Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

starbucks4ever (78.34)

And just yesterday they were telling us to vote Democrat!



September 08, 2009 – Comments (15)

"Thrift, thrift, Horatio! The funeral-baked meats | did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables".

No sooner did devoish urge me in this post to look for complexity and seek out some imaginary rifts between the honest and the corrupt wing of the Democatic party, than the selfsame party obliterated any perceived nuances by laying a massive maloderous pile on the dinner table and standing solidly behind the new-and-improved healthcare plan, voting for it with its both wings. The worst healthcare ideas ascribed to the Republicans, which had served faithfully as a scarecrow for the "progressive" audience throughout the whole "Yes we can" campaign, became the new Democratic creed faster than Gertrude's mourning culminated in her marriage to Claudius.

Good bye, public option, good bye, the even more audacious dreams about a single payer system. Welcome, the expanded market for HMOs and the $3800 fine for anyone who refuses to see the bliss of giving. That is, the bliss of giving to HMOs and the bliss of paying higher premiums. By the way, mathematics is an exact science, almost as exact as politics, and this exact science will even help me predict by how much the average premium is going to increase and the exact date of the increase. It is going to increase by thirty eight hundred dollars and zero cents, and the date of the increase will be the next morning after the bill is signed into law by the "Yes we can" man in the white house. And as a bonus for Republicans, all those premiums will go directly to the pockets of HMO executives bypassing the evil Big Government. And, as an additional sweetener for the industry, there will be those tax deductions to convince the future generations of patients that the answer to the question "Can we pay even higher premiums than we are paying today?" is a resounding "Yes we can!".

So drink your kool-aid, relax, watch your progressive party flutter its both wings in support of the grand new plan, and enjoy this little good cop, bad cop performance. There is that good Democrat named Kusinich, after all. What a pity that he must work together with that "bad cop" guy parteigenosse Baucus! 


15 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On September 08, 2009 at 7:09 PM, DaretothREdux (46.24) wrote:

+1 because I agree with you....

+10 for the Hamlet references!!!!!! But I can only give you 1...


Report this comment
#2) On September 08, 2009 at 7:10 PM, DaretothREdux (46.24) wrote:

Correction: I don't agree that there should be a public option...but I do believe this plan is just as bad...dare I say worse? Nah. Just as bad.


Report this comment
#3) On September 08, 2009 at 7:20 PM, eldemonio (97.60) wrote:

Give thy thoughts no tongue.

Report this comment
#4) On September 08, 2009 at 9:12 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Don't worry. After a few more years (perhaps sooner), they'll blame all the new problems on unregulated free markets, and then we can go through this all over again.

Thank goodness for football season.


Report this comment
#5) On September 08, 2009 at 9:35 PM, devoish (62.74) wrote:


You hurt my feelings. I am pretty sure I urged you not to vote Republican again. The wars, wiretapping, Justice dept corruption, etc.

Then I urged you to carefully select Dems, Green party, and Independents to replace them with.

Senator Baucus doesn't want to fine people for not buying health insurance. Good, Single Payer Medicare for All works with that. I agree that forcing people to buy insurance from Private Insurers that will not pay for whatever your Doctor says you need to get healthy, is a bad idea. Lets agree Repubs/Dems etc. to not do it, and drop that idea completely.

I am looking forward to our Senators and Representatives to come around to the idea of high insurance premiums with a lower tax and fixing the following list of problems all at once. Until they do, we will be discussing the healthcare, complaining about costs, rescissions, medical bankruptcys, under coverage, high deductibles, fine print, being owned by your employers insurance plan, and Republicans will be committing political suicide getting the idea that Gov't has death panels and private insurers do not backwards.

Thanks for the shout out.

Report this comment
#6) On September 08, 2009 at 9:46 PM, starbucks4ever (78.34) wrote:


I see it as a competition between two identical parties arguing about which one has a better plan to bail out the insurance industry by using the proceeds from the bubble that is now being reinflated again. If you see any rifts, divisions, complexities, etc. your eyes are sharper than mine. 

Report this comment
#7) On September 08, 2009 at 10:24 PM, devoish (62.74) wrote:


93 Representatives and one Senator supporting HR 676. 

Blue dog knuckleheads.

The Baucus bumblers.

They are still divided, just like I said they were.

And from the "Confederacy of Dunces" we get

Death Panel Perjurers

Birther Beguilers.

Mr. President, I ask you this:  If they don’t even believe you are an American citizen, why the hell do you care if they think you are going to kill their grandmother?... Helen Philpot

The odds are against me getting healthcare for Americans that will work for Americans, aren't they? Change is hard, betting on the status quo is the safe bet.

Helen got 400 positive replies.

Betting on the status quo is still the safe bet.

Report this comment
#8) On September 08, 2009 at 10:25 PM, devoish (62.74) wrote:


One rec for you.

Report this comment
#9) On September 08, 2009 at 10:27 PM, topsecret09 (86.64) wrote:

Report this comment
#10) On September 08, 2009 at 10:36 PM, AvianFlu (< 20) wrote:

In the immortal words of the bard:
Lilies that fester smell much worse than weeds.

First, let's kill all the lawyers!

Report this comment
#11) On September 08, 2009 at 11:31 PM, fmahnke (66.64) wrote:

Yeah we really need medicare for all.  Then our country can go bankrupt even sooner as our elected officals have done such a job in managing a system that everyone agrees will be out of money by the time that all of us who have paid into this system for many years can collect our streamlined benefits,

Our president hasn't reformed anything, although I do hold out hope for some tort reform, my guess is that his trial lawyer buddies with their big budgets will win and americans who choose not to participate will pay.

Change we can believe in and Van Jones .  I say Ron Paul in 2012   


Report this comment
#12) On September 09, 2009 at 2:59 PM, 4everlost (28.85) wrote:

Didn't any of you see this post this morning?

Perhaps the best article on economics of health care to date


A great article, I have to give credit to TBP where I saw it for the first time and of course the Atlantic.  I'm not 100% in agreement with the conclusion of catostrophic coverage needing to be single payer (portable private insurance would be fine imo) the article is sound in it's analysis in the problems that currently face our health care system. Enjoy.  P.S:   Hopefully at least a few people will read it and come out with some new information and perspective on the article, I expect the comments here to decay into the typical political mudslinging that tends to permeate the discussion any issue of at least moderate importance these days. 

Here is the comment I wrote on that post:

I believe that the author of this article really nailed the problems in the current system.  I'm not in complete agreement with his conclusions and solutions but for the most part I concur.  These are excerpts that summarize the problems with the health care reform as it being considered today. 

"Every proposal for health-care reform has featured some element of cost control to “balance” the inflationary impact of expanding access. Yet it goes without saying that in the big picture, all government efforts to control costs have failed."

"Cost control is a feature of decentralized, competitive markets, not of centralized bureaucracy—a matter of incentives, not mandates."

"From 2000 to 2005, per capita health-care spending in Canada grew by 33 percent, in France by 37 percent, in the U.K. by 47 percent—all comparable to the 40 percent growth experienced by the U.S. in that period. Cost control by way of bureaucratic price controls has its limits."

"In competitive markets, high profits serve an important social purpose: encouraging capital to flow to the production of a service not adequately supplied. But as long as our government shovels ever-greater resources into health care with one hand, while with the other restricting competition that would ensure those resources are used efficiently, sustained high profits will be the rule."

"The net effect of the endless layers of health-care regulation is to stifle competition in the classic economic sense. What we have instead is a noncompetitive system where services and reimbursement are negotiated above consumers’ heads by large private and government institutions. And the primary goal of any large noncompetitive institution is not cost control or product innovation or customer service: it’s maintenance of the status quo."


"The Obama administration and Congress are still working out the details, but it looks like this generation of “comprehensive” reform will not address the underlying issues, any more than previous efforts did. Instead it will put yet more patches on the walls of an edifice that is fundamentally unsound—and then build that edifice higher."

"I believe if the government took on the goal of better supporting consumers—by bringing greater transparency and competition to the health-care industry, and by directly subsidizing those who can’t afford care—we’d find that consumers could buy much more of their care directly than we might initially think, and that over time we’d see better care and better service, at lower cost, as a result."


Report this comment
#13) On September 09, 2009 at 3:10 PM, ozzfan1317 (71.17) wrote:

I have a bad feeling they will just pass something that changes very little and then feed us rhetoric about how much cheaper health care will get. Oh well thank God for football

Report this comment
#14) On September 09, 2009 at 4:43 PM, devoish (62.74) wrote:


HR3200, the plan being concocted by Congress right now, will change things for the worse in its most recent incarnations IMHO.

But they won't tell us how much cheaper health insurance will get. They will tell us how much less it will increase in cost.

HR676, Medicare for All would save you real money, eliminate rescissions, and spend some money helping us get the Doctors we need through Med school.

Report this comment
#15) On September 09, 2009 at 5:58 PM, starbucks4ever (78.34) wrote:


The only competition we have now is a dozen of HMOs competing in the art of composing your contract in a way that would let them deny your care just when you thought you were insured.If this competition were stifled by the evil big government, I wouldn't shed any tears.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners