Nebraska gets a free pass for voting for health care

[shadow9d9]

I used the same Rasmussen poll that you tried to use to show your magical "62% of Democrats favor single-payer!" ridiculous point.

BTW, my one poll is more recent than ALL of the polls you listed! I will post the link again, since you conveniently and willfully ignored all the valid points I made in order to continue with the personal insults, attacks and stereotyping.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...9/32_favor_single_payer_health_care_57_oppose

"Monday, August 10, 2009"

This is too funny. You're not even really good at this...leave this kind of tomfoolery to Craig or somebody more experienced than yourself.

Your Rasmussen poll includes my number, doesn't invalidate it.

Things change from month to month. Nothing goes in a straight direction. 1 poll in December does not invalidate 9 polls throughout the years. It doesn't work like that.

Do you think Civil Rights went up in a straight line and you couldn't find polls that stated the opposite?

Do you have even a basic grasp on polls?

 

[shadow9d9]

He will never post anything that will destroy his position; he only cherry-picks the stuff that makes him "right". :awe:

Are you speaking about me, or you?

Am I interrupting a little circle jerk? :awe:

Oh yes, 9 polls are beaten by 1... internet tough guy says so.

 

[sciwizam]

The current bill has been watered down by republican obstructionism, an independent republican, and "democrats" that voted against civil rights in the 60s.

You are right, the american people do NOT like compromise. That is life. Doesn't prove the point you think you are making.

The point I was making was to point out your asinine logic.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of those in the president’s party favor it according to Rasmussen.. considering the Democrats are now the majority in power, I think this represents the people.

with this

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

 

[shadow9d9]

The point I was making was to point out your asinine logic.



with this

You need to read. So I will post it again.

"The current bill has been watered down by republican obstructionism, an independent republican, and "democrats" that voted against civil rights in the 60s.

You are right, the american people do NOT like compromise."

So, yes.. they won't love the current bill. Unless you have some evidence that that poll represents your side rather than the fact that people are unhappy with the ridiculous compromises made, the point stands.

 

[CycloWizard]

You explain why they couldn't? You don't seem to understand this is the sellout bill to give th industry what it wants, to get its backing - new government-coerced customers for profit.

This bill may require companies to accept pre-existing conditions, but it does so for all companies so there's no competitive problem, and they can set their rates as high as tthey need for profit.

They can also charge such people up to 300% more - Howard Dean's state caps that at 20%.

Insurance companies have a small profit margin under the existing system (1-3% IIRC). They achieve these margins by performing risk assessments which dictate how much they must charge someone to make a profit based on probability. The input for the risk model necessarily incorporates risk factors and prior medical history. Without these inputs, accurate risk assessment is impossible and the company will either have to dramatically raise rates across the board to remain viable.

If risk assessment is still allowed, but the amount by which premiums may increase based on these assessments is capped, disallows reasonable expectations of any return on investment, since the risk:reward ratio used to maintain the previously slim profit margin is now upended. This again results in the company raising rates across the board to remain viable.

Therefore, the only means by which a company may break even/turn a profit under the conditions imposed on this bill is to increase premiums for everyone who holds a policy. This effectively turns the private industry into a single-pot system which socializes the cost of healthcare by punishing those who live healthy lifestyles and rewarding those who do not. Premiums will rapidly rise to the point where people cannot afford them (again) and the government will step in to sweep up the mess it made.

 

[shadow9d9]

Insurance companies have a small profit margin under the existing system (1-3% IIRC). They achieve these margins by performing risk assessments which dictate how much they must charge someone to make a profit based on probability. The input for the risk model necessarily incorporates risk factors and prior medical history. Without these inputs, accurate risk assessment is impossible and the company will either have to dramatically raise rates across the board to remain viable.

If risk assessment is still allowed, but the amount by which premiums may increase based on these assessments is capped, disallows reasonable expectations of any return on investment, since the risk:reward ratio used to maintain the previously slim profit margin is now upended. This again results in the company raising rates across the board to remain viable.

Therefore, the only means by which a company may break even/turn a profit under the conditions imposed on this bill is to increase premiums for everyone who holds a policy. This effectively turns the private industry into a single-pot system which socializes the cost of healthcare by punishing those who live healthy lifestyles and rewarding those who do not. Premiums will rapidly rise to the point where people cannot afford them (again) and the government will step in to sweep up the mess it made.

1-3% profit margin doesn't explain a 1000% profit increase in 5 years.

You need to PROVE your point with EVIDENCE, and not SPECULATION that the bill will bankrupt these companies.

Until then, you are continuing to push a conspiracy theory.

 

[Craig234]

Insurance companies have a small profit margin under the existing system (1-3% IIRC). They achieve these margins by performing risk assessments which dictate how much they must charge someone to make a profit based on probability. The input for the risk model necessarily incorporates risk factors and prior medical history. Without these inputs, accurate risk assessment is impossible and the company will either have to dramatically raise rates across the board to remain viable.

If risk assessment is still allowed, but the amount by which premiums may increase based on these assessments is capped, disallows reasonable expectations of any return on investment, since the risk:reward ratio used to maintain the previously slim profit margin is now upended. This again results in the company raising rates across the board to remain viable.

Therefore, the only means by which a company may break even/turn a profit under the conditions imposed on this bill is to increase premiums for everyone who holds a policy. This effectively turns the private industry into a single-pot system which socializes the cost of healthcare by punishing those who live healthy lifestyles and rewarding those who do not. Premiums will rapidly rise to the point where people cannot afford them (again) and the government will step in to sweep up the mess it made.

Who said anything about disallowing the assessments for pricing prposes, even though they can't turn them away? Who said anything about capping the rates - only the 'penalty is 'capped' at a low 300% (sarcasm)

Let's say today the company takes the healthiest 80% of the population costing an average $5,000 a year to insure, and under the bill it has to take 100% and the average rises to $10,000.

(this would place the average cost of the 20% addition at $30,000 per year if I did the math right).

So the insurance re-calibrates its rates, with the 20% paying 300% more than the 80%, to cover costs.

And indeed since each policy on average is profitable, the government giving them an extra 30 million coerced paying customers, many wo are young, low-cost and poor, they are thrilled.

 

[CycloWizard]

1-3% profit margin doesn't explain a 1000% profit increase in 5 years.

You need to PROVE your point with EVIDENCE, and not SPECULATION that the bill will bankrupt these companies.

Until then, you are continuing to push a conspiracy theory.

I'm sorry that you don't understand the principles of logical argument, in which one states axioms, then utilizes logic to arrive at conclusions based on said axioms. That hardly makes my statements a conspiracy theory.

 

[shadow9d9]

I'm sorry that you don't understand the principles of logical argument, in which one states axioms, then utilizes logic to arrive at conclusions based on said axioms. That hardly makes my statements a conspiracy theory.

You haven't a shred of evidence that anything will happen. All you have is disproven talking points strung together.

I posted cited evidence of a 1000% profit increase in 5 years. It is IMPOSSIBLE to make 1000% in 5 years on 1-3% profit margin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of those in the president’s party favor it according to Rasmussen.. considering the Democrats are now the majority in power, I think this represents the people.

A new poll suggests that voters are not pleased by the idea of health insurance mandates without a public option or a Medicare expansion.

Conducted by Research 2000 for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) and Democracy for America (DFA), the survey finds only 33 percent of likely voters favor a health care bill that does not include a public health insurance option and does not expand Medicare, but does require all Americans to get health insurance. Slightly more Democrats -- 37 percent -- favor the idea, while only 30 percent of Republicans and 31 percent of independents do.

Meanwhile, if the public option and Medicare buy-in are added, 58 percent of people support the idea. The number of Republican supporters drops to 22 percent, but independent support rises to 57 percent and Democratic support to a whopping 88 percent.

"This poll shows voters in full-blown revolt against the Senate bill," said PCCC co-founder Stephanie Taylor. "Only one-third of voters support mandates without a public option, while nearly two-thirds want the public option and Medicare expansion. This will be a disaster of epic proportions for Democrats in 2010 if it's not fixed -- fast."

Sure looks like people want reform, just not the weak ass reform forced on the core democrats by jackasses like Lieberman and the entire obstructionist only GOP.

It is very easy to erode the support of the people by dragging things on and by using fear tactics over time. That is why the republicans keep delaying.. the more delay, the less the public likes.. that is why hacks like you and the other paid shills here have to keep screaming RUSHED! even after 8 months of debate and 0 participation by the republicans.

It is very easy to get people to fear change. You don't need to do anything to make peopel fear change. They feared removing slavery, creating unions, giving women the right to vote, allowing inter-racial marriage, de-segregation, and the list goes on forever. You and your ilk will always be on the wrong side of history. Fear and ignorance only leads you so far.

Compare the polls now to the polls done then about all those issues.

They were all "subverting the will of the people," right? RIGHT!?

So your claim is that [68% of D party] = 60% of people support it? Buahahahaaa!! Who said you leftists don't have a sense of humor!!!

So 68% of 60% is a mojority eh? Here in the real world that translates to about 41% (if you want to claim that Ds = 60% and Rs=40 which is absurd itself)
Keep deluding yourself if you wish.

 

[Craig234]

The point I was making was to point out your asinine logic.



with this

You don't seem to understand the difference between 'logic' and 'facts'.

If I say "Because a majority of the Senate is for this bill, it's a flawless bill", that's a *logic* error.

If I say, "You know this bill is bipartisan because even Bush, and every Republican in Congress supports it", that's a *fact* error.

You are challenging his *facts*, not his *logic*, with your challenge to his poll numbers.

By the way, iit's useful to also look at the poll numbers on 'public option' and 'medicare for all'.

 

[CycloWizard]

Who said anything about disallowing the assessments for pricing prposes, even though they can't turn them away? Who said anything about capping the rates - only the 'penalty is 'capped' at a low 300% (sarcasm)

CNN's summary of the bill states that companies will not be able to utilize medical history when computing premiums:

Insurers would also be barred from charging higher premiums based on a person's gender or medical history. Medicaid would be significantly expanded under both proposals.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/21/health.care.senate.vote/index.html

 

[CycloWizard]

You haven't a shred of evidence that anything will happen. All you have is disproven talking points strung together.

I posted cited evidence of a 1000% profit increase in 5 years. It is IMPOSSIBLE to make 1000% in 5 years on 1-3% profit margin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Only if you fail at math. 0.1%*1000%=0.001*10=0.01=1%, QED.

edit: Even if my 1-3% number was outdated, that "1000% increase" would only bring their profit margins in line with, say, McDonald's.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

CNN's summary of the bill states that companies will not be able to utilize medical history when computing premiums:

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/21/health.care.senate.vote/index.html

This is exactly what is wrong with our system now - it hides the risk/cost. Now they are going to make it even worse - and they seem to think this will lower costs? what a bunch or maroons!

 

[EagleKeeper]

AHAHAHA. The paranoid delusional hour, hosting random dude from the internet!

The will of 40 million americans is to have insurance. The will of 100s of millions of others is not to be droped from coverage, have rates hiked without provocation, and to be denied every ailment known to man by "pre-existing conditions". This has been shown in survey after survey.

The middle of the night? THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR 8+ MONTHS NOW! This is not some quick legislation... it was stopped 14 years ago and now, after 8 + months of debate and republicans unwilling to deal whatsoever in any reform of healthcare, has to finally go to a vote...

Deadline in August. Vote actually done last week of the year and they cry RUSHED!?

Do you even read what you write?

You and your disingenuous ilk make me want to throw up.

Don't worry, your 800 billion dollar empire building bill gets passed without an eye blink... but 100 billion a year over 8 months of time and 75 years in the making.. THAT is rushed!

Vote buying within your own party to meet an artifical deadline.
Why not make it fair for all Americans, instead of a select few?

That is rushed.

 

[CycloWizard]

This is exactly what is wrong with our system now - it hides the risk/cost. Now they are going to make it even worse - and they seem to think this will lower costs? what a bunch or maroons!

"Reformers" must hide the risk/costs. Their approach, as I have stated before, is that we must try to supply an infinite amount of healthcare (i.e. an amount equal to demand, which is always infinite for healthcare), while the Tooth Fairy will keep costs low. Economics fail.

 

[Craig234]

"Reformers" must hide the risk/costs. Their approach, as I have stated before, is that we must try to supply an infinite amount of healthcare (i.e. an amount equal to demand, which is always infinite for healthcare), while the Tooth Fairy will keep costs low. Economics fail.

You may have a point about reformers hiding costs, but you say something absurd, more absurd than anything you are attacking, when you say the costs are infinite.

 

[sciwizam]

You don't seem to understand the difference between 'logic' and 'facts'.

If I say "Because a majority of the Senate is for this bill, it's a flawless bill", that's a *logic* error.

If I say, "You know this bill is bipartisan because even Bush, and every Republican in Congress supports it", that's a *fact* error.

You are challenging his *facts*, not his *logic*, with your challenge to his poll numbers.

By the way, iit's useful to also look at the poll numbers on 'public option' and 'medicare for all'.

Seriously?

Let me explain the difference between logic and facts.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) of those in the president’s party favor it according to Rasmussen.. considering the Democrats are now the majority in power, I think this represents the people.

Fact (lets stipulate that this indeed a fact) : "Sixty-eight percent (68%) of those in the president’s party favor it according to Rasmussen"

His "logic": Based on this fact, he concludes that that since the Dems are the majority, then this also must be true to all of the people

 

[Craig234]

Vote buying within your own party to meet an artifical deadline.
Why not make it fair for all Americans, instead of a select few?

That is rushed.

The naivete is remarkable. Why, in politics, EVERYONE always gets EXACTLY the same deal. And if they don't, the only possible reason is that it was rushed.

No, politics covers a lot of situations and policies.

Say you have $1 billion you can afford to use to 'sweeten the deal' to get a bill passed. If you want to argue about THAT, it's a waste of time.

Say you have 55 Senators who are willing to vote for the bill, and 5 who aren'tcrazy about it, but feel that they could justify it to their constituents if it had more benefit for their state.

Should you equally distribute the $1 billion across 60 Senators and not pass the bill? Or give more to the 5?

But, since you just arrived in our country and are seeing its system for the first time, doesn't that just make every Senator hold out for the goodies?

No, it's more complicated than that. Next bill, those 5 Senators might be crazy about the bill and need your vote, and you get the bonus.

The Senators have a certain amount they can bargain with - they pick and choose where to get the most for their state (or more likely, their donors). Some don't want to use that up on a healthcare bill they're for.

 

[CycloWizard]

You may have a point about reformers hiding costs, but you say something absurd, more absurd than anything you are attacking, when you say the costs are infinite.

Healthcare costs ARE infinite when everyone has access to as much healthcare as they want. I can prove this on an abacus. Here is a simple proof:
1. Every person will die eventually unless sustained forever using artificial life support.
2. Sustaining someone on artificial life support forever will have infinite cost. QED.

Sure, this is an absurd example, but it is absolutely correct. We can "reform" healthcare until we're blue in the face, but until we get our heads around the idea that medicine is a finite resource which we must utilize to attack an infinite problem (i.e. illness and death), we cannot have any meaningful reform. The bottom line is that everyone will die.

We, as a society, have thus far approached this conundrum by saying that money, another finite resource (or, at least, it was a finite resource) will determine the allocation of this resource. Now, the senators are saying that they will decide how the resource is allocated, but they have not accepted that there is not enough of this resource to achieve their end goal of giving everyone as much healthcare as they can use. Thus, their efforts are doomed to fail, regardless of which methods they might employ.

 

[blackangst1]

1-3% profit margin doesn't explain a 1000% profit increase in 5 years.

You need to PROVE your point with EVIDENCE, and not SPECULATION that the bill will bankrupt these companies.

Until then, you are continuing to push a conspiracy theory.

And you need to quit parroting the flatly incorrect quote from Ethan Rome, deputy campaign manager for Health Care for America Now!. Either that or show supporting evidence profits has risen 1000% in 5 years. Just because a VERY biased campaign manager with an agenda says it, doesnt make it true.

The great thing about talking about 3-5% profits is...you can look for yourself. These are public companies. So go look.

 

[sciwizam]

You need to read. So I will post it again.

"The current bill has been watered down by republican obstructionism, an independent republican, and "democrats" that voted against civil rights in the 60s.

You are right, the american people do NOT like compromise."

So, yes.. they won't love the current bill. Unless you have some evidence that that poll represents your side rather than the fact that people are unhappy with the ridiculous compromises made, the point stands.

So what was this about then?

60% support it. But nice try on the flipping.

Lol :awe:

 

[Craig234]

Seriously?

Let me explain the difference between logic and facts.



Fact (lets stipulate that this indeed a fact) : "Sixty-eight percent (68%) of those in the president’s party favor it according to Rasmussen"

His "logic": Based on this fact, he concludes that that since the Dems are the majority, then this also must be true to all of the people

Fair enough, *that's* a logic issue. I thought you were referring to your argument with his poll numbers.

As for the logic issue, you may both have a point. You're right literally. But if he was using a shorthand about our country's majority-rule system, he had a certain point too.

Take his point more figuratively - 'the vast majority of the members of the party that control the presidency and the Congress are for this, that means the people are for it' - he has a point, too.

If this were a majority issue - filibuster aside - the 49% often get screwed and count zero.

If the Dems have the presidency and Congress, they have a majority to do what they want, and fif they listen to 68% of their party more than they listen to Republicans, it passes, and it's 'the will of the people' we say.

 

[Craig234]

Healthcare costs ARE infinite when everyone has access to as much healthcare as they want. I can prove this on an abacus. Here is a simple proof:
1. Every person will die eventually unless sustained forever using artificial life support.
2. Sustaining someone on artificial life support forever will have infinite cost. QED.

Sure, this is an absurd example, but it is absolutely correct. We can "reform" healthcare until we're blue in the face, but until we get our heads around the idea that medicine is a finite resource which we must utilize to attack an infinite problem (i.e. illness and death), we cannot have any meaningful reform. The bottom line is that everyone will die.

We, as a society, have thus far approached this conundrum by saying that money, another finite resource (or, at least, it was a finite resource) will determine the allocation of this resource. Now, the senators are saying that they will decide how the resource is allocated, but they have not accepted that there is not enough of this resource to achieve their end goal of giving everyone as much healthcare as they can use. Thus, their efforts are doomed to fail, regardless of which methods they might employ.

Do you *really* need me to point out the fglaring error in your argument? You make me feel guilty for embarrassing you, I don't want to, you consider it, ask a friend.

 

[CycloWizard]

Do you *really* need me to point out the fglaring error in your argument? You make me feel guilty for embarrassing you, I don't want to, you consider it, ask a friend.

Yes, please embarrass me. Tell me where we draw the line in the sand and say, "Here is where we no longer treat people. At this point, we will not distribute healthcare to them."