Universal Healthcare

Remove all ads!

Haven't followed the thread very closely so I missed your sarcasm. Partly because the view you expressed in sarcasm is held for real by many people. They think that if you work with people you are supposed to pour your heart and soul into it and if need be work for free because otherwise people suffer. I am a teacher and I meet that attitude a lot and sometimes share it myself when if I don't help this kid no one will but I sure as hell won't get much appreciation and definately no monetary appreciation.

When it comes to healthcare I believe it should be completely run by the government, or rather by the people for the people. Health care and education are two things that I believe should be a right in any developed society who can afford it and should be the first things covered in any budget. You get sick, you get care no hassle no bills no business. No system will ever be perfect but I sure as hell wouldn't want the American one. Ideology aside it just seems so chaotic and full bureaucracy, simply put it seems way more ineffecient than any state run company which according to many are nothing but inefficiency.

I dont even think it should be possible to buy better care if you have the money. The same care for everyone rich or poor and wealth shouldn't come into it. If it was like that I honestly think the care would never be below a certain standard.

 

I was not serious, but now you ruined my fun. But I'm glad that it did not offend you. I was just responding to "the sky is falling" post.

 

Chandos, you sound awefully snotty yourself here. I realize that a lot of people don't like doctors, but there are also a lot of good doctors out there. I'd guess there are more good doctors out there than there are lawyers, simply because of the nature of the work, and we had a little discussion about lawyers a while ago (as dealing with ambulance chasers). Just because someone's a doctor doesn't mean they're the devil. As for that 'can't manage their business' bit, that's about like kicking the rape victim while she's still bleeding on the ground. Sure, Chandos, just tell them to 'suck it up' when the government pays them less for a medical procedure than the medication alone for it cost. Right, that's 'managing their business'. How, exactly, do you think your business would fare if the Gov't were a major client and payed you that way?

Chandos, I'm not saying Universal Health Care would crash and burn. I'm saying that it could crash and burn (as it has in some other countries), or that, at least, it's a much bigger change then just eopening Medicare to all as a public option.

Chandos, this isn't the 'big scare'. It's the reality. Today. Now, if the Government did a complete takeover of healthcare, and payed reasonable prices, then that wouldn't happen. Unfortunately, that's not what you're talking about. You're talking about the Gov't taking over healthcare and then strongarming the doctors into loosing money on almost every procedure. That's an excellent way to kill the entire medical industry. IFF you want good universal healthcare, it will be a much bigger and more complicated change than just 'open up Medicare'.

You realize, of course, that going 'cash-only' means that both systems, the public and the private, have failed? We're reforming the private system with this bill, yet you suggest replacing a system that we may have fixed with one we definitely haven't?


You have to recognize that Medicare is just as broken as the private system was, just in different ways. If you want to advocate a total revamp of Medicare that will turn it into working Universal Health Care, I have no problem with that. I'm not sure it's needed, and I don't think it's the only option, but it would work. It's when you start saying things like posts #593 and #595 that I worry. It sounds to me like you actually think killing the private option completely and replacing it with a universal version of Medicare would work. It won't, and trying would kill America's entire health care system.

 

Sorry, you don't recognize irony.

So what? Everyone knows that. It's a given.

That's all you would be doing is guessing. And that's why lawyers have to "chase" the ambulance, because they know there won't be any money left when the vampire hospitals are done with them. Also, I don't remember anything about a "discussion" on lawyers. Anyway, why would that be important?

Same thing with lawyers, but why are you writing something so painfully obvious? Unless...

I know now that you failed to pick up the irony in my post, even after Joac uncovered it. Again I have to recommend that you bother to read the posts a little more closely.

Even though I was using "capitalistic" irony, now the doctors are victims? Wow, that violin of mine is sure getting a workout for all the pity parties you like to throw. The real victims are the patients, which is why they are always suing incompetent doctors. My sympathies are with the patients that get thrown out on the street when their insurance refuses to pay and doctors don't want to treat them. BTW, many doctors ARE decent people, but they are contracted to large providers who don't give a damn. Did I mention that already?

But most doctors don't run their own business anyway and I thought you would have picked that up pretty quickly. Most doctors are contracted to health care providers. So running their own business is not an issue, unless they are in private practice, and some of those are no longer taking insurance because they don't like dealing with your beloved insurance companies.

The insurance companies already tell them that, which is why those few doctors still in private practice are looking for ways to drop the insurance companies altogether. But you already know that; you just didn't think I knew it. What fun! Also, many plans have separate medication plans, like mine. My medication is covered by a separate provider, so doctors don't concern themselves with it, except to OK the prescription. But even just that can be a hassle for them.

Don't misrepresent my views, or put words in my mouth. As I said, government insurance works in most other countries fairly well, nd those doctors do pretty well, so you can stop your hooting and carping about "what I said."

The doctors are represented by a very powerful special interest/lobby group in Washington and local government, known as the AMA. But who looks out for the patients? Where is all this "concern" of yours for the patients who just want to get well? The courts? Oh, yes, that would really be in need of reform also, right? Those "greedy, shady lawyers" defending those patients from the frauds and quacks in our health are system are preventing doctors from going about their business according some. THAT we need to fix. Why do patients need their day in court? I don't know where you stand on that issue, but I hope it is with the patients.

That's what we mostly have for patients under 65 is a "private system." Government health care is for the elderly and the poor. And over 80 percent of Medicare patients are happy with their care. So what's the problem?

The vast majority of patients are happy with it. But it is under-funded and will need to be refinanced. As I pointed out, most other countries have a public system, which works fairly well. Are you saying they can do something we can't? I'm not really sure what you are saying.

That's how to run a business.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-04-04-cash-doctors_x.htm

 

I see neither irony nor sarcasm (and those two are wildly different things) in your post, especially since you continue to present those ideas. I do see caustic humor, but that tends to be more in-line with the opinions expressed in the joke than sarcasm is. That would also explain your repeat performances. Tell me straight here, are you expressing a genuine, if over-stated, opinion of hospitals and doctors? It sounds to me like you are, but I want to make sure.

Yes, I know I'd be guessing, that's why I said I would. The lawyer discussion was in another thread where one person claimed someone was an ambulance chaser and another pointed out they were actually another kind of lawyer altogether, and the first then went on about the gross evils of lawyers and how they're all the same. You appear to be making the same kind of arguement, thus why I brought it up,

Fun rant, but you apparently didn't pay attention to what I was actually saying. I'm not throwing a pity-party for anyone, nor am I making anyone a victim here, and I don't have any love for the insurance companies. I'm just not so rabidly against them that I'll throw the baby out with the bathwater. That's what I'm saying to you. You're proposal for expanding Medicare and removing the mandate, and using that as Universal Health Care, would ruin the only system we have right now. Sure, UHC could work without insurance companies at all, but you'd have to scrap everything we have now and make an entirely new health care system from scratch, and that's not what you're proposing.

Wow, that's quite a spin you've put on all that. First off, you've vastly overstated your point on private practice doctors going cash only. Many don't accept Medicare, but most still accept insurance companies. It's only a very few that have gone cash only, and I didn't even know anything about that until you pointed it out to me, so please don't jump into any grand conspiracy/oppression theories where I'm denying a truth I know. They don't work well for your case. Lastly, the 'medication plans' that you're talking about have nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was talking about medication needed to do the procedure, like sedatives, or clotting/anti-clotting drugs, not a scrip the doctor hands you and tells you to get filled. I'm betting those go in with the procedure costs, not to a seperate medication plan.

Again, here's the problem: what you advocated (and I'm going to keep harping on that until you say something different, it's you I'm debating with after all), and what would actually make a system similar to those that work in most other countries, are two completely different and unrelated things.

Chandos, go back in this very thread and read where we were actually arguing about what would work, and you'll see where I stand on this. I'm not condemning the patient to slavery to the 'wicked' doctors and lawyers. I want a system that will really and truely work, and will help people in the long run. Expanding Medicare and removing the mandate won't.

Riiight. Over 80% are happy with their care. That's why every week I see adds for supplimental insurance for the elderly to cover 'what Medicare won't', and why so many doctors are refusing Medicare patients. Because they're so few and far between, and oh-so-happy.

Now you're talking. Yes, it needs to be refinanced with a new payment scheme if anything is to be done with it. That would be a good measure. And I think I said that already, not sure though. Anyway, what other ideas do you have to improve Medicare?

 

You should read my posts more closely.

Hence the sarcasm.

I'm proposing that people have more options and consider a gradual change towards something that works for EVERYONE. Also, empoyers would be able to compete better. Who do you think pays the REAL cost of the insurance you get through your company? That fifteen grand or so that your company pays every year? The company? Get real. Their customers pay for it. It is figured into the cost of everything that they, and you purchase. There is no free lunch. It can just be cheaper to eliminate the very greedy middle-man in this transaction. Wal-Mart, as the largest employer in the country, supported health care reform. One thing I have to say for them, they understand how to run a business.

No, you are the one "overstating" your case. You have no idea how many doctors don't accept Medicare. And in fact, there are many who do, despite all your carping to the contrary. So a few doctors don't like it? Where DID I leave that violin?

I've warned you before about misrepresenting my views. No one said anything about a "grand conspiracy," homeboy. Where did I say there was a conspiracy or "oppression?" You really should take the time to read the link and read what I actually saidwhile you are at it. Read slowly if it will help.

Yes, that's the fact, Jack. Look it up if you don't believe me. Medicare covers 80 percent. You can take out a policy to cover the other 20, which for an older person with health issues can be expensive. Do I have to explain everything to you?

Sorry, I'm still laughing. Yes, actually it will. First off, the mandate is closer to "slavery" than anything that I have suggested. And as I pointed out, people like their Medicare just fine. You can't dispute that point and you know it. And I'm not talking about "slavery" or "wicked" doctors, so you can stop your all your hooting and cut the dramatics. The Academy Awards are over, and you didn't win.

I'm speaking of tools and a process that consumers can use to get better and cheaper care; that doctors can run their business, as a business, as well as a practice, rather than have to fight the insurance companies for better care for their patients. So I take it you are for the mandate? YOu may find this interesting:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36064264/ns/politics/

It's little wonder there is confusion in the ranks regarding the mandate.

Nevertheless, you are completely deaf and dumb as to what will work and what won't work, because you see this as a matter of ideology. Why don't you learn to think outside of the ideological box for once? You sound like Sarah Palin, screaming: "The liberals are trying to force that European health care scheme on us!"

It works in the rest of the world. Of course it will take time, which is why for now, we should have all options on the table, including the system we have now, coupled with the choice of a government option. Are you afriad to let people decide for themselves which one they would prefer? Why, yes.

 

Expanding Medicare would be more options, and I don't have a problem with that. Removing the mandate would be removing the linchpin that holds this new system together, though. That wouldn't be a step toward a 'gradual change', that would create a complete collapse that would immediately require drastic measures to correct. This is what you don't seem to understand. And yes, I know there are no free lunches, I never claimed anything was free. I'm not sure where that whole lecture came from.

One, wtf was that 'homeboy' bit? Be serious, please. Two, the 'grand conspiracy' bit was from your paranoid accusation of: "But you already know that; you just didn't think I knew it. What fun!" that made me assume you thought I was part of some vast conspiracy to keep you in the dark or something. That's really the only way I could read that.

... That's not what you said, Chandos. In fact, that's very, very different from what you said. You didn't say 'Medicare covers 80% of costs' or 'Medicare covers 80% of eligible people'. You said 'Over 80 percent of Medicare patients are happy with their care.' Please tell me you understand how different those two statements are?

:sigh: I swear, you've given up all reason. One, no one said anything about slavery. Two, my whole point is that, the way Medicare pays now, the doctors would be unhappy, vastly unhappy, if it became the only option. Do you know what happens then? They quit and find different work. People stop becoming doctors. America runs out of doctors. This is the #1 fear of Americans where UHC is concerned, and the reason is that it has happened in some other nations that went with UHC. The quality and quantity of their medical services plummeted from what they had been before. Now, I'm not saying all nations went that way, nor am I saying the US definitely would, but I am saying that Medicare right now is set up to produce just such a situation in the US. UHC can work, but not with what we have now.

You're the one that appears deaf and dumb here, Chandos, to the very posts you respond to on these forums. I'm not some right wing neo-con nut job, regardless of the assumptions and accusations you've leveled at me in this and other threads. You are quite obviously willing and eager to ignore everything I post and replace it with whatever mad rants you get from the most wild political pundits you can find. STOP DOING IT! It's insulting to both of us that you try. I don't listen to ideology on this, I listen to my own logic. I don't support the mandate because Reps do or don't, I don't care what they support. I support the mandate because it makes sense. Whether it's legal or not is an issue I'll leave to the constitutional lawyers and judges.

And here's yet another strawman from you. I am not opposed to the public option. I'm opposed to your proposal of making Medicare the only option. What was that you were saying about choice? Seems the shoe's on the other foot now. And no, this doesn't work in the rest of the world. It works in some of the rest of the world, and it's blown up in the face of some of the rest of the world.


Now, if you're willing to get your head out of whatever rabbit hole you've stuck it in and actually respond to me, then we can start talking. To be clear on my positions: an expansion of Medicare is a good idea, but we have to be careful with funding and pay-outs. It may be the first step to creating a real, working UHC, or at least a good lesson in what will and won't work. In the mean time, though, the private option must remain as a working system. To do that, given the current reform, there are only two choices:
1.) Remove both the mandate and the protection of pre-existing conditions (essentially going back to what we already had in that area)
2.) Keep both the mandate and the protection of pre-existing conditions (what the reform has).

Any removal of the mandate without removing the protection of pre-existing conditions would kill the entire private industry in a matter of years, and at the moment there's no system set up to replace it. Medicare as it is now won't work, because it pays the doctors too little. Doctors need to eat and sleep and pay of college loans just like everyone else, which means we need to pay them enough to make a profit. Medicare doesn't, which is why many are upset with it and have been for years (this issue has come up many times in the last decade or two). The insurance companies do, but then they fight over every penny they pay out, which is why everyone is upset with them.

 

Ok, so we are breaking the two issues apart, which I did not realize. Here's your post:

Medicare is a public option. So I take it to mean that you are in favor of a public option, but not an expansion of Medicare as an ideal solution for a PO? That's a reasonable position, but I'm still trying to figure out what it is that you are actually in favor of, not just what you are opposed to.

I am opposed to the mandate, but certainly in favor of any public option that will provide more choice for patients. Which, btw, was how the bill in the House was written. There was no expansion of Medicare, but a public option and no mandate. I take that you agreed then?

That is what will happen if the 10 states, or so, whatever it is at the moment, win their law suit against the federal government. Hence, my recent post on that very point. They cannot have the entire bill put aside, since they are suing over whether or not it is constitutional to mandate health insurance - FOR THE MOST PART. The problem is they have a real case, at least in my opinion. I don't think the Constitution allows for the federal government to do that in a strict sense of its reading. As I said, that would sink the insurance companies, given the new system. You can see now how we agree that it would remove the "linchpin" that you correctly point out.

I apologize, NOG, but I'm out of time. I will come back to the rest of your points later....

 

Yes, the PO and the mandate are two completely seperate issues. I don't see how they have anything to do with each other. You could have a PO, or even UHC, without a mandate, and you could have a mandate without a PO or UHC. The latter stinks, but it would work.

The mandate is more closely tied with the protection of pre-existing conditions, because you need the mandate for the protection to not kill the entire system. Think of what would happen if you didn't have a mandate but still had protection (which I assume you're in favor of). People would only get insurance when they were actually sick, which means the insurance companies would be constantly paying out on every policy, because the ones they didn't need to pay out on would immediately drop coverage. That means that, in order to stay in business, the insurance companies would have to charge more than the hospitals did, which means there's no point in buying insurance at all. Congratulations, you've just killed the entire medical insurance industry, private and public (since the same could be done with Medicare). If the courts end up doing this for us, Congress is going to need to scramble to fix things, because otherwise the system will start hemoraging as soon as it comes on line (2014, I think?).

Medicare could work as a public option, provided that they re-do the payment scale. That's my main gripe with Medicare. Even the insurance companies that gouge the doctors thanks to their massive client base usually pay more than Medicare. When I said "Expanding Medicare and removing the mandate won't.", I was speaking of a joint act. If you do both, it won't help anything. The reason is because you're removing the mandate.

All in all, if you want to know what I support in this bill, look at my review of it on page 22, post #541. Aside from that, I support a public option provided:
1.) it pays for itself. No tax money should fund this, only people paying into the system.
2.) it pays doctor (and psychologists) a decent amount.
3.) it is optional, meaning there are other options.

Medicare could become that, but it isn't that right now.

 

I actually like this idea. With such a database, doctors could look up your medical history when you make an appointment to see them. So if your primary care physician refers you to a specialist, you don't have to worry whether or not the necessary records got transferred or not. They've implemented such systems in other countries, and it does show to increase efficiency.

I don't know about that. Given the number of law schools out there and the number of medical schools, I'd guess that there were more attorneys.

That completely depends on what kind of doctors you are talking about. Primary care, family practice, pediaticians, and gynecologists are still almost entirely private. On the other hand, ER, radiologists, anestiologists, cardiologists and almost entirely employed by hospitals.

Never go to the AMA to find out what doctors think. More than half their members are not doctors (I was stunned to find that out.)

Doctors that screw up should certainly be charged, but as I have already said, this represents a fraction of a percent in total health costs. Doctors aren't perfect. My brother relates a story from medical school, in which an instructor told them that a typical ER doctor will kill two patients in course of their careers. They won't mean to kill them of course, but the patient will die because of the wrong call on the part of the doctor. Given that an ER doc sees thousands upon thousands of patients over their careers, I think that's pretty good.

That differs from what most people I have heard say. Granted, I do not know if the people the cable news networks put on are even lawyers, never mind experts on Constitutional law, but the consensus opinion is that they don't have much of a case, and states have a poor track record overall when going up against the federal government in court.

Finally, I saw on Friday how McCain and Boenner had a press conference, in which they announced that since the Democrats pass healthcare without compromising with Republicans, they can expect zero cooperation from anyone in the GOP from this point forth. I found this humorous on two fronts. 1.) The Republicans were never willing to compromise on healthcare to begin with. They didn't want single payer, a private option, revised Medicare, or a public mandate. The entire concept of a compromise position is that you give the other side something of what it wants. If you aren't willing to do that, you aren't willing to compromise. 2.) Threatening the Democrats with zero cooperation would actually be seen as credible, if not for the fact that they haven't cooperated on anything since the stimulus package, of which Republican support was marginal at best. I don't see the point of mentioning this in a press conference, as it is basically saying that you're going to continue doing what you've been doing for the past year. So what else is new?

 

They don't: That was my point. I thought you were lumping them together in your post.

Yes, I said that in my post and you seem to agree.

You mean single payer UHC? Why would you need a mandate with UHC? You don't have to buy UHC to start with; it is a government service. There are no insurance companies to protect. Unless you mean UHC with a private option, like in Germany.

Here are some thumbnails for different systems:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-22-health-countries_N.htm

I understand your desire to keep the insurance companies, but I have no need or desire. Again, there are countries that have UHC and it works just fine, so your comments about "killing" public health care have a zero test in reality. The only reason we have the mandate is to save the insurance companies.

NOW, you are getting the picture. Although insurance companies can still survive, even if they no longer have the government and the empoyers to hide behind. Want proof?

See? You are wrong in almost every point on the "sky is falling" scenario you are attempting to scare me with.

It is a public option and it's been around for 40 years.

There is no mandate for Medicare. It is optional.

That's not what I asked. I asked what you would be in favor of in regards to HC, not what you thought of what was then, the HC bill. It is now law, and I don't know if it is the same as what you argued for or against in your post in #541, because at the time you were writing, the bill in its final form was not finished. So I only glanced at your post and did not read it closely. But regardless, it's still not what I was really asking. In other words, if you were writing the law, what would it be?

Oh, yes, Medicare:

...And there you have it.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/mp_20090629_2600.php

 

I was actually thinking an optional UHC that was payed for by people paying into it rather than through taxes (which would only be a useful distinction if it's optional).

No, the only reason we have a mandate is to save insurance. Like I said, Medicare would suffer as much as any private company would.

Again, you're missing my point (or purposely ignoring it, I'm not sure which). I never said that UHCs would doom all America. I said that modern Medicare as a UHC would doom all America (well, sort of).

It's a heavily restricted public option, which means that it isn't an option for most people. That's what you want changed, I think.

Ok, this was taken completely out of context. The mandate I referred to was the one in the bill, not some fictional mandate for Medicare (though the mandate in the bill covers Medicare as well).

That's a much larger question than I have time to answer in detail at the moment, but the key things I'd hit are:
protection for pre-existing conditions coupled with a mandate for coverage
prevent companies from dropping patients for serious illnesses
no more arbitration requirements
no tax money for abortions, in any way
limited subsidies for the poor (but then I'd also couple this with a whole re-work of the tax scheme, and that's another issue)
a public option funded through participants only, with a regular review of it's payouts to make sure it's compensating doctors properly
a national HCI exchange
no employer tax for employees not getting health care coverage through them
some restrictions on how premiums are calculated, but not as bad as what has been done (medical history should be an option, for example)
a mandated ratio of premiums in to payouts per year for insurance companies (including the public option, though it's not likely to be necessary there)

Ok, good to see the source for that, but you still haven't addressed my real concern on Medicare: payments. Medicare currently doesn't pay doctors enough to run their businesses. It needs to. Either that or be scrapped entirely.

 

There is no mandate and Medicare has been around for forty years. Medicare is non-profit and operates below the typical insurance company's business overhead, which is for profit.

Doom all America? This is what I was responding to:

You said:

Which is not true because other countries have a system without mandates (like Canada) and it works pretty well. Now Germany does have a mandate for some people, but not all.

It's restricted by age group. I would like to see the age lowered to include more people, who would like to retire at 55-60. I know several people in that age group who only work because at that age, they need the health insurance, which would be VERY expensive. Otherwise, they could retire. Medicare is 60.00 a month, whereas private health insurance for a similar policy, at that age, would be $1,200.00 a month. So they are working only for the insurance companies. That is given the new mandate and the no regular PO under the new law that I would be happy with that arrangement.

Of course, ideally I would want a complete single-payer, UHC, with a private option, like they have in Canada. Sweden also has a nice system, IMO.

To be honest, I don't know that much about it, which is why I don't comment on it too much. I know my mom is on Medicare and her doctor has no complaints, because he is contracted for a large provider. I know there are plenty of doctors who take Medicare, but that doesn't mean they are happy with their compensation. I don't know anyone who feels they are compensated enough in any field, so doctors are not much different than the rest of us. I'm going to see my own doctor in a few days, and I'm going to ask him just that question about Medicare payments. That certainly won't be a definitive answer, but it will give me another viewpoint on the subject.

Thank you, for the list. I know the new law is not exactly what you would want, but you should be fairly happy with it, as long as the mandate is in place, I would guess from the looks of the list.

 

Chandos, medicare is not as cheap or efficient as a person might think based on much of the press stories -- remember, they take in a portion of all income in the US and use it (along with a modest fee for those on medicare) to fund the system. Medicare IS quite expensive; it's just that WE (taxpayers) are all paying the majority of the premium. Yeah, it's a great deal for those in the system (the $60 per month you mention), but not so great for the tax payers. Increasing the number of people in medicare will cause an increase in the amount taxed (unless the funds can be diverted from somewhere else, which seems unlikely).

 

It still operates at about 25 percent less overhead than private insurance companies (no profit). It is a public system, so yes the people fund it. Without it, 95 percent of the population would never be able to retire, unless they wanted to go without health insurance, which could be a disaster waiting to happen for a person at 70 years old. If you are telling me that America can't provide what a third world country can for its citizens, or the rest of the industrial world, that's pretty sorry for us, IMO.

 

The cost of providing the same coverage as in a third world country would be a fraction of medicare (per person and overall). Americans seem to believe they have a right to every possible test and procedure available whenever they want it -- such demands really up the price.

The issue of how all this will be paid for is still quite questionable.

 

You will get no argument from me on that point. It starts with patients becoming better consumers and taking a degree of personal responsibiliy for managing their health.

 

I've never read this blog before, but it may get added to my list. This post discusses the recent announcement by AT&T that they expect a one billion dollar hit to earnings due to the passing of Obamacare. I give you Dennis the Peasant

Spoiler

You know, I've been saying for a year that Obamacare shouldn't be passed because it was genuinely *****y legislation. And for a year I've had pointy-headed, furrow-browed, knuckle-dragging Democrats, liberals and progressives of the sloping forehead persuasion telling me that my criticisms were motivated by a various combinations of rank partisanship, lack of moral fiber, hatred of mankind and/or obvious stupidity.

Well, now Obamacare is the law of the land and the *****iness has commenced, much to the dismay of morons like Henry Waxman:

Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, has summoned some of the nation's top executives to Capitol Hill to defend their assessment that the new national health care reform law will cost their companies hundreds of millions of dollars in health insurance expenses. Waxman is also demanding that the executives give lawmakers internal company documents related to health care finances -- a move one committee Republicans describes as "an attempt to intimidate and silence opponents of the Democrats' flawed health care reform legislation."

On Thursday and Friday, the companies -- so far, they include AT&T, Verizon, Caterpillar, Deere, Valero Energy, AK Steel and 3M -- said a tax provision in the new health care law will make it far more expensive to provide prescription drug coverage to their retired employees. Now, both retirees and current employees of those companies are wondering whether the new law could mean reduced or canceled benefits for them in the future.

Because Henry Waxman really is a moron, he no doubt imagines that the companies named above did what they did to make a political point. But you see, that's the problem with genuinely *****y legislation: It goes beyonds beyond the realm of the purely political.

Waxman's demands came Friday in letters to several executives. "After the president signed the health care reform bill into law, your company announced that provisions in the law could adversely affect your ability to provide health insurance," Waxman wrote to Randall Stephenson, chairman and CEO of AT&T. A few hours before Waxman sent his letter, AT&T announced it will take a $1 billion charge against earnings because of the tax provision in the new health bill. AT&T also said it will be "evaluating prospective changes" to its health care benefits for all workers.

Waxman's letter suggests he does not accept the company's decision. "The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern," Waxman wrote to Stephenson, in addition to letters to Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, Caterpillar CEO James Owens, and Deere & Company CEO Samuel Allen. The companies' decisions, Waxman wrote, "appear to conflict with independent analyses."

Waxman's demands for documents are far-reaching. "To assist the Committee with its preparation for the hearing," he wrote to Stephenson, "we request that you provide the following documents from January 1, 2009, through the present:

(1) any analyses related to the projected impact of health care reform on AT&T; and (2) any documents, including e-mail messages, sent to or prepared or reviewed by senior company officials related to the projected impact of health care reform on AT&T. We also request an explanation of the accounting methods used by AT&T since 2003 to estimate the financial impact on your company of the 28 percent subsidy for retiree drug coverage and its deductibility or nondeductibility, including the accounting methods used in preparing the cost impact statement released by AT&T this week.

Waxman's request could prove particularly troubling for the companies. The executives will undoubtedly view such documents as confidential, but if they fail to give Waxman everything he wants, they run the risk of subpoenas and threats from the chairman. And all as punishment for making a business decision in light of a new tax situation.

In actuality, and despite Byron York's breathless assertions to the contrary, Waxman's request will probably not trouble any of the companies involved. The documentation they will be required to provide is the same documentation they would have to provide to the S.E.C. in response to a routine request. You see, these companies did not just decide to release press statements disclosing the horrors of Obamacare to a shocked and dismayed citizenry. In fact, they didn't release press statements at all. What they did was what was required of them by law:

They filed an 8-K with the S.E.C.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with financial regulation, the law requires all publicly held companies to file a Form 8-K with the S.E.C. when said company becomes aware of either a (1) unscheduled material event, or (2) a company change. As a matter of fact, that's what a Form 8-K is called, a "Report of unscheduled material events or corporate changes". And according to the law, when a company becomes aware of an unscheduled event that will probably have a material impact on the earnings or operations, it must file a Form 8-K with the S.E.C. or risk sanction.

That's exactly what AT&T, Caterpillar, Deere & Co., Verizon, AK Steel and others did: They complied with the law. Financial regulatory law. You know, the sort financial regulatory law Democrats are saying they are real keen to strengthen. Anybody think the irony of Henry Waxman's stooge Bart Stupak *****ing out Randall Stephenson for doing what financial regulatory law requires is going to be lost on the Congressional Republicans in the room?

Beyond that, you can bet the staffers working for Democratic Representatives sitting on the Energy and Commerce committee, and especially those involved with Energy and Commerce's investigation subcommittee are, at this very moment, completely horrified. They're quite aware, even if Waxman isn't, that because each of the companies named above have filed a Form 8-K and booked losses related to the event described in the Form 8-K, those companies have documentation that has been labored over by tax and accounting professionals for months; documentation that was then reviewed thoroughly by the company's independent auditors. Everyone that was involved is a damn site better than any of the staffers Waxman and Congressional Democrats will have available for investigation.

What Waxman is now laying himself open to is the charge that he is attempting to force these companies to manipulate their financial data to suit the political aims of President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Since there is absolutely no hope of investigative committee staffers finding evidence that AT&T's (or others') calculations are materially incorrect, Waxman simply comes across attempting to force the managements of publicly held companies to circumvent the law.

This is the part the Democratic/liberal/progessive political classes and commentariat doesn't get: Once Obamacare became the law of the land, its effects are no longer solely a matter of politics. Now there are real-world effects, and many of those real-world effects will not go away when political pressure is applied. The next week will be filled with more companies filing more 8-Ks describing just how much "health care reform" is going to cost them, and by implication, their employees, and there is nothing that Henry Waxman can threaten that will make those companies stop.

Besides, this is what Henry Waxman wanted. He wanted Obamacare, and by God, he got it. Kick back, Henry, and enjoy!

 

This guy thinks that we are worried over ATT profits while 45,000 people die a year from a lack of health care? What a moron. Of course, they won't lose any such thing. But maybe I should call them in the morning, since I'm a big ATT customer and user. Should I switch?

A year ago? Wow, that's a neat trick. No one knew what the final legislation would look like, not even Obama. I'm glad this guy knew.

The guy does not get it that Obamacare is too much like Romenycare to satisfy liberals. He really doesn't get that part of it, that this, just a few years ago would have been written by his Repubicans.

No, you are the moron. That's probably just what they did. ATT was a major contributor to those anti-reform ********s, "Freedom works." Yet, he fails to mention all the companies that supported Romenycare...er, sorry. I meant "Obamacare." Really.

You know, Snook, this is the thing about guys like this - They use the same old tactic of trying to scare people to be against something. But they have empty pockets (I guess to match their empty heads) when it comes to solutions. Like they say, "it takes a good man to build a barn, but any jackass can knock it down." Here I will post something about the typical scare tactics I mention. But, should I put it behind one of those "spoiler" things, just because.... No, why bother? I give you, Rachel....

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...on-to-say-shes-still-not-running?ocid=twitter

 

Unless AT&T was not previously offering a health care plan to their employees (which I think would be highly unlikely), or for some reason a large segment of their work force was not paying into the health care plan (again unlikely), then I cannot understand how the amount would be anywhere near a billion dollars.