Man I under estimated you. You're really going to read that bill. I read just a couple of pages of it and my head hurt.

You must be a lawyer or have an awful lot of time. My hat's off to you.

I'll depend on other to point to relavant portions and then I will hack my way through it.

Marko.

I thought about saying that you made the classic narcissist mistake thinking that all statements are made with you in mind. But that would be unfair since I know very little about you and surely cannot ascribe motives to your comments. But, I can assure you that I had neither the idea nor any worry about your past presidential preferences.

Other people read these comments. I just wanted to let readers know that both parties raise spending. But at least the Democrats try to be more honest about it and try to pay for their programs.

Marko

“This is the arbitrary profits theory of economics, based on the assumption that a business can exist indefinitely taking the money of consumers without providing a good or service in return.”

I suppose you’re correct, the plans will not be able to exist “indefinitely”. Eventually those companies will go out of business. Just like Country Wide Mortgage is now out of business. But they sure wreak havoc in the meantime.

There are two problems with your approach however. Consumers will need to go through a collective trial-and-error process to find out which plans are not providing good service. And in the mean time, health care will be denied and people will go bankrupt.

You could say, “Oh well, that’s just the price...

“That option [a private plan] is absolutely foreclosed to them in this legislation. You don't have to read very far to find it.”

My understanding is that if a person has any private plan when this bill is implemented they can keep it.

If they want to get new health insurance after the bill is implemented, then they will need to choose a plan from some plan registry. All plans on this registry will need to meet certain federal mandates. So, private plans on this registry will need to meet those requirements, but they will still be private plans.

Is it your contention that if plans need to meet certain requirements, then they are public plans or have I read the plan information incorrectly?

Using this logic...

“This is once again the free money theory of economics. Canada and the U.K. are not in their current situation because they have under-budgeted. Neither is France. Your assertion suggests that they simply need to increase funding. Whence comes this magical source of revenue?”

I’m sorry if I created the impression that I thought funding could be increased without a concomitant cutting of other spending or tax increases. Perhaps you are too used to how fiscal policy was handled under the Bush administration. He is the one that passed the Medicare drug plan with absolutely no funding in place.

No, I realize that increased funding is not “free”. It will need to be paid for. Contrary to Republican mythology, there is no free...

"Now this is unintentionally hilarious. Congressman may have staffs, but I do not. Consequently, it will take me a while to read through the whole bill."

The common refrain from detractors of the bill has been that the bill is being pushed through so fast that lawmakers do not have time to read the it. Saying that is a definate red herring. That is what I was referring to.

I do not care if you read the bill unless you are a member of congress. Why are you complaining that you have only been able to read 24 pages. What possible bearing does that have on how well the bill will be considered in Congress?

Marko

News flash: Congressmen have staffs. The staff's job is to go through these bills and find important bits for their boss to focus on.

Do you think that bills usually have one or two pages? No, most bills have many pages. How do you think that congressmen get through other bills?

Marko.

“As far as bureaucrats making medical decisions, now you have exchanged a person making economic calculations for one making political calculations…”

First of all bureaucrats, contrary to popular opinion, are persons. High-level bureaucrats will make coverage decisions for a public plan based on available funding. Low-level bureaucrats will follow those decisions.

The question is: what will determining factor in those decisions for private and public plans?

In private industry the determining factor is what is the coverage that we need to provide to “sell” the insurance and maximize profits. With a government plan would be what can we cover with the funding that we have been provided.

These are two...

Why are you so afraid of or against the public plan? Remember, the government is very inefficient and cannot do anything right. Everything the government does it screws up. There will still be private plans. They will beat the pants off of the public plan. Right?

Which is better, the US Postal Service or FedEx? Has the USPS forced FedEx out of business due to unfair subsidies? Health care need not be different.

How will the public plan be cheaper than a private plan? Government always has cost overruns and is inefficient! The public plan will be so unpopular no one will want it.

Marko

I do not dispute your figures on the profits of insurance companies. But profits are not the entire story. Nor are they the most troubling part. You have ignored the salaries of the executives. It is those salaries and the incentives given to the workers that worry me.

CEOs are usually paid according to the profits that the company makes. Bonuses are often given to employees based on how much money they save the company. These incentives are in directly antagonistic to the interests of the insured.

Insurance companies refer to the paying out of claims as “medical losses”. It’s not really the fault of the CEOs or the employees. In fact CEOs are required by law to maximize the returns for the shareholders. This is how the...