My two sons have not seen the same doctor twice in 7 years..... 7 years for two boys. I have gone to the same hospital the whole time, i personally have not seen the same doctor twice. This outside of specialist who you must demand and then wait until they can fit you in. I have waited for the appt I am having next mon for 45 days, that was the soonest avail he had, the soonest.

I meant no disrespect. I don't know what it is like in Canada, but it apparently isn't all that great here, congratulations on your fantastic country seriously, I am jealous of your free health care system and how proud you all are of it, I'm just not trusting our government to get it right, and the way they have pushed this bill doesn't help with that trust. Maybe I should try it, Canada that is. Wait, I hate snow, although I think we got more here in MD than ya'll did. I did love the Olympics though, that was awesome, I loved the four tribal nations, that was way cool.

---------- Post added at 11:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:34 PM ----------

Please enlightenment with your wisdom oh fingered one. I await with bated breathe to be shown the err of my ways by one so noble.



No prob. rahl, I've got a trampoline, apparently I've put myself on that same limb a couple times, as everyone seems to be so graciously pointing out. Ah, the taste of defeat, it sucks. But I'm not done spitting. fsst, fsst, fsst....

I USED to have the utmost respect for Dennis Kucinich. Sure at times he was nutty Denny, but you had to respect the way he would dig his heels in and right or wrong would never break or change his vote. I have seen and heard interviews with him since announcing his change. He looks and sounds beaten and tired. I truly hope the Dem leadership likes what it did to people like Dennis and Sherrod Brown. Not only has it destroyed many careers of otherwise good people, but the leadership has destroyed Congress people that actually cared about their constituents and this nation.

FUCK YOU DEM PARTY GO TO HELL AND I WILL LAUGH WHEN YOU LOSE COME NOVEMBER..... FUCK YOU PELOSI, OBAMA, AND ALL YOU POWER HUNGRY EGOTISTICAL SELF RIGHTEOUS IDOTS WHO ONLY CARE ABOUT THE POWER. FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So sad..... Dennis was truly a good person and you destroyed him...

Wonder when the markets crash tomorrow, what's going to be your spin??????

ps: I DEEPLY APOLOGIZE IF MY LANGUAGE OFFENDS... IT IS THE PASSION SPEAKING AND WATCHING WHAT THIS PARTY I ONCE SO LOVED HAS DONE TO NOT ONLY DENNIS AND GOOD PEOPLE BUT TO THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE.

The absurd overreactions are astonishing.

Well that was annoying, guess pan figured if caps don't work to get his point across, use really annoying huge lettering.
No worries, things are different all over I know you meant no disrespect, it's all good.

Yes the Olympics were quite the even, the opening ceremonies were great, aside from the one cauldron malfunctioning. You probably did have more snow than us, we had a rather mild winter compared to normal it seemed.

Speaking only for myself, I'm not offended.

I do think it is unfortunate when passion gets in the way of the facts.

I look forward to the day when someone actually posts something factual against the current reform. Rage is no substitute to reason.

Oh rahl, I might be showing my aces here, but I'm going to have to agree with pan6467 here, just not so loudly, though I want too, Please don't be to disappointed with me, you knew me all along, I feel so naughty. Oh Shut up Obama. I am smiling deep down inside somewhere, In my happy place, and right now for the first time in my life, America ain't it. So disappointed with you Obama.

Why would you be disappointed in Obama? It ain't like this is a shocker. Unless you're disappointed that he didn't go as far as he said he would during the campaign? Because that's why I'm disappointed in him.

I wasn't specifically referring to you. Just everyone who has no idea what is really in the bill. I hated it at first, partly because I'm in the insurance industry but mostly because I didn't read the bill. Now I have, and it's going to be a good thing for the country and won't hurt my business personally. It will likely increase sales. (supplemental market)

dc-dux I'll be watching you, you better check and double check all your facts, regardless of where your passions lie and whether the facts you detail are lies that where told to you, lies you trusted or believed in. Facts are sometimes what people convince you to believe. I will continue to believe this was wrong, that is a fact.

I said it earlier, but this doesn't go far enough to help people become healthier and reduce health expenses in that way.

And I get annoyed when they say it's 1/6th of our economy. It shouldn't be. In most other countries it's not. Health expenses in my yearly budget are 1/50th to 1/40th of my income.

That's cool! You do that.

I try to check my facts very carefully and have no problem acknowledging when I am wrong and I dont post links to partisan opinions that are misleading or factually incorrect. That comes with 20+ years of working on public policy issues.

It is unfortunate that you were not able to do the same throughout this discussion.

I have always been disappointed with Obama, from the first moment he decided it would be o.k. to acknowledge a withdrawal date, like a sucker punch to our kids over there. Just lost all respect for the man.

I can say this: Dennis himself in interviews has said he was browbeaten and truly had no choice but to vote the way party leaders told him. His voice is cracking, he's showing his age..... I truly feel sorry for the man. I may not have always agreed with him but again, I reiterate, I HAD THE UTMOST RESPECT FOR HIM. Dennis in his heart always showed he cared about his district and now, watching him, listening to him.... he's a fucking shadow of himself... THAT IS WHAT PELOSI, OBAMA AND THE FUCKING POWER HUNGRY LEADERS OF THE DEM PARTY HAVE DONE.

Sorry, but I just find it very sad for the country when they have to do this to someone who actually cared. It's all about POWER.

Today, the US has officially become late stage Rome with Barrack Room Emperors.

Post a link to ONE such interview, please....where Kucinich said he was "browbeaten" or "had no choice"

Every interview I saw, he explained why he changed his vote even though he does not believe the bill is perfect.

I just wanted what you said repeated, I wholeheartedly agree, this administration is a joke, and the American people's new "heath care" will be the butt of it.

If this is what made you lose all your respect for him, then I would suggest that perhaps you haven't been paying attention. The same could be said of anyone who felt "sucker punched" by the announcement of a withdrawal date. He's been pretty clear about his goals as president. It sounds to me like you're disappointed with the fact that he was able to follow through with his goals.

I'm just saying, it you're disappointed with anyone, it should be the leadership of the Republican party for its inability to muster up enough blind, seething, misplaced, fearful, misinformed enmity to successfully stymie the president's efforts. You should be disappointed that they couldn't come up with something more plausible and more fear inducing than "death panels". You should be disappointed that they couldn't come up with something scarier and less familiar than socialism to use as a motivator. You should be disappointed that the Republican party fucked up the country so badly when they were in power that they couldn't help but put the Democrats in a position to pass this legislation. The last person you should be disappointed in is Obama.

I know you disagree with the mandated coverage part, which I adressed in the auto insurance comparisson. But what specifically about the "new" health care do you have a problem with?

is it the 30+million who will now have access to coverage?
is it the pre-ex exclusion?
is it the fact that now all health premiums will go down due to increased risk pool?
is it the fact that it is budget nuetral?
is it the fact that you can keep the insurance you have, or choose from a plethera of other private carriers?

Go to WTAM.com look under Trivisonno and play the interview.

I held out hope that Kucinich would stand up and change back. I find it sadly funny you care more about where I say he said he was browbeaten and had no choice than the fact the party destroyed the man. How pathetic.

Get what you want at any cost, huh?


Isn't that what we stood against W for? Didn't we feel W did the same thing? And now, the leaders of this party are far worse and have done far more damage than W EVER DID. (And I have never been a W fan, so please don't go there.)

---------- Post added at 12:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 AM ----------

And again, I reiterate my OP: because of what you listed and other reasons, the GOP committed political suicide, maybe not as much as the Dems tho.

The Libertarian Party right now is probably salivating over the fact they will have a serious influx of people joining now.

I dont see any Kucinich interview saying he was browbeaten.

And I just disagree with your emotional rants that are without factual foundation about Obama and the Democrats.

But carry on in your bashing crusade! That is your right and I support that right.

Nowhere in that interview did he say he was browbeaten. He stated that though he didn't agree with the bill he did agree that if the bill was defeated any chance for any reform would take years and years to come about again and he couldn't be apart of that. Unless there is some other interview I missed, I don't see where you are coming from

I just listened to the interview. I think you're delusional if this is the impression you got from it. If anyone was trying to browbeat him, it was the host, repeatedly interrupting him, telling him he had to put a dress on. I suspect that you didn't think Kucinich sounded defeated until you heard the host tell Kucinich he sounded defeated. The host kept saying Kucinich sounded defeated, and he tried his damnedest to get Kucinich to admit defeat but it didn't work. If anything, Kucinich probably felt exhausted because he was being interviewed by a someone intent on acting like a loudmouthed douchebag.

Kucinich specifically said in the interview that he wasn't threatened by constituents or the party. Kucinich said repeatedly in the interview that he voted for a flawed bill because he thought it might make more significant reform possible.

And how did he sound Rahl? Like the Dennis of old? Did he sound happy and enthusiastic over it? If no one has ever heard Dennis talk they may not understand. But I have heard Dennis talk for as long as I can remember (going back to the days when he was Cleveland's youngest mayor ever and he fought corruption in the city and for City Power.

He's always been an idealist and up until the past week ALWAYS been energetic and very self assured in his views. That interview and others the past week, he has been a shell of himself. Broken, trembling voice.

I dare you to listen to older Dennis tapes and compare them and tell me that you can't hear the voice of a broken man in Dennis now.

He is on again with Triv today (Monday) at 4pm. Feel free to listen. I'm sure Triv will play the parts I am talking about.

So he didnt actually say he was brow beaten?

I agree he was not enthusiastic about the bill, which is not a perfect "progressive' bill..but his explanation was reasonable and rational and not a defeatest emotional response....of course, unless you wanted to be believe he was brow beaten.

You're a voice analyst now? All this emotion and rage is based on a percieved change in his 'voice' you may or may not hear? Jesus.....

Pan, he is an old man so clearly he isn't going to sound like he did in his earlier years. I'm sorry that the facts in which you yourself provided contradict your own posts, but there it is in plain english for everyone to listen to.

The host clearly said Kucinich sounded defeated, and his sidekick clearly agreed. Case closed. :expressionless:

Think I just answered that. I've heard him as long as I can remember. I have followed him because in the 80's and early 90's when I thought about going into politics there were 2 men in Ohio I looked at that I saw conviction from and liked, Sherrod Brown and Dennis Kucinich. I even respected and liked the part of Dennis that stated he'd seen UFOs and was hanging with Shirley McClaine. I felt he was honest and ALWAYS stuck by what he believed.

So don't tell me I DON'T KNOW Dennis.... I DO and Triv (as much as I love Triv) had NOTHING to do with my opinion over Dennis.

Ever think that maybe he's just tired? He's been through a lot lately....

So far everything in this statement is provably false. No amount of "thinking" you know him is going to change that.

The fact is he never said he was brow beaten...he never said he had no choice...he was not "bought" as others (FOX heads) allege.

He made a hard personal decision that a bill that is not perfect still has enough good at the foundation and is far better than no bill at all.

I'm just saying that I don't necessarily trust your judgment here, no offense. Also, do you think it may have something to do with all the legislating going on? I know that I probably "sound defeated" after a long day at work. And as others have mentioned, he never said he was browbeaten or forced to do anything by the party. His voice wasn't cracking and he even laughed when the host said he sounded defeated. So either you misremembered or you exaggerated.

I can link interviews and speeches he has given in recent weeks where his voice was as sharp as ever.

I love the Dennis bashing. "He's old".... lol 63 is not that old in congress.

Maybe this had something to do with it: from Wiki:

Dennis Kucinich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Damn, dude.

You put words in his mouth that are not in any interview.

The rest is your interpretation... based on your own admitted emotional and passionate opposition to the bill, perhaps?

I doubt that as well as you "know him" that he confided in you personally about his own emotional state.

I'm too tired to keep arguing with you pan.
please feel free to post any links with time indexes of him specifically saying that he was browbeaten and strongarmed into voting, then maybe you will have a leg to stand on.

But as of now, the info you yourself posted put the lie to your claim.

Pan.. for guy that is full of hyperbole, this particular statement takes the cake.

The Obama administration has done more damage to American than Bush and his administration ever did? Really?

The mind boggles.

Sorry. But as an observer from the outside, I just can't agree.

So here we are, six pages seething with rage, and yet not one post about the specifics of the plan people disagree with. THEY DESTROYED AMERICA, SOCIALISM, ETC. ETC. and yet no specifics. For a bill that is apparently so terrible, it shouldn't be that hard, should it?

It is particularly surreal to see people at the same time buy into the "socialism" bullshit and be disappointed that Kucinich voted for this bill, when in reality he wanted (like I want) universal healthcare.

My bet is that in 2 years all these folks will be enjoying the tax breaks while still raging against Obama.

Pretty sure you can't complain that just a little more socialism in American politics is going to "destroy the American Way" and simultaneously be jealous of the much more socialist Canada. I think you'd be surprised at just how many of your fellow Americans would also welcome even more socialism in our policy. Regardless of what Sarah Palin may think, they are real Americans too, and their votes count just as much as yours when they vote for their representatives... who then vote for things like health care reform.

It's really alright to be sad that the government is not going in the direction you'd like. It's alright to think this is bad for the country (though it'd be nice if facts, not emotion were given as explanations when asked why). But, seriously, it's time to accept that there are a LOT of people out there who think otherwise, and part of living in a Democratic Republic - or any society for that matter - is accepting that, you know what, sometimes those "other people" are going to get what they want and you're not going to get what you want. All the while, the country will go on and life will go on. It's all part of behaving like a grown-up.

Smeth... I just read the article to which you linked. I can't believe that such a prominent GOP leader would actually say, "we think this is the beginning of the end for America."

America really is a mess. I can't imagine a politician, in such a high position, in any other Western nation, spewing forth such hyperbole. Wow.

David Frum... a Canadian that most of us would be happy to forget is a Canadian. That said, what he had to say was some of the most pragmatic utterances I've heard from *any* Republicans in this debate. Interesting to hear it now that the voting is over. I wonder if this form of spin will get any traction given the new paradigm or will Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh and company continue to push their tired agenda on America?

How long can the sort of hysteria that I am seeing (and even reading in this thread) be maintained? How long before it (needlessly) boils over?

Hopefully calmer heads prevail.

This is something of a threadjack, but every "kid" "over there" that I know (and, having graduated college in the last 10 years, I know a lot of them), wants desperately to come back or desperately not to ever go there again, having already been once before.

I can't imagine what "kids" you know who think being able to come home from a hostile country is a sucker punch, but hey.

This isn't what I wanted, but, as an independent contractor, I'll sure as heck take it over the alternative.

I'm sure their push will only get stronger. They will put on the fake outrage and do their best to influence elections in november.

I could never get this sentiment. If the passing of a health care bill such as this can destroy America, what does that say about America? Is it really that weak? That fragile?

the astonishing thing about this logic, such as it is, remains for me that the right is now saying effectively that "the american way" is defined by a health care arrangement that is a permanent expression of class warfare in the context of which over 30 million people do not have access to insurance and so do not have access to basic health care.

of course, you can't say that because the correlates of the argument are really ugly--you know, that these 30 million are extraneous people, or that they're not "real americans" or whatever---so instead the right's meme-machine shifts to matters of abstract "individual" rights as if "individuals" exist outside of society. so then social goals, like raising american capitalism from the barbaric conditions it allows to exist insofar as health care is concerned for the uninsured---become read as some kind of Imposition on the individual. which sets up the conservative Individual as wholly infantile, unable to distinguish itself from the world. the conservative individual is the world until Bad Reminders Come that maybe conservative individuals are not the world. these Bad Reminders typically come from the Persecuting State which is always bad unless it is being used to fund conservative-friendly constituencies like the military. then it is good. conservative Individuals, it seems, like diverting resources to systems that kill people but not so much to resources that make living easier or better for all. whatever.

it'd be amazing were it not so prevalent. read this thread. geez.

depressing stuff.

From the hysterical accusations from the Republicans one would think that this healthcare bill was some kind of radical change like single payer or something. Instead it is a middle of the road proposal similar to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan or the Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994. You can only cry "the sky is falling" so many times before you loose all credibility.

I don't think this bill will hurt the Democrats nearly as much as the Republicans think once people realize that life goes on and no one is pulling the plug on grandma.

The dangerous thing is that most of the benefits won't go into affect for a few years, so the republicans have plenty of time to ramp up the propoganda machine saying "see we told you it wouldn't work, what has this done for you so far?" Even though they know full well it's not going to do a whole lot until 2014.

I'm surprised the guy who said 'Behave like grown-ups' if healthcare bill is passed' in Smeths article is the same guy I saw on CN last night while flipping through the channels say 'The next 24 hours are "armageddon" because the health care bill proposed by Democrats will "ruin our country".
Boehner: It's 'Armageddon,' Health Care Bill Will Ruin Country | The FOX Nation

Quite amusing to be watching from the outside though, especially in this thread, I mean we've had it all, factual errors, people saying politicians said things when they didn't, some laughs, yep pretty amusing.

Markets are up. What is your spin?

Yeah, not only are health-care stocks surging, but even U.S. bonds are ticking upward, suggesting that the bond markets aren't overly concerned about the implications of health care.

The Top Ten Immediate Benefits You?ll Get When Health Care Reform Passes | House Democrats

HuffPo has compiled a list of the top 18 immediate effects of the health care bill as well as some that will take effect in the first year of implementation:

Health Reform Bill Summary: The Top 18 Immediate Effects

Opinions turn favorable on health care plan - USATODAY.com

I know you can't actually hear the defeat in his voice when you read the article, but here's a bit more on Kucinich. Click the link for the full article.

Dennis Kucinich on Health Care Bill - What Obama Didn't Say by Dennis Kucinich - Esquire


I think that once people stop irrationally assuming the worst about this bill, we'll all be a great deal better off. Nobody thinks it's perfect, and nobody is completely satisfied. Unfortunately, there seems to be an entire political party that exists purely to feed irrational fear of the bill.

This isn't the end of the United States. It isn't the end of the economy. It isn't the cause of a crippling deficit that will crush the will of our grandchildren. My prediction is that most of the doomsaying that is currently occurring will fail to be borne out in reality and that most of the folks currently predicting doom won't even realize that they were wrong (much less publicly acknowledge the fact that they were wrong).

The GOP's Dirty Health-Care Secret - The Daily Beast

The GOP has a really short memory, eh?

In this thread post #50 I wrote:

I have been constantly writing about the consequences (how market participants will respond) and there is constant pretense that there will be no unintended consequences. Market responses are not irrational, to the contrary it is very rational and predictable:

Read more: When will children be covered? - CharlotteObserver.com

I suggest we keep our eyes open and ask questions, demand answers and try to get politicians off of their talking points. This should be truly embarrassing to Obama, I wonder if he read the legislation?

good that you've got your shit straight and are asking the important questions, ace--how will the insurance companies react?
it's a bit mysterious that you don't seem to pay any attention to any of the....um....medical situations in the states that call out for the reforms, no matter how watered down they may be by the obama administrations mistaken approach that had them taking seriously what conservatives said. stuff like this:

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/as...10192010en.pdf

maternal mortality rates have gone from 6.6/100k in 1987 to 13.3/100k in 2008. the problem, as this report makes clear, is really the radically unequal quality of care afforded different populations in the united states under the system that's being changed.

so these are people dying in childbirth. there's lots of other examples. but clearly the question is how the insurance companies will react.

Wow, so the left has to go to Nixon to make a point? Wasn't Nixon the guy who imposed wage and price freezes? Certainly not a free market concept.

But, there are two types of mandates regarding health care, there is the type like with medicare were everyone is required to participate through taxation and there is the type like in Obama's bill and like in Massachusetts. No matter who proposes the latter, odds are that the Constitutionality will be challenged.

If a low income person is living pay check to pay check on average I understand they will pay about 10% of their income on health insurance - fro people living pay check to pay check this is a big deal. Some will face paying their heat bill or pay for health insurance and would rather pay the heat bill - but they are going to get hit with a fine so they may not have a choice. Welcome to the new America.

Insurance companies will no longer be able to turn away those with pre-ex's. They can't deny them, so there won't be a flood of people going into the exchange.

The point is that there needed to be a real open debate on the subject, there was not. Obama's approach to this complicated issue, was his way or no way.
This comment assumes there was not a better way to address reform, I think there is.

It is frustrating reading reports like this when from the start they make it clear there is a political agenda. In the first paragraph they make this statement which is false:

There are almost no women in this country who can not get access to good prenatal care. How is the report to have any credibility?

because of the documentation behind it ace.
i don't think researchers are calling you up to see if their results are ok with you.
so it's really not important whether you like the information or not.

class stratification of access to medical care is a basic reality.
i hardly expect you to see that because i don't expect you acknowledge the existence of economic classes.

there is a debate in here somewhere that will come---not here---about whether medical care should be understood as a business---whether any of it should be for profit---whether that is ethical at all.

but for the moment of course, what's important are conservative bromides about rational markets and dismissing information about actual problems of access to medical care.

way to go.

Do you wanna make a wager? If this is not an issue, I will make a charitable donation to your charity of choice, if it is you make a donation to Big Brothers Big Sisters, on the honor system.

An insurance company can simply stop taking new applicants if the "pre-existing" condition issue is expected to be a problem. So, in 2013 they write as much "profitable" business as possible and basically close their doors in 2014. The rush begins, all the people without insurance with pre-existing conditions go into exchanges. 2015, insurance companies start accepting new clients, or perhaps they don't - because the costs for their pool will be significantly lower and so will the premiums. Perhaps, they start a separate company with separate books - oh, you must get it - insurance companies will have people actually read the law, find the holes, and use them as they see fit. The insurance companies know the battle is not over. Insurance companies know the business better than the folks in Washington.

---------- Post added at 07:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 PM ----------

I understand the issues, my point was pretty clear. I started reading the report and right from the start they make a b.s. statement. They could have worded the statement in a manner to make the point and be truthful without the actual implication they made. As the reader, I made an assumption, which is my right, I believe they have a political agenda and truth is secondary.

ace...the average cost of prenatal care and delivery in the US is nearly $8,000.

Is that affordable and accessible if you are a working family making $30-50K and have no insurance?

The vast majority of people with insurance have it through their employer. Beginning immediatly all children under 19 can not be excluded. Beginning in 2014 no one can be excluded. Your scenario could hypothetically happen to people buying individual policies, but it won't affect employer sponsored plans, which is what most americans have.

I don't doubt that insurance companies will follow only the letter of the law and no more. They will in all likelyhood try to exploit any and all loopholes, but the language is very specific in terms of group health insurance.

by chance i just saw this post from the mit press blog. i'll paste up the relevant paragraphs:

MITPressLog: After reform...what's next?

do you think mongan provides a useful orientation for thinking about the process that's underway with this legislation?

Yes, however I think the first type of reform "financing" will be modified by the addition of a public option before much progress is made on the others.

There is a difference between the average cost and what a low income woman would pay, if anything. There are many reasons why prenatal care is at unacceptable levels in this country for some women but to suggest the issue is one of availability is untrue. That is my only comment on this issue at this time.

---------- Post added at 09:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------

We already have business owners who have gone on record saying that if they pay a penalty for not offering coverage their costs would be lower. At some point some of those people may very well drop the benefit to their employees. This is important - the costs of those plans will go up because of the preexisting conditions issue, not go down, increasing the probability the benefit will be dropped by some employers. Those employees will most likely go into the exchanges. As the cycle continues, employers who want to maintain the benefit may find themselves at a competitive disadvantage and either face declining market share, profitability, or going out of business. they may be forced into dropping the benefit, putting more in the exchanges. And, even if insurance companies simply take new insured's with preexisting conditions, costs will go up and passed on to all insured's. Insurance companies have a mandated medical pay-out ratio, but on the other-hand this is a guaranteed profit margin once the get a handle on their non-medical costs.

This is not going to hurt insurance companies or business owners, ultimately these cost will be incurred by the American public one way or the other.

My preference with children is to have a system where we simply cover the medical costs for all children in this country period, no questions asked. If a child is being treated for a condition upon obtaining the age of majority, we should continue that treatment for the remainder of their lives, otherwise they buy a policy on their own. That and a free market approach for adults, up to qualifying for Medicare is what I would do - short of a true single payer system with individuals having the option of buying supplemental coverages.

But, that is the point. Perhaps, the stop offering group coverage and focus on individual policies. Or perhaps they do the opposite. Perhaps, the write coverage in Arizona but not Michigan, etc, etc, etc., They are not going to go out of business over preexisting conditions - they will make a profit or not participate. the legislation does not have simple little loop-holes, it has major problems that contradict the broad promises made.

---------- Post added at 09:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 PM ----------

It is a convoluted way to get to single payer. If government thinks it can control real costs and control market behaviors including delivery systems, it has to control the system from A to Z. I think there are simpler more efficient ways to incrementally get to full single payer system, including what I stated above, taking the next step with children.

ace...it may be your only comment, but you are wrong.

There are millions of women in working families above the Medicaid level and w/o insurance. Unlike women (or a spouse) with employer-based health coverage where 85% the cost, on average, is covered by insurance, the cost of pre-natal care and delivery for these women is beyond their means....in the range of $7,000-$8,000.

So I guess they shouldnt have children, huh? Or maybe they should just skimp and skip the pre-natal and save about $1,500-$2,000 of that total.

The language in the bill is specific. They can no longer choose to deny a person be it group or individual. As far as not participating in certain states, that won't work either because those with pre-ex's are spread out over the entire country.

I can not believe I am doing a search on prenatal care access...

But for example New York, they have a PCAP/MOMS program:

A healthy baby starts with a healthy pregnancy.

If you look at their guidlines manual there is a presumption of qualification and the qualification for the program is up to 200% of the poverty level:

Even if they don't qualify, don't have insurance, nor enough income, I am pretty sure there are other programs or even some doctors or clinic who would provide prenatal care a little or no cost, or even allow payments over time. The resources are out there and available.

---------- Post added at 10:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 PM ----------

O.k., I throw up the white flag. You don't think it will be an issue, I do. Time will tell.

{added}

DC, here is more infor for you, if you need it:

http://www.pregnancyandchildren.com/...ncial_help.htm

So, far I have only done three searches.

The average cost...from pre-natal to deliver is $7,600

Healthcare 411: Audio Feature

And you are sure that women w/o health insurance and above the Medcaid threshold will find someone to cover the majority, or a significant portion, of that cost?

200% of the poverty level, ace? Thats $28K (ave) for a husband/wife. Above that and w/o insurance, you are sol.

I throw up the white flag here too. Hell, if I knew a pregnant woman I would help her pay for care if she needed help and I would help her connect to resources.

---------- Post added at 10:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 PM ----------

Sorry, but I need to add one more thing, thinking about unintended consequences.

One of the reasons the out-of-wedlock birth rate is so high is because of arbitrary cut-offs like this. If the man has a good job paying over $28,000, it would be in his and her interests not to get married and incur the costs, but to have her go through the government subsidized care saving about $8k. People are not dumb. And, I don't suggest we don't help people, but some programs are set up to make people act in dishonest ways and have negative consequences. Once the guy knows the government is going to do his job, his connection gets weakened. A better way is simply to get the costs lower and not "penalize" people for making a little too much money in a all or nothing approach.

So now you are suggesting that a couple making $35-50K will seek a lesser page job under $28k to qualify for medicaid and save $7 - 8K?

Come on, read what I wrote. Are you really pretending that the issue I presented is not real or are you just being argumentative? If you are serious, I do strongly suggest getting out and interacting with low income people.

You have data to prove the issue is real...that people take a cut in pay in order to get govt. assistance?

I dont doubt you can find a few anecdotal examples....but it far from the norm.

What is the unwed birth rate for those in poverty?
What was that rate before the "war on poverty"?
What do you think are the top 10 contributors to the trend of unwed births in low income areas?
How does the trend in unwed birth in low income areas compare to middle and upper class income areas? Why are the trend lines different?

I can not persuade you, I know that, but if you honestly looked at this issue, the way that I have, your conclusions would be very similar to mine.

the fundamental issue I have with the liberal approach to issues like this is the presumption that poor people are not rational. What is common or not, here is what you want to believe:

Example: Joe 22 years old, with a job paying $27,000 per year, and a girl friend, who is 18. He loves her, and he just got good news on two fronts. First he was offered a promotion to be a crew chief, it offers $1,100 dollars more per year. His girl friend tells him she is pregnant. He is on cloud nine, and says let's get married.

His girl friend already did some research and knows that she can get free prenatal care, free delivery, free post natal care, coverage for her child, food and diapers. Adding all that up over two years it comes to a value of let's say $12,000.

If they get married they are looking at his income of $28,100, or $100 over the cut-off. So, marriage will cost them $12,000.

You think they are not rational, I do.

They don't get married - his connection to his family is weakened. What may have been the beginnings of a wonderful family has been hurt by government policy. I say rather than these arbitrary cut-off and high "marginal tax" (or loss of benefit) situations, let's come up with a better solution.

I don't get it, why do you keep playing pretend with these real world issues?

Do you actually have your analysis available, or is this just another one of those "I'm Ace and this is what seems plausible to me and so now you must argue with me about it as though it is fact" things?

I can vouch for this situation because I am in a similar one. The reason I'm not married to my lady is that we don't think marriage necessary. It isn't for financial reasons, though if we did decide to get married, financial considerations might present an obstacle. It isn't our fault we live in a society intent on overemphasizing the importance of marriage by tying finances to marriage status.

I get good financial aid benefits for school and our family benefits from having one stellar credit rating and one poor credit rating. If we got married we'd get to suffer with one shitty credit rating, and we'd end up in more debt because I'd likely get considerably less college money.

As far as connections with families being weakened, I think you're overstating the power of a marriage license here. A father's (or mother's) connection to their family exists completely independently of whether or not they are in a legally recognized marriage with the other biological parent.

*edit: in any case, just because you can fathom a scenario where it may be beneficial with respect to a specific program for a couple to not marry, you still can't plausibly assume that this scenario is significantly prevalent among the beneficiaries of said program to warrant consideration.

ace...IMO, what is rational is that most people want to do better for themselves and and their families and view federal assistance programs as a temporary safety net in times of need rather than a way of life.

Anecdotes and undocumented assumptions, based on a pre-conceived ideology that those "scamming the system" represent anything more than a very small minority, are not very convincing.

And the fact remains that most of those use benefit from federal assistance do so for relatively short, transitional periods of time.

So, no, my views would not be similar to yours.

I will be 50 years old this year, I have been poor, what some consider "rich", back down and on the way up again. In high school and college I did research papers on the subject, in the 70's and 80's it was a major topic of discussion. I intimately know poor people, "rich" people, people who were once poor and now "rich", etc. I have been in public debates and have given civic speeches and presentations on the subject. I had a corporate job where they supported my outside activities in this area. And I still devour volumes of data on the subject. Other than a pure and simple appeal for an understanding of the rational nature (either consciously applied or not) of decision making by "poor" people, I don't know where to start, given my belief that nothing I present will make a difference at this point.

So, I ask the question directly and simply, do you believe "poor" people tend to make rational decisions? If you think they do, does apply to economic decisions? It is very possible for you or others to believe that "poor" people are poor because they make irrational economic decisions, but in my experience that is less often true than the opposite. Actually, in my experience "poor" people on a whole may be more rational with money than "rich" people. In my view this question is at the core of what one's expectation of the role of government is in helping "poor" people, it also defines what one will accept and reject on what they will accept as evidence. Reading the postings on how this has progressed it is pretty clear to me that there is an element of not wanting to believe or pretending not to believe what is pretty obvious. And given that, there is nothing I can do.

---------- Post added at 09:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 PM ----------

Look at this from a big picture point of view - the things that connect a family include many factors, one being the financial connection of willing to work and sacrifice for one's family. Another factor is the connection being reinforced by daily contact. If we take both of these away, it has a big impact, especially on males in the ages up to about 35.

---------- Post added at 09:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:13 PM ----------

I don't disagree. Nothing I said is consistent with your point about "a way of life", however, using an example not necessarily involving "poor", you have the phenomenon of something like subsidized housing in New York. You use "way of life" however, why would a person give up highly subsidized housing? They generally won't, unless there is a compelling reason. You are barking up the wrong tree if you think I am one of those people who say, "well they get pregnant to get more welfare". I am not - the the issue is a bit more complicated than that, but not so complicated that it can not be understood, modeled and predicted..

Prenatal care lasts about 9 months.

You have not clearly presented your views.

I don't think one's ability to make rational decisions is determined by class and I'm not sure how you could have come to the conclusion that I did. I also don't think that you're working with an objective definition of the word rational, but that's just my opinion.

So you're saying that without a marriage license it is more difficult to work and sacrifice for one's family? Or maintain daily contact? Did you know that unmarried couples with children can live together and collaborate on household finances?

I gave an example of how public policy can impact a family decision, my example illustrated a rational thought process, and what followed was a pretense that the point was not relevant.

I think some fall into a trap when looking a statistical information. Basically, statistics dehumanize people. Before one can really understand broad based statistical data one has to understand what drives decisions on an individual level. The trap I describe leads us to public policy that takes the form of - 'well we are doing XX% out of 100%' and expecting everything is o.k. When you are one of the people on the margins, that is not o.k. I think there are better approaches to these problems, for example rather than totally changing health care in a half baked way, why not simply take the step of giving every child, 100% of them, full and complete medical care. No margins, no geography issues, no parental issues, no preexisting condition issues, no income issues, no timing issues, nothing, just give them coverage.



You are working too hard to read things into what I wrote that are not there. Why?

Ace, I think you will find that most liberals in here are in favor of a single payer universal health care system, so you don't need to convince any of us of that.

Of course, it makes absolutely no sense to argue that because the bill doesn't cover everyone, it shouldn't cover anyone.

It's relevance will only be established when you can provide an estimate of prevalence. There's little point in considering situations that don't have a significant impact and aren't significantly prevalent.

Public health policy is necessarily a matter of statistics. If policy makers took the time to consider every possibility then nothing would ever get done.

Why don't you write your congressperson and ask them?

Hmm.

Here's what happened:

You said:
To which I responded:
To which you responded:
Was this a complete non sequitur? Because in the context of our conversation (the effects of marriage on familial strength) it seems like you're saying that "from a big picture point of view" the lack of marriage correlates with a disinclination for work and sacrifice for the benefit of family and a lack of connection stemming from a lack of daily contact. Perhaps you're not talking about the effect of marriage on familial strength here, which would makes sense given your incredulity at my response. In the context of our conversation it seemed like you were saying something completely different.

Not my point at all. We can cover all children and I can whole heatedly support that, however the idea of giving a few a big benefit at the expense of all, with arbitrary and abrupt cut-offs resulting in some very unacceptable unintended consequences is something I can not support. I think a better approach is to lower the costs so everyone benefits - this can be done in a manner to help those most in need without the unintended consequences. The first step is being willing to acknowledge there are severe unintended consequences to our current approach.

---------- Post added at 06:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:58 PM ----------

O.k., let's say I presented my premise to you and I am asking you for a grant to prove my premise, what is your response here suggesting?


I think you purposefully have taken my point out of context and I wonder why? I never said that statistics are not important, did I. What I said was that there is a trap that people can fall into regarding the review and analysis of statistics. What I suggested was a need to dig down into the statistics and understand individual decision making. For example statistics involving how or why people involve themselves in public aid will always be problematic because in some cases answers could be self incriminating. A statistician needs to understand that and well as those relying on the data.

---------- Post added at 06:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:07 PM ----------

First, to simplify - use the assumption all other things being equal, then let's look at the impact of variables. We also, know there are exceptions to the rules:

A young man with daily contact with his family where he works, provides, and sacrifices will have more or less of a connection?

A young man with all of the above who also make a commitment in front of his extended family, her extended family, society (through a marriage license), to his heritage (including religion), will have more or less of a connection?

It seems to me that you want me to suspend belief in what is rational. Seems to me that you won't accept the above unless you have some scientific or statistical proof. And you say it is a non-sequitur?

If it is so rational to suggest that people will quit a job for a lower paying job simply to qualify for govt assistance, then the data should be available to support it.

Or perhaps it represents such a small percentage of those receiving govt assistance that it is not an issue worth discussing further.

But you're not presenting a premise for grant approval (I'd tell you to take a grant writing class or hire a grant writer). You're presenting a premise as if it is already supported, when I think it's pretty clear that it's not. It's not a worthless premise, but as far as I can tell it doesn't have any basis in scientifically supported policy decisions.


I didn't take your point out of context, I put it in context, that is to say, I put it into a context more associated with reality. As much as we'd all love to "understand individual decision making" to the extent that we can account for every eventuality, it's simply not possible. So statistics are used, because they can provide a moderately reliable way of predicting effects in lieu of more detailed information.

Do you just trade out people to argue here? Are there two or three of you?

In your previous post you were shocked, SHOCKED that I'd interpreted your words in the way that I did. Then, after I went back and showed you why I interpreted your words the way I did, you realize that, yes, I interpreted them correctly. So then you just continue on like you were never lost and I didn't have to remind you of what the hell you were talking about.

I don't know, is he abusive? Does he spend all of his free time at home arguing on the internet?

I don't know, is he abusive? Does he spend all of his free time at home arguing on the internet?

Even then, you're original premise was that the father was willing to do all this, but, goshdarnit, he'd lose out on some government money and so he didn't. It seems like the guy in your original premise would be a great dad.

I don't think your definition of rational is rational. Your actions in this conversation have convinced me (or reminded me, I guess) of this.

I want you to go back and read what I was talking about when I mentioned the words "non sequitur," because in all your rational bluster you've clearly misread it. And I won't accept the above because it's counter to my experiences. And also that, analytically speaking, it wouldn't pass muster in an intro college english class. You make so many assumptions that it would take a considerably effort to list them all.

There is, but there are problems with the data.

I remember posting data on the sexual activity of young males and young females. The data show males have more sex with more partners than females. It is clear that males tend to exaggerate sexual activity and females will understate sexual activity, but the reality is that (even adjusting for same sex activity) the numbers should be even.

People generally don't give up good jobs simply because of government assistance, I never stated that, you simply created a straw-man argument here. what I do say is that the presence of government assistance influences behaviors, primarily on the margins when there are large marginal cost sifts (or "tax") based on arbitrary benefit cut offs. If a person can shift costs, for example, amounting to 50% of their income, by doing or not doing a small act, they have a big financial incentive to do so. I am not even interested in looking for a study that shows that, and if you don't believe it - don't.

Are you suggesting the point is real but is small or are you still holding the position that the point is not real, you got me confused now? If it is a question of the "size" of the issue, perhaps there is more to discuss, because I think the "size" of the problem is a legitimate concern.

---------- Post added at 06:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:18 PM ----------

My views on this subject are clear to me, have not changed, and won't change. Everything else is related to my inability to communicate clearly with you. I am willing to start fresh, if you think it would help, and I will respond directly to any question you have regarding my point of view on this subject.

Hey, thats cool. Why would you look for data that might contradict your assumption....beyond a very small percentage of those receiving govt assistance.

In any case, dont try to pass your opinion off as factual.