheapest way to deliver medical care to a large number of people as shown by the profit figures from the HMO's. If the government lowers the payments the HMO's will just use cheaper and less qualified people to see you while paying the supervising physician more for more responsibility over more people. Exceptions to the model will slip though the cracks.

BTW, I chose to stay with traditional and pay the difference to the doctors. I speak to real doctors and specialists and I pay the difference. In the long run it's cheaper.

[rachfan]

Hi oxy,

I'm glad I come across as being young!  I am certainly young at heart, but am actually 65. When it came time to enroll, I shunned traditional Medicare, choosing instead a Medicare Advantage Plan (rated five stars) and is located in my own state.  The plan is HMO with a POS (point of service) option so that I need not stay "in network" should the need arise.  I've had the same doctor for many years, well before joining Medicare, so didn't have to change, as the HMO is in-network. (They will also join any network based on the patient's insurer.) If I have something very routine like a tetanus shot booster, or an ear lavage, etc., I willingly see a nurse or technician, which only makes sense for them insofar as utilization of staff is concerned. That is, there is no need to have the highest-paid professionals rendering the most mundane services.  So it reduces costs which is all to the good.  However, anytime I want to see the doctor himself, for my annual physical for instance, or otherwise at my request, access is no problem and appointments can be arranged quickly.  

Medicare Part A (hospitalilization) is automatic at no-fee as you know.  I carry Part B (medical) too, of course, and that premium is deducted from SS.  The advantage plan handles all of Part C, gap coverage, which eliminates the need for any separate "Supplement" plan.  Nor do I need a separate Part D drug plan  from another insurer, as that is also part of the advantage plan which has its own drug formulary and pharmacy network. This advantage plan also has all the extras not offered by traditional Medicare. I get a separate (and very reasonable) bill from the advantage plan monthly for Part C (which includes drugs in the built-in Part D). There is no copay to see the primary physician and the copay for a specialist is $15. So I pretty much got "one stop shopping" as did my wife, who enrolled in the advantage plan as well.  The medical service is excellent, the insurer is courteous and responsive, and the price is very competitive.  

Of course, we now face the $500,000 billion raid on Medicare under ObamaCare targeting the advantage plans specifically.  As a sidebar, one might wonder why AARP did not vigorously fight that on behalf of seniors.  Easy!  AARP partners with MetLife offering a Medicare "Supplement" plan with a rake-off going back to AARP for all new enrollees!  Cozy, eh?  AARP's supplement plan revenue far exceeds its membership dues.  Plus, if the advantage plans are destroyed, then AARP's Supplement plan will attract even more enrollees.  So obviously the quid pro quo was this: The Dems said to AARP essentially, "Don't fight for the seniors on this and you'll profit handsomely."  This is why I'm not an AARP member--they betrayed their on members, the senior citizens, for their own special interest financial gain.  

In all the polls I've seen, at the lowest, 56% of people were against Congress passing ObamaCare.  I've seen that number as high as 85% in another one.  The majority of Americans did not want that bill, which was never adequately explained to the public.  (I love that video of Pelosi where she says people will find out when they open the bill once it's passed. )  It was only posted on the Internet 72 hours before the vote, and chances are many who voted for it never read it.  Yet Congress (representational government?) passed the reform bill.  For those of us who opposed it, focus will now shift to repeal and replace, that is, repealing ObamaCare, starting over, and working in a bipartisan way to build a reform package that is more incremental and that won't bankrupt the country.

[gyzzzmo]

You could call the USA already bankrupt, without the new healthcare law. But that is because the extremely low taxrate and the tendency to start wars to cover up internal problems.
The states have a structural economy problem and the days are over that growth of economy (and thus taxes) can compensate that.
And polls are useles too, unless theyre during elections. Because a country has to be lead by wisdom and long-term thinking. Not by people who are egocentric and use their next-month payroll as foundation of their opinions in a poll.

And Rachfan, all your talk about Midicare or w/e is not the issue here, just a distraction-tactic of people who are against any form of government involvement. The issue here is that 32 million (!!!!) people cant get proper health security wich should be a right in any developed country. That HAS to get fixed because 32m people is a sh!tload of people. And it is of an insanely barbaric level that so many americans are only thinking about themselves.
There is no ideology, its egocentric payroll thinking.

[prongated]

You could call the USA already bankrupt, without the new healthcare law. But that is because the extremely low taxrate and the tendency to start wars to cover up internal problems.
The states have a structural economy problem and the days are over that growth of economy (and thus taxes) can compensate that.
And polls are useles too, unless theyre during elections. Because a country has to be lead by wisdom and long-term thinking. Not by people who are egocentric and use their next-month payroll as foundation of their opinions in a poll.

And Rachfan, all your talk about Midicare or w/e is not the issue here, just a distraction-tactic of people who are against any form of government involvement. The issue here is that 32 million (!!!!) people cant get proper health security wich should be a right in any developed country. That HAS to get fixed because 32m people is a sh!tload of people. And it is of an insanely barbaric level that so many americans are only thinking about themselves.
There is no ideology, its egocentric payroll thinking.

+1. My sentiments exactly.

[rachfan]

My last response here was no diversion at all.  I was merely giving Oxy the courtesy of a reply to his comments on Medicare.  Plus last time I looked, Medicare was still an integral part of healthcare in the U.S. with senior citizens being the largest segment of the population.  And, furthermore, where the coming $500,000 billion theft from the Medicare Trust fund to support ObamaCare has everything to do with the debate, especially if one happens to be over 65, I plan to continue to mention it.  If it's an aspect that doesn't interest you, then don't read it! 

As far as  income tax goes, the top rate in the range is 45%, the very same as the UK.  They also have a value-added tax (VAT) there.  We don't, but the Dems are now discussing a National Sales Tax. Americans, especially in the depths of a recession, need less taxes, not more tax burdens.  The more confiscatory the taxes, the less money people have for discretionary purchases.  That adversely effects retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers, as production is cut back.  Far fewer services are rendered as well.  Businesses are then forced to lay off more workers. And then people bank money rather than spending it.  None of this helps the economy.  But, of course, leftist want the government to be the economy, not private industry.  

Citizens need to enjoy the fruits of their labors.  The more tax money the federal government gets, the more it screws up through overreaching and overspending.  This country was built by enterprising, hardworking people.  It wasn't built by putting everyone on the government dole.  We ought not be nurturing mediocrity, but rather the exceptionalism of America.  Giving freely to charities is a long-standing, laudable American tradition.  But we don't need or want Obama's redistribution of wealth policies--indisputably a socialist tenet, which will cripple investment.  That goes over well with people like the Marxists Fidel Castro in Cuba or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, but it has no place in America.

Ironically, you'll be getting your way with higher taxes.  But it won't be that alone.  It will be AUSTERITY which will combine huge cuts in government programs with huge tax hikes, and it will last for years. Obama is likely to prolong that misery, as it will set the stage for more overreaching by government. For as Rham Emanuel counsels him, "Never waste a crisis!"        

[richard black]

The reason that 33% statistic is obviously rubbish is that it's actually a figure for the number of doctors who don't want to be salaried (in which case they're obviously in the biz for the wrong reasons and presumably thoroughly untrustworthy anyway). They've made a protest vote. They're not going to leave because they don't have a better-paid alternative. A few will leave, I'm sure - probably a handful who are close to retirement or fed up with medicine anyway.

[ramseytheii]

My last response here was no diversion at all.  I was merely giving Oxy the courtesy of a reply to his comments on Medicare.  Plus last time I looked, Medicare was still an integral part of healthcare in the U.S. with senior citizens being the largest segment of the population.  And, furthermore, where the coming $500,000 billion theft from the Medicare Trust fund to support ObamaCare has everything to do with the debate, especially if one happens to be over 65, I plan to continue to mention it.  If it's an aspect that doesn't interest you, then don't read it!  

As far as  income tax goes, the top rate in the range is 45%, the very same as the UK.  They also have a value-added tax (VAT) there.  We don't, but the Dems are now discussing a National Sales Tax. Americans, especially in the depths of a recession, need less taxes, not more tax burdens.  The more confiscatory the taxes, the less money people have for discretionary purchases.  That adversely effects retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers, as production is cut back.  Far fewer services are rendered as well.  Businesses are then forced to lay off more workers. And then people bank money rather than spending it.  None of this helps the economy.  But, of course, leftist want the government to be the economy, not private industry.  

Citizens need to enjoy the fruits of their labors.  The more tax money the federal government gets, the more it screws up through overreaching and overspending.  This country was built by enterprising, hardworking people.  It wasn't built by putting everyone on the government dole.  We ought not be nurturing mediocrity, but rather the exceptionalism of America.  Giving freely to charities is a long-standing, laudable American tradition.  But we don't need or want Obama's redistribution of wealth policies--indisputably a socialist tenet, which will cripple investment.  That goes over well with people like the Marxists Fidel Castro in Cuba or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, but it has no place in America.

Ironically, you'll be getting your way with higher taxes.  But it won't be that alone.  It will be AUSTERITY which will combine huge cuts in government programs with huge tax hikes, and it will last for years. Obama is likely to prolong that misery, as it will set the stage for more overreaching by government. For as Rham Emanuel counsels him, "Never waste a crisis!"        

There is so much muddle in here I really don't know where to begin.  I started typing three times and had to erase it because it is just impossible to respond to this kind of ranting.

But one thing, do you believe in limited, small government, or not?  If you do, you should welcome Obama's "huge cuts in government programs" and his "stealing" so much money from Medicare, that despicable entitlement that we all have to pay for.  Imagine - our money, forced out of our hands, into the hands of others!  

You should welcome it, yet you are complaining.

The fact is, Obama's reforms in social security are fundamentally conservative.  His healthcare bill is based on tenets developed by the Reaganite Heritage Foundation, and its core elements are virtually identical to Republican Romney's Massachussetts plan.  The problem for conservatives like yourself is, the kneejerk reaction.  no matter how much people like Bush spend irresponsibly, in your mind they are always the responsible ones.  No matter how much they implement programs like universal wiretapping, indefinite detention, and torture, it is the people trying to increase a social safety net that are the true fascists.

My point is, you are ideologically confused, and that makes it impossible to respond to the jumble above.

Some of the muddled business up there might be credible, except for you can't even acknowledge these basic facts.  Why should we listen to you, when you claim that US has its own Chavez?  Which would you rather have - an individual insurance mandate, or a secret, mandated spying program that is recording all your phone calls?  Which is more terrifying to you?  Would you rather have a regulated insurance industry, or the possibility of being imprisoned indefinitely, with no charges and no possibility for trial by jury?  Basically what I am asking is, well never mind.  I'm going to fetch my bottle of Boodles.

Walter Ramsey

[rachfan]

I don't believe I'm confused at all, but you may well be.

Medicare already existed before I entered the workforce after graduating from university.  I've paid into it continuously for over 40 years, and still do, as I do part-time work in retirement.  I do receive benefits, but again, I paid my dues.

What "huge cuts" of Obama's are you referring to specifically?  As for the $500,000 billion being cut from Medicare, Obama states that it will be offset by savings from finding fraud and abuse.  Well, since Medicare started, inspector generals have been falling over one another for decades with very poor results to show for it.  So other than waving a wand over it, how will Obama root out fraud and abuse in the program?  It very much remains to be seen.

If you believe that ObamaCare was formulated by The Heritage Foundation, you need to visit their website now.  President Edwin Feulner, PhD is already working for the repeal of ObamaCare. You can watch his video there.  They don't want implementation, they want it repealed and replaced.  

As for the Massachusetts universal healthcare experiment, it's now referred to as a fiasco.  It was supposed to hold costs down, but instead costs skyrocketed 42% over the past four years.  Romney (who I very much like) is now in trouble.  He was governor at the time, although the legislature was very heavily Democrat.  While Romney did collaborate with the Democrats, he also issued two vetoes on it, both of which were overridden.  Lately he's been criticizing ObamaCare, mostly the process, but is being questioned on his inconsistency, having helped to enact the Massachusetts program.  It could prevent him from making another presidential run despite his popularity.  An irony is that Romney says Obama never consulted him to gain the benefit of his experience and expertise.  I'm not surprised, as Obama knows all.    

Absolutely nowhere above, did I ever claim that George Bush was fiscally responsible.  The fact is that he was a total spendthrift more akin to his Democrat predecessors.  When the GOP-held Congress sent bills to him, he pell mell signed virtually all of them, vetoing only two during his tenure in office.  I certainly would never point to him as a fine example of a fiscal conservative!

I must remind you that the wiretapping program remains in effect under the Obama Administration, as the president (finally) believes it's necessary to protect us against terrorists. Oops, sorry, I forgot that we can no longer use the word "terrorist", as it's offensive.  Under the New Speak it's now called "human-caused disasters", of course. The bottom line is that because I'm not a "human-caused disaster-ist", but instead an upstanding citizen, I have nothing to worry about when I'm on the telephone.  If the FBI wants to listen to all my conversations, I understand the need for national security.  We live in very unusual and dangerous times.  

As for Gitmo, despite Obama's grandstanding on his second day in office closing Gitmo, over a year later it's still open.  Very few released prisoners have been placed in foreign countries, and, unfortunately, the ones that Obama sent to Yemen are now with al-Qaida in Afghanistan fighting our troops for the second time.  Smart move!    On issues like these, the ACLU of course generally takes their far-left fringe positions, which is to be expected, but Gitmo is still operating and legal wiretapping is still protecting the country's security.  Obama has seen the light on holding human-caused disaster-ist trials in military tribunals rather than in civil courts. These are enemy combatants captured on foreign soil who have no Miranda rights whatsoever, despite Eric Holder's non-commonsensical theories to the contrary.

[gyzzzmo]

Sorry Rachfan, but i'm going to stop discussing here. Because you're argumentation is very flawed and obviously more just being 'anti-democrat' than anything sensible.
You are pretty much just repeating Republican 'popularity chatter' wich are random dubious facts wich dont have anything to do with the core of the problem: 32m uninsured people in a so called 'developped' country.

I'm neither democrat or republican, i just see an issue, a person who tries solving the issue and a bunch of republicans who dont want the issue to be solved and fight it with insane arguments.
What can i say?

[oxy60]

Don't forget those 32 milliion won't be treated for free, they will be forced to pay premiums or fines. Either way their $ increases the pot to pay the claims. No system can survive just insuring sick people, the well ones must pay in also.

[rachfan]

When I brought up the specter of the coming queues for medical service as 32 million people are added to the rolls without a commensurate increase in primary care doctors, everyone thought I was from the planet Neptune. What a disagreement that produced!  Well, today I picked up the liberal Maine Sunday Telegram (the Portland newspaper), and one of the headlines on the Front Page is this: "Health care overhaul expected to amplify Maine's doctor shortage".   Hmmm... they don't say!

Under ObamaCare, 140,000 more people will be insured in this state (population of 1,316,000, mostly rural).  That's an 11% increase for Maine.  The article points out that the vast majority of medical school grads go into specialties, not primary care (which is the gate keeper to medical care, of course). According to the article, as older doctors retire, there are not enough younger family care physicians to take their place, yet demand for services continues to grow even without ObamaCare.  An interesting point in there is that Maine is better off than the U.S. at large.  It has 1.5 primary care physicians per 1,000 residents, whereas the average ratio in the rest of the U.S. is 1.2 per 1,000.  That's a plus for Mainers, but not a saving grace.  

Nonetheless, Dr. Elisabeth Mock, president of the Maine Academy of Family Physicians said she's not sure how the increased demand for medical services will be met.  I quote: "Expanding insurance coverage to more people could well make waiting times longer.  That's what happened in Massachusetts after the state adopted a universal health coverage policy in 2007 and practices were flooded with new patients who had been avoiding doctors."  Egad, longer queues, deja vu!  

But OH NO, it'll never happen on a national scale, right?  Is she just blowing smoke too?

Most are banking on the state's medical school, the University of New England's College of Osteopathic Medicine (D.O. which is equivalent to the M.D. for state licensing) and an upstart school, Maine Med run by Maine Medical Center and Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston to be able to recruit enough candidates to close the primary care gap.  (UNE has 100 unfilled slots now in its program!)  I wish them luck!

I find it interesting that suddenly the liberal press is starting to air this ramification rather than remaining in a state of denial like I find in this forum.  I give the newspaper full credit for that!  

[rachfan]

Hi oxy,

I agree with what you say.  The test, I believe, will come in the Attorneys General constitutional case (already filed in Pensacola, FL Federal District Court) focused on the issue of ObamaCare mandating individuals to purchase a commodity such as health care insurance, which is supposedly justified under the Commerce Clause.  That will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.

[oxy60]

My guess is that the need will be met by more low level people working under the supervision of an M.D. Scripps and Kaiser have already been doing this for years. As a diabetic for example you are a patient of the diabetic department and your primary care contact is with a nurse. You of course have a primary care doctor but in general you are seen by nurses.

It is routine out here to be sent home from out-patient surgery with an 800 number for a nurse!

[rachfan]

Yes, here in my state also, medical practices have utilization protocols such that procedures are assigned to MDs, physician's assistants, advance practice registered nurses, RNs, and technicians in order to assure that only an adequately qualified staff member interacts with the patient for a particular service.  It also more intelligently manages billable hours such that at one end of the spectrum, the MD does the more complicated services while at the other end, the technician does the more mundane, repetitive work, with the rest falling in between.  That is to say, to have a highly paid physician performing a mundane task with a very low insurance reimbursement rate doesn't make economic sense within the practice.  I think that Kaiser was one of the pioneers in developing this division of labor within medical practices.

[ramseytheii]

Hi oxy,

I agree with what you say.  The test, I believe, will come in the Attorneys General constitutional case (already filed in Pensacola, FL Federal District Court) focused on the issue of ObamaCare mandating individuals to purchase a commodity such as health care insurance, which is supposedly justified under the Commerce Clause.  That will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.

I don't know about the Constitutionality... but if the Heritage Foundation is denouncing it, as you say they are, they are just typical conservative hypocrites.  Here is part of the plan they published in 1990 for health care reform:

"The second central element-in the Heritage proposal is a two-way commitment between government and citizen. Under this social contract, the federal government would agree to make it financially possible, through refund able tax benefits or in some cases by providing access to public-sector health programs, for every American family to purchase at least a basic package of 3 Butler and Haislmaier, op. cit 6 medical care, including catastrophic insurance. In return, government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family.Thus there would be mandated coverage under the Heritage proposal, but the mandate would apply to the family head, who is the appropriate person to shoulder the primary responsibility for the family's health needs, rather than employers, who are not EFFECTS OF THE HERlTAGE PROPOSAL. By no longer restricting tax relief for medical care to employer-provided plans, and by restructuring tax assistance to help those Americans most in need, the Heritage proposal significantly would improve the American health system. Among the most important effects 1)Good health care not dependent on employers. Employees would be able to acquire health coverage for their families, and obtain government tax help to pay for it, wherever they happen to work. Casual or part-time workers, employees of small firms, or dependents of workers those who comprise a major share of the uninsured -would receive a refundable tax credit based on health costs compared with income exactly the same form of government assistance to buy health services as Americans working in large firms. Thus the Heritage proposal would solve much of the current uninsurance problem. "

Emphasis mine.  You'll note that this idea is assimilated into the health care law that was signed last week.  This is why I say you are ideologically confused.  If someone that you don't trust suggests an idea, you assume the idea is inherently malicious.  But the idea originated on your side of the political spectrum.

Here is the full article.
https://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/1990/07/Using-Tax-Credits-to-Create-an-Affordable-Health-System

Enjoy.

Walter Ramsey

[ramseytheii]

When I brought up the specter of the coming queues for medical service as 32 million people are added to the rolls without a commensurate increase in primary care doctors, everyone thought I was from the planet Neptune. What a disagreement that produced!  Well, today I picked up the liberal Maine Sunday Telegram (the Portland newspaper), and one of the headlines on the Front Page is this: "Health care overhaul expected to amplify Maine's doctor shortage".   Hmmm... they don't say!

Actually, nobody treated you lke you were from Neptune.  I asked a perfectly reasonable question, which of course was totally ignored.  To whit: what if the new law does create these queues and backups? Would you rather have a) a wait to get a procedure or b) an insurance company who drops you because you need said procedure, even if you have been dutifully paying your bills and fulfilling your side of the contract the whole time?

Health care is being rationed by profit-seeking entities in our country.  If you can't acknowledge that, you frankly have no business spouting off on this topic.

Walter Ramsey

[rachfan]

Hi Walter,

I would assume that my insurer would perform to contract.  If I were instead dropped, I would do the following:

To meet requirements for further steps, I would first and formally appeal the decision with the insurer.

Next I would be sitting in the office of the State Insurance Commissioner (free) giving that office first crack at resolving the issue.

Then I would be in the State Attorney General's Office (free) to get a review and resolution there.  

Next, I would send a written complaint to the Federal Trade Commission (free), as healthcare companies are involved in interstate commerce if they sell policies in more than one state.

If no satisfaction there, I would then pay for whatever procedure needed to be done myself, and thereafter I would be in my lawyer's office preparing a contingency lawsuit for damages against the insurer for willful breach of contract.  I trust that answers your question.

Yes, I acknowledge rationing.  The point I've been trying to make right along, however, is that the rationing yet to come will make the existing rationing look like a church picnic.

[rachfan]

Hi Walter,

I tried to use the link you provided to the report at The Heritage Foundation, but it gives an error message there, so the article isn't accessible.

In fairness, one thing to consider is that 1990 was 20 years ago.  In the world of public policy a great deal can change during a timeframe like that.  More recently, Heritage analysts might have looked at new factors, additional variables, and developing trends, causing them to revise their thinking on the matter.  If that were not true, then Pelosi and Reid wouldn't have had to spend 5 minutes on writing healthcare bills.  They would have simply cloned and submitted the Clintonian healthcare bill knowing there were enough Democrat votes to pass it.  The problem with that is, undoubtedly, that the Clintonian plan would be woefully out of date by now.

In the same way I could not follow you link, it seems that Dr. Feulner's video disappeared off the front page, and I couldn't find it there, but was able to locate it on YouTube.  Here's that link:

David

[ramseytheii]

Hi Walter,

I tried to use the link you provided to the report at The Heritage Foundation, but it gives an error message there, so the article isn't accessible.

In fairness, one thing to consider is that 1990 was 20 years ago.  In the world of public policy a great deal can change during a timeframe like that.  More recently, Heritage analysts might have looked at new factors, additional variables, and developing trends, causing them to revise their thinking on the matter.  If that were not true, then Pelosi and Reid wouldn't have had to spend 5 minutes on writing healthcare bills.  They would have simply cloned and submitted the Clintonian healthcare bill knowing there were enough Democrat votes to pass it.  The problem with that is, undoubtedly, that the Clintonian plan would be woefully out of date by now.

In the same way I could not follow you link, it seems that Dr. Feulner's video disappeared off the front page, and I couldn't find it there, but was able to locate it on YouTube.  Here's that link:

David

Lots can change in 20 years - they must have looked at it from a new angle, with additional variables - how generous of you!  Yes, lots can change in 20 years.  But you know one thing that has not changed in 20 years?  The Constitution.  

The current attack on the individual mandate represents the hypocrisy and opportunism of the right-wing, which has been developing the idea at least since the Nixon administration.  The attacks are obviously not based in Constitutional law, otherwise they never would have suggested it in the first place.  1990, the year a Republican was president, was not the only time the Heritage Foundation proposed such an idea.  This is how the Congressional Budget Office summarized the HF plan that was proposed to counteract Clinton's plan in 1993:

"In order to guarantee universal health care coverage, everyone would have to obtain insurance, either through a government program or from a private insurer, on their own or through a family member. The states would be charged with enforcing the mandate and would have to arrange coverage for people who did not do so themselves. The minimum insurance would cover "catastrophic" health care expenses--that is, those exceeding $1,000 a year for an individual or $2,000 a year for a family. (Those amounts would be adjusted for inflation after 1997.)"

The Republican Party used to have an intellectual element, where ideas were debated and considered on their substance, but now ideas are only accepted or rejected based on who espouses them.

Walter Ramsey

[rachfan]

Well, it also seems that Obama is very selective when it comes to "who espouses" the ideas.  In fact, here is a direct quote from Obama: "Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself."  Well let's see.  He had Van Jones, a self-avowed communist, (now departed, officially at least); he still has Rahm Emanuel, architect of redistribution of wealth and crisis utilization; Anita Dunn and Ron Bloom, both vocal admirers of Mao Tse Tung; Cass Sunstein who wants to ban hunting; Bill Ayers, former Weather Underground bomber and domestic terrorist who, according to White House visitor logs, is always welcome; Carol Browner, avowed socialist; and Valerie Jarret, far-leftist radical and notorious Chicago slumlord, etc. In my lifetime I've seen 13 presidents come and go. But in any administration I've never before witnessed a cast of dubious characters espousing ideas like Obama's close czars and advisors!  It must have something to do with the adage that "Birds of a feather flock together".

For my part I'll gladly stick with what the Republicans espouse!    

[ramseytheii]

Well, it also seems that Obama is very selective when it comes to "who espouses" the ideas.  In fact, here is a direct quote from Obama: "Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself."  Well let's see.  He had Van Jones, a self-avowed communist, (now departed, officially at least); he still has Rahm Emanuel, redistribution of wealth architect; Anita Dunn and Ron Bloom, both vocal admirers of Mao Tse Tung; Cass Sunstein, author of the "Socialist Bill of Rights"; Bill Ayers, former bomber and domestic terrorist who, according to White House visitor logs, is always welcome; Carol Browner, avowed socialist; and Valerie Jarret, far-leftist radical, etc. In my lifetime I've seen 13 presidents come and go. But in any administration I've never before witnessed a cast of dubious characters espousing ideas like Obama's close czars and advisors!  It must have something to do with the adage that "Birds of a feather flock together".

For my part I'll gladly stick with what the Republicans!    

Nice reply.  Thanks

Walter Ramsey

[rachfan]

Hi Walter,

I wasn't quite finished editing my message above (written at 2:00 a.m. actually) when you replied and have since done so this morning.  While I do appreciate your reply on the surface of it, I do sense that it's tongue in cheek. 

So I offer you the last word.

[mephisto]

Well, it also seems that Obama is very selective when it comes to "who espouses" the ideas.  In fact, here is a direct quote from Obama: "Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself."  Well let's see.  He had Van Jones, a self-avowed communist, (now departed, officially at least); he still has Rahm Emanuel, architect of redistribution of wealth and crisis utilization; Anita Dunn and Ron Bloom, both vocal admirers of Mao Tse Tung; Cass Sunstein who wants to ban hunting; Bill Ayers, former Weather Underground bomber and domestic terrorist who, according to White House visitor logs, is always welcome; Carol Browner, avowed socialist; and Valerie Jarret, far-leftist radical and notorious Chicago slumlord, etc. In my lifetime I've seen 13 presidents come and go. But in any administration I've never before witnessed a cast of dubious characters espousing ideas like Obama's close czars and advisors!  It must have something to do with the adage that "Birds of a feather flock together".

For my part I'll gladly stick with what the Republicans espouse!    

This is not criticism, but do you watch Glenn Beck?If not I am sure you would love him

[rachfan]

We have a wide-screen plasma TV, but I don't watch it probably as much as others would--too much of a wasteland if you ask me! You mention FOX.  In the evening sometimes I watch O'Reilly for awhile, although the fluff pieces on that program annoy me.  I do like Gretta van Susteren (sp?) who's on late. She's a very focused interviewer with a lot of grit, and knows how to cut to the chase in my opinion. But even at that, I only watch her show once in awhile. I prefer to read.