Metro Jacksonville

To date, $1.05 trillion dollars have been allocated to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And could we please stop acting like we don't spend much of that money already paying for people without healthcare when they access the system.

How much DOES the Federal government currently spend on paying for people without healthcare when they access the system? 

Let me help.  This is for 2004, but you'll see the ballpark:

http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/The-Cost-of-Care-for-the-Uninsured-What-Do-We-Spend-Who-Pays-and-What-Would-Full-Coverage-Add-to-Medical-Spending.pdf

Also, many states are complaining because of the additional unfunded mandates being placed on them.  Florida, just like many other states, is in no position to increase funding.  That reduced Medicare funding has to come from somewhere.

Thanks NotNow it looked like bottom line 172 billion ave 1998-2000?

Quote from: tufsu1 on March 23, 2010, 03:10:42 PM
well since all human beings are "created equal", that seems fair.

Well, except for Congress and the President, they are exempt from this bill.

Yes, that sounds about right.  One of the big questions is how much of an unfunded mandate does this become for the States?

I must not be looking at this correctly. According to the link provided by NotNow we have been spending somewhere between $150-200 billion a year. If that is correct 1 trillion for ten years seems pretty damn good.

If you really think this is going to cost JUST 1 trillion, then you have never followed the government a day in your life.  They are going to TRY and pay for this with taxes.  Payroll taxes are going to go up as a result of this do you know who will pay for that? Yep, you.  Say a prayer to whatever higher power you believe in that this ONLY costs 1 trillion.  Aint gonna happen.

The notion that we have no money is absurd because that hasn’t stopped Wall Street from getting $13 trillion in bailout funds.  We may not have the money but somehow we were able to funnel that much their way while the middle class is feeling the pinch from every angle.

13 trillion?
I thought it was $787 billion?
Which the democrats also supported, btw.

Quote from: St. Auggie on March 24, 2010, 01:58:36 PM
If you really think this is going to cost JUST 1 trillion, then you have never followed the government a day in your life.  They are going to TRY and pay for this with taxes.  Payroll taxes are going to go up as a result of this do you know who will pay for that? Yep, you.  Say a prayer to whatever higher power you believe in that this ONLY costs 1 trillion.  Aint gonna happen.

Even though I am a fan of health insurance reform and even single payer I suspect you are correct in this post.

think of what we have already spent in Iraq over the last decade . . . could have already paid for this reform

Quote from: Doctor_K on March 24, 2010, 02:06:12 PM
13 trillion?
I thought it was $787 billion?
Which the democrats also supported, btw.

$787 billion was just for the TARP. The U.S. government and the Federal Reserve have spent, lent or committed $12.8 trillion:   http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=armOzfkwtCA4

That's year-old data.

$12.8 trillion was pledged, and as of last March.  My question is how much has actually been used? 

The "good" news is that of that $12.8 trillion, only a third -- or $4.2 trillion -- has actually been committed to a total of 34 distinct programs. The remaining $8.6 trillion is the limit of how much has been approved. And of that $12.8 trillion, 61% is under the control of the Fed in 20 programs, 16% is in the hands of the FDIC in 5 programs, another 21% will be spent by the Treasury in eight programs and the remaining two percent is being doled out by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in one program.

And who are the corporate beneficiaries of all your largess? That would be six of the biggest U.S.-based financial institutions in the world. Here's how much of your money is committed to them:

Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac: $400 billion
Citigroup (NYSE: C): $230.4 billion
General Electric (NYSE: GE): $126 billion
American International Group (NYSE: AIG): $112.5 billion
Bank of America (NYSE: BAC): $89.7 billion

Ironically, this is probably one of the largest single transfers of wealth ever.  Only problem is, it's going the wrong way.

Quote from: Doctor_K on March 24, 2010, 03:41:21 PM
Ironically, this is probably one of the largest single transfers of wealth ever.  Only problem is, it's going the wrong way.

You got that right.  "Socialism" indeed.

It is all bookkeeping and 90% of it will flow back in the next two years.  Transactions of that size between the treasury and those companies are simply loan guarantees on paper.  It's not like truckloads of greenbacks were taken into the offices.

Don't panic.  As long as our US bonds are better rated than other countries, and they are, we are not about to collapse.  The US dollar is at a record 10 year high against the Euro.  People are buying dollar bonds because every place else is worse.  Not good news, but no disaster either.

Quote from: Dog Walker on March 24, 2010, 04:14:02 PM
It is all bookkeeping and 90% of it will flow back in the next two years. 

Perhaps, but that 10% could easily fund the Health Care Reform bill, rather than line the pockets of people who already have more money than they know what to do with.

Quote from: JaxNative68 on March 24, 2010, 02:46:52 PM
think of what we have already spent in Iraq over the last decade . . . could have already paid for this reform

The difference is the Iraq war will end, I thought Obama was gonna get that out of the way by now.  This healthcare sham will go on in perpetuity, increasing in costs year after year

Quote from: whitey on March 24, 2010, 06:13:21 PM

Quote from: JaxNative68 on March 24, 2010, 02:46:52 PM
think of what we have already spent in Iraq over the last decade . . . could have already paid for this reform

The difference is the Iraq war will end, I thought Obama was gonna get that out of the way by now.  This healthcare sham will go on in perpetuity, increasing in costs year after year

That isn't the only diffrence this money will be spent on Americans.

Quote from: stephendare on March 24, 2010, 08:10:04 PM

Quote from: whitey on March 24, 2010, 06:13:21 PM

Quote from: JaxNative68 on March 24, 2010, 02:46:52 PM
think of what we have already spent in Iraq over the last decade . . . could have already paid for this reform

The difference is the Iraq war will end, I thought Obama was gonna get that out of the way by now.  This healthcare sham will go on in perpetuity, increasing in costs year after year

As opposed to the rampant criminality and increasing costs of health care for the past 40 years?

Please give me a break!

"Rampant criminality" lol  More hyperbole from stephendare, what a surprise.  I hadn't realized our prisons were overcrowded because of those damned health care thugs.

Increasing costs of health care over the last 40 years, hmmm.  If you'd like access to only same products that were available 40 years ago I'm sure costs would be lower than what current rates are.  How much did that proton beam at Shands cost and how much does it cost to keep it operating?  What about all the new prescription pills that have come along in that time?  All this new stuff costs money, lots of it and people who use it should pay for it.

I must have missed your post about college tuition costs being higher than they were 40 years ago and labeling college professors/admins as "criminals"

Because we disagree with you, we are horrible people basically? No I don't think so.

QuoteWe used to despise cheats.  You people seem to love them.

In the rightwing universe, the Madoff's and Abramoff's, Skilling Five, Aetna and the 'insurance' banksters are your heroes.

Should take a moment and look at yourselves.

:D :D :D

Ah...an open minded progressive, ready for honest debate and the exchange of ideas!  

Don't worry, StephenDare!, you will get your medicare in about four years!

;D ;D ;D

Sorry, I know you are not really a progressive.  What nom de plume does the party use these days?

Um, OK.  I can play this game.  Let's see...


What kind of people ARE you???

Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Chavez, and Putin.  These are your HEROS!!

You cheer every time that Obama emulates them!  You LOVE IT when the left wing nut SEIU communist thugs beat people up, don't you?  That is the side that you are taking!


There, how's that? ;D

QuoteYou sure are defending their right to steal from all the rest of us.

And you are defending stealing from the rest of us.  There are Constitutional limits to what the government has a right to take.

Quote from: stephendare on March 24, 2010, 08:52:56 PM

Quote"Rampant criminality" lol  More hyperbole from stephendare, what a surprise.  I hadn't realized our prisons were overcrowded because of those damned health care thugs.

Nope.  Not our prisons, but our graveyards.  And they arent health care thugs, they are banksters posing as 'insurers', plain and simple.

What's gotten into people?

We used to despise cheats.  You people seem to love them.

In the rightwing universe, the Madoff's and Abramoff's, Skilling Five, Aetna and the 'insurance' banksters are your heroes.

Should take a moment and look at yourselves.

Instead of changing the subject, perhaps you'd like to respond to the rest of my post.

Quote from: stephendare on March 24, 2010, 09:28:44 PM
Well I used to be a reagan youth and a young republican.  But I havent affiliated with then for a couple of years.  I think they are generally called 'morons' or 'teabaggers' these days.

If only we were all so learned as you with your name calling and whatnot.  Oh what it must be like to be as enlightened as stephendare

I have never known you to espouse any Republican principle or policy.  You constantly espouse communism, and have prattled on about it on many occasions.  No need to try to hide it now, is there?

And your friends (Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Chavez) all were firmly in the single payer camp, as are you I believe.

But the point of my post was....sarcasm.  Your tendency to try to align those that debate you with names that you can easily make fun of.  A rather simpleton type of argument.  Strange for a guy who thinks so much of himself.  And then to deny your meaning in the next post is just...cowardly.   You continue to live down to my expectations. 

But I mean that in the nicest way!   ;) ;) ;)

What a bizarre reply.  I'm not sure how you missed all of your political diatribe over the last couple of years.  I think I read pretty good, even with a few years on. 

Unlike others on this site, I have a job and can't/won't spend half the night looking up your old posts.  Everyone who has been here a while knows your politics...and your debating style.  Now, go to your room and stay off  of the computer for the rest of the night!

Your worse than a communist.  You are a communist parading as something else.  Your insecurities make debating you much more irritating than useful.  Nothing is learned and no ideas are exchanged.  Your belief that your page long eloquent masterpieces come off as anything but narcissism is amazing.  Yet when faced with any logical argument, you revert to thirteen year old name calling.  Have a good night, I have wasted enough time with you tonight.

And I mean that in the nicest way!

Well this went nowhere fast.

I still look forward to anyone willing to defend the fact that our federal government has delivered the totality of our citizenry as contractually bound property customers of private insurers, stepping up to the mic.

Namecalling is fun and all, but this is the issue that still has me fuming.

Some of you already know that I work for one of those fortune 500 health insurance companies. They have me quite busy currently, so I find myself unable to dawdle on any forums.

Counting money is a full time job.

It seems to me you are taking much on faith. I do not share your optimism in the matter, nor your presumptions.

I still can't get a response concerning this most basic element of the legislation. It is the dealbreaker.

No one is forced to purchase car insurance. It is only required for car owners.

Is an urbanite who exclusively uses public transit compelled to purchase auto insurance?

Likewise, who is the authority which dictates auto owners must purchase insurance? It must be the federal gubbmint.

The mandate is actually a tax that you are exempted from if you have insurance. Technically it is not a mandate and it is a tax on the poor, middle class and rich.  note the "mandate" tax is not intended to ever be paid subsidized out for some exempted for others.

ok stephen I'll play along with the car insurance logic.  Does the gov't require you to purchase homeowners insurance or renters insurance?  Do you live or rent in a house/apartment?

apples and oranges.  Not everyone needs a car.  The homeowners/renters insurance would be a better comparison since everyone needs a place to live.  So how is the requirement for health insurance different from homeowners/renters insurance

yes, I choose to drive a vehicle.  And in accordance with florida law I purchased car insurance

“It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge.” Adolf Hitler.

Again yes, since I CHOOSE to drive a vehicle I purchased car insurance in accordance with Florida law.

Let me know if the people who only ride JTA have to purchase car insurance.

But once again, you are comparing apples and oranges.  Owning a vehicle is a choice, having a place to live is not.

Have you been forced to purchase homeowners/renters insurance under penalty of law?

You are not compelled to buy car insurance unless you drive a vehicle.  Why are you ignoring that?

Every man, woman and child in the state are not forced to buy car insurance.

This is fun and all but we've established that several times already.  Why don't you just type out whatever point you are trying to bait me into.

Quote from: stephendare on March 25, 2010, 12:55:49 AM
I dont think thats an apples to apples comparison.

The issue is insurance that you are compelled to purchase.

Like Car Insurance and Health Insurance.

Why don't you object to the Car Insurance requirement?

Plus Auto Insurance is mandated by State law not Federal Law. Wisconsin and New Hampshire do not have this requirement, they just ask that you either provide insurance or meet certain financial requirements (i.e. post a bond).

The main purpose of car insurance is to protect the property of others if you have an accident.  If you choose to drive a vehicle, the state requires you to carry XX,XXX amount of coverage to cover the property loss you may cause.  If the state did not have that law, loan companies would require insurance on any cars they financed.

Again, its apples and oranges

The goal in this is control. The next step is to include the Public Option to supposedly compete with the current Insurers. The current Insurers run at a 2% profit margin (not much wiggle room). The Public ("Government") Option will not have to run at a profit. In fact, they will be able to run at incredible deficits. Private insurers will no longer be able to afford to be in business and will fold, leaving the Public Option as the only option. Then years from now we will be hearing how the Public Option is insolvent (see SS, Medicare and Medicaid). This will result in a decrease in benefit and an increase in either expense or taxes (probably both).

pathetic stephendare.  I expected more from you after this whole mind numbing process.  You went all this way for that?  I'll tell you what, I'm gonna go to bed, go to work tomorrow and then check in here at some point.  That gives you at least 12 hours to come up with something substantive

Mandate is just a buzz word it is a tax. The government can tax you. Now they have given us a way to opt out of the tax but it is a choice. I know both sides have called it a mandate but the legislation calls it a tax.

Quote from: stephendare on March 25, 2010, 01:30:20 AM


And of course the requirement doesnt affect people who already have insurance, or who are too poor to afford it, so its not really going to affect anyone except the 40 million who are uninsured at the present.

Stephen, I have heard you make many intelligent comments, but come on.  Not going to affect anyone else? You have got to be kidding me.  This is some of the most significant reform in the past 4 decades.  And it was done in dispicable manner to boot.  This affects EVERYONE more than is being appreciated.  I have said numerous times that I believe in healthcare for all, but this was not the way to do it.  Just because it was wrong before does not mean we go to the extreme of bullrushing this through and making wrong in a unsustainable manner.  I am glad your friend will get some help, but this is a mess, and it does affect everyone.

The car insurance comparison is totally without merit.  You are required to have car insurance to protect the rights of others.  You are prohibited from murder and burglary to protect the rights of others.  The imposition of legal authority upon one individual to protect the rights of other individuals is what our codified law was initially founded upon.  They force me to purchase auto insurance if I choose to avail myself of the privilege of driving.  That way, if I cause an accident with the inherently dangerous instrumentality of an automobile and injure someone, I will have the means to compensate them. 

That is not even in the same universe as the government forcing me to purchase health insurance under threat of having my personal property seized by the federal government.  I get to choose whether I want to drive a car.  I understand that if I do, I must purchase auto insurance to protect the victims of my potential negligence.  I don't get to choose whether I want to purchase health insurance and I put nobody but myself in danger if I am negligent with my own health.

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on March 25, 2010, 10:05:06 AM
The car insurance comparison is totally without merit.  You are required to have car insurance to protect the rights of others.  You are prohibited from murder and burglary to protect the rights of others.  The imposition of legal authority upon one individual to protect the rights of other individuals is what our codified law was initially founded upon.  They force me to purchase auto insurance if I choose to avail myself of the privilege of driving.  That way, if I cause an accident with the inherently dangerous instrumentality of an automobile and injure someone, I will have the means to compensate them. 

That is not even in the same universe as the government forcing me to purchase health insurance under threat of having my personal property seized by the federal government.  I get to choose whether I want to drive a car.  I understand that if I do, I must purchase auto insurance to protect the victims of my potential negligence.  I don't get to choose whether I want to purchase health insurance and I put nobody but myself in danger if I am negligent with my own health.

Exactly!

I cannot feature how you consider the two situations to be "identical".  Yes I drive.  I also cannot possibly be more clear or more logical in pointing out the obvious difference between the two mandates.  I did forget one point, however.  The State of Florida makes me buy car insurance.  The federal government is going to make us buy health insurance.  The when the founders developed the new idea of federalism, it was always their intent to allow the state and local governments more capacity for power.  They were the governments closest and more responsive tot he people.  So, in addition to my previous two paragraphs, there is another irrefutable difference between the two.

To cling so stubbornly to that position on the side conversation does substantial harm to the credibility of your position in the "debate" at large. 

Another reason the car insurance point is a total malarkey is because it only takes one half of the equation.  If StephenDare, et. al want to use that point, then the must also accept the rules by which auto insurers operate.

My auto insurance policy that I purchase today will NOT cover the the paint job for the sideswipe that occurred two weeks ago (pre-existing condition).  The auto insurer WILL increase my rates as I engage in risky behavior like being caught driving over the speed limit.  

Furthermore, my auto insurer, nor my the government, will subsidize my auto insurance rates by forcing those who have policies on their Mercedes and BMWs to pay higher premiums for the express purpose of making mine more affordable.  

Lastly, auto insurance is NOT a requirement in all states -- and the federal government doesn't mandate as such.

What does this mean?  "provided that, as Wyden puts it, "they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill."?

Posting an article with a couple of quotes doesn't give any opportunity to evaluate what the terms are. 

If a state is made to come up with a plan of it's own, how many does it have to cover?  What does it mean to meet the coverage requirements of the bill?  It seems quite clear that there are rules attached.  It isn't simply: Well, the state can opt out of individual mandate so long as they make some sort of plan.  It seems obvious they are going to have to make the right kind of plan.  Without knowing the rules, it's impossible to propose anything.

Quote from: stephendare on March 25, 2010, 10:32:24 AM
Schwaz.  Despite the fact that this whole side conversation is wholly without merit, the two situations are identical.   Insurance that you are required by law to purchase.

In any case, the argument over the individual mandate is moot.  

Show all of us the power of your convictions and provide Florida with a Plan of its own.

Im sure I eagerly await your proposal.  I hope it simply gets rid of all the insurance companies and makes it illegal for them to ply their evil trade here.

At the end of the day, just remember to thank the Republicans for demanding that this idea be included in the bill.

It was actually part of John McCain's campaign against Hillary Clinton's effort to pass health care in the 90s, and the Republicans have been pushing it for a while.  The Dems have been advocating single payer, but your fellow travellers in the republican party were very concerned about the poor criminals in the insurance industry.

But you were just dancing in the streets when god spoke through legislation mandating everyone to start funneling money to these evil evil companies.

Trip couldn't have explained this any better.

Do you drive is not remotely the same as do you live.

Great points redglittercoffin.

The preexisting condition mandate is perhaps the most absurd thing in entire bill.  Why would anyone purchase health insurance until they get sick.  All that is going to do is cause premiums to skyrocket.  Or, in other words, do exactly what happened in New York:

Massachusetts may have a universal health insurance mandate, but it is New York state that has experimented for the longest time with key components of the new federal health care package, most especially with a mandate that insurers must offer coverage to all comers, and also that insurers have limits on how much they can vary the price of a policy for different demographic groups. Whether the feds can figure out how to avoid all of the pitfalls that have plagued this system in New York remains to be seen.

New York enacted a health reform package with these two mandates - known as guaranteed issue and community rating - in 1993, making it unique among the states (only five others have both mandates but none has requirements as strict as New York's). Back when the state instituted the reforms about 752,000 residents were buying health insurance directly from insurance companies in the individual market. But premiums immediately started to soar, and as residents realized they could purchase insurance at any time, even after they got sick, New York's individual health insurance market disappeared, shrinking by 95 percent all the way down to a mere 34,000 individuals. Meanwhile, the ranks of the uninsured spiked to 20 percent by 1997.

New York's response to its vast increase in uninsured residents was to offer more state-subsidized insurance. When the price tag on these plans began to weigh down the state budget, New York slapped new taxes on residents and businesses to pay for them, including a new $275 million assessment against insurance companies on top of some $3 billion in assessments they already pay in the state. All of this so that the state's uninsured rolls would soar as costs spiraled upward and then declined again as government stepped in with subsidized coverage.

Moreover, the profile of the uninsured changed. Today, according to a recent Manhattan Institute study, about one-third of all the uninsured in New York earn $50,000 a year or more. Many would be able to afford insurance in most other states, but not in a place where a monthly premium for a single person ranges between $500 and $700, while a family policy costs between $1,400 and $2,600 a month.

The new federal legislation, of course, aims to fix the problems that New York has experienced by requiring that everyone carry insurance, which is a controversial mandate now but will be so much more so if costs spike as they did in the Empire State, or if taxes must rise further to subsidize premiums and keep them affordable. Those without insurance will face a federal fine that has been set at either $695 annually or 2.5 percent of your taxable income, whichever is greater. But that might be a small price for many people to pay for the privilege of not carrying pricey insurance.

To understand how this will work, look to another state, Massachusetts, the first to begin fining people for not having health care coverage. Massachusetts defines acceptable insurance as a policy with a deductible no greater than $2,000 a year. But policies at that level can be very expensive, so taking the fine is worth it, as Massachusetts resident Wendy Williams found. In a Wall Street Journal piece last October, she described how she and her husband were threatened with a $1,000 fine because they had given up their gold-plated and expensive health plan and were paying about $3,600 a year for catastrophic care policy that protected them from big hospital bills but didn't qualify as acceptable coverage in the state. For Williams the choice was easy. To increase her coverage to acceptable limits would have cost her about $6,000 a year more in premiums, because costs jump sharply as the deductible on a policy declines even moderately in a highly regulated place like Massachusetts. So she paid the fine instead and stuck with her "unacceptable" coverage.

Given that there is so little in the federal bill designed as incentives to restrain costs, there's no reason to believe that the nation will escape the fate of New York or Massachusetts once guaranteed issue becomes commonplace, leaving the choice to policymakers of higher taxes, higher premiums, or higher fines for those who go uninsured. Likely, you wind up with all three.

Just how much has government design produced the circumstances we now see in New York and Massachusetts? In a study of New York, the Manhattan Institute estimated that the Empire State's mandates increased the cost of health premiums by a whopping 42 percent to the highest in the nation (this was before RomneyCare spiked Massachusetts' premiums even higher). The study estimated that up to 37 percent of those who were uninsured in the state could afford coverage if the state junked its expensive mandates, especially the guaranteed issue and community rating mandates. Many of the rest of the uninsured were low-income residents already eligible for Medicaid who never signed up for it. The remaining small group of uninsured were largely those with pre-existing conditions who would have to be covered by a risk pool.

The irony of the current situation is that Congress has embedded in the new federal health care bill just such a risk pool, but only as a temporary measure to insure the uninsurable until the new federal bill goes into effect and nationwide guaranteed issue and community rating change the entire market. In other words, the designers of the federal legislation understand the problem, which is that there are a small number of uninsurable Americans who need a special solution, while what the rest need are lower premiums. But like New York, the architects of federal reform have chosen to change virtually the entire system in a way that doesn't address costs.

In New York, politicians never acknowledged the errors they made. They just seemed to hope that residents wouldn't understand that it was bad policy that destroyed the individual insurance market. Those same politicians used the problem they created to extend government control over health insurance until the costs helped bust the state's budget. Now you can hear radio ads in New York run by hospitals and other advocacy groups pleading with government not to cut health subsidies any more.

There are few things these days about government in New York that would qualify as ‘best practices' to be emulated by others. In truth, state policy makers have become a laughingstock, even among the state's own residents.

But not, apparently, in Washington.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/03/24/health_care_reform_welcome_to_ny_america_98390.html

Quote from: stephendare on March 25, 2010, 10:52:15 AM
lol.  Do you drive Schwaz?

(http://coreygilmore.com/uploads/2007/08/beating_a_dead_horse.jpg)

QuoteIt's called the "Empowering States to be Innovative" amendment. And it would, quite literally, give states the right to set up their own health care system -- with or without an individual mandate or, for that matter, with or without a public option -- provided that, as Wyden puts it, "they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill."

Stephen,

I have had some time to peruse the Bill and can't seem to find this language in it. At least not in the actual bill that was passed. Now maybe I am missing something, but if you could show me where this phrase is worded in the bill I would like to read it.

To help you http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.+4872: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.+4872:)

If Huffington Post is a reliable resource, then Reason should be also.

QuoteDon't Buy It
The crazy constitutional logic of the individual insurance mandate

Jacob Sullum | March 24, 2010

A few weeks before Congress passed a law that orders every American to buy health insurance, the Virginia legislature passed a law that says "no resident of this Commonwealth…shall be required to obtain or maintain a policy of individual insurance coverage." Two weeks later, Idaho’s governor signed a law that declares "every person within the state of Idaho is and shall be free to choose or decline to choose any mode of securing health care services without penalty."

Supporters of ObamaCare say such legislation, which more than 30 other states are considering, has no force, since the Constitution makes congressional enactments "the supreme law of the land." But that is true only when federal laws are authorized by the Constitution, and the individual health insurance mandate is not.

The mandate's defenders say Congress is exercising its power to "regulate commerce…among the several states." Yet a law that compels people to engage in an intrastate transaction plainly does not fit within the original understanding of the Commerce Clause, which was aimed at facilitating the interstate exchange of goods by removing internal trade barriers.

Even a Commerce Clause stretched by seven decades of deferential Supreme Court rulings is not wide enough to cover the failure to buy insurance, a noneconomic inactivity. The two cases that led to the Court's broadest readings of the Commerce Clause both involved production of a fungible commodity for which there was an interstate market regulated by Congress.

In the first case, decided in 1942, the Court ruled that a farmer could be penalized for exceeding federal crop limits aimed at controlling supply and boosting prices even though all of the extra wheat he grew was consumed on his farm. The Court reasoned that homegrown wheat "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce" by reducing the total amount of wheat sold.

In the second case, decided in 2005, the Court ruled that Congress could ban homegrown marijuana used for medical purposes authorized by state law. Although the marijuana, like the wheat, was never sold and never left the state, the Court said, its production undercut the federal government's attempt "to control the supply and demand of controlled substances in both lawful and unlawful drug markets."

Unlike growing wheat or marijuana, the decision not to buy medical insurance does not produce anything, let alone a commodity traded between states. Maybe so, say ObamaCare’s defenders, but that decision has an impact on the demand for insurance and on the health care market (one-sixth of the economy!), which the federal government is trying to control in the same way that it tries to control the marijuana trade (with similar prospects of success).

This sort of reasoning leaves nothing beyond the reach of Congress, since anything you do (or don't do) can be said to affect interstate commerce. In its 1995 decision overturning a federal ban on possessing guns near schools, the Supreme Court cautioned against the temptation "to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States." That kind of analysis, the Court warned, threatens to "obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local."

In a recent Heritage Foundation paper, Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett and two co-authors note that the decision upholding wheat quotas does not mean "Congress can require every American to buy boxes of Shredded Wheat cereal on the grounds that, by not buying wheat cereal, non-consumers were adversely affecting the regulated wheat market." Likewise, federal regulation of carmakers does not mean "Congress could constitutionally require every American to buy a new Chevy Impala every year."

Yet this is the logic of the health insurance mandate, an unprecedented attempt to punish people for the offense of living in the United States without buying something the federal government thinks they should have. Don't buy it.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and a nationally syndicated columnist.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/24/dont-buy-it (http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/24/dont-buy-it)

If he rode a horse, a bike, a bus, a street car, a train or used his feet- none of these things would require him to purchase auto insurance. So it's a choice- buy a car and recognize that you will now have a responsibility to purchase auto insurance. If you don't want to purchase auto insurance- you don't have too.

QuoteIn a recent Heritage Foundation paper, Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett and two co-authors note that the decision upholding wheat quotas does not mean "Congress can require every American to buy boxes of Shredded Wheat cereal on the grounds that, by not buying wheat cereal, non-consumers were adversely affecting the regulated wheat market." Likewise, federal regulation of carmakers does not mean "Congress could constitutionally require every American to buy a new Chevy Impala every year."

Yet this is the logic of the health insurance mandate, an unprecedented attempt to punish people for the offense of living in the United States without buying something the federal government thinks they should have. Don't buy it.

This really isn't that absurd. The fed bail out of the auto industry is very similar to bailing out the uninsured using emergency rooms... I can hear the argument already "You're already paying for those Impalas :D

Sadly, no.  It is engaging in a bit of a "slippery slope" trick, but it isn't that absurd.  If the federal government has the authority to pass a bill and force me into a contractual relationship with an insurance company against my will, then where does the line get drawn?

What other private entities/companies will I ultimately be forced to contract with?  Suppliers of toothpaste, because dental health affects health care at large?  The makers of band-aid brand band-aids, so that I do not suffer infection from minor cuts, which taxes the system more....



Stephen-

Why do you continue to ignore the points and questions posed by others and simply regurgitate your prior postings? 

1)  Many did support a different plan.  The only problem with that is that the Republicans never had any hand in this process.  The Democrats never needed a single Republican vote to pass what they passed.  Supporting a different plan made no difference.

2)  One cannot be "created" for Florida if the system has to include all of the things the Fed system contains.  The individual mandate is in the Federal plan, by my understanding, as their hope to keep premiums from skyrocketing (which is a hope they don't really have, but that's a story for another thread).  They claim to hope that by making everyone buy plans, it will spread out the risk and keep premiums low.

My guess is that a plan "acceptable" to the makers of the bill wouldn't be sustainable (just like this bill isn't), and certainly wouldn't be sustainable if you didn't force everyone to buy insurance.

Again, I don't know the rules, so I can't make a plan.  Also, someone has asked where particularly the language is in the signed bill.  Any answers?

Quote from: stephendare on March 25, 2010, 11:20:05 AM
Meh.  Talk to the Republicans about it.  It was their idea, if you don't like it.

Maybe instead of screaming nonsensically about socialism you should have supported a plan more in tune with your liking.

Luckily its not too late.  You can create one for Florida (which is clearly in the market for one, since our AG is suing)

Lets hear how you would do it?

I writing my bill up now Steve... currently on page 3,257... let you know when it's finished.

Romney is full of manure in that attempt to explain away a horrible policy.

Everyone consistently messes this up:

Do "we" pay for free-riders at the ER?  Yes.

Why?  Because the hospitals charge paying customers more (and therefore our insurance, which raises our premiums) in order to compensate for those who don't pay their bills.

This, of course, is the same reason why credit card interest rates rise.... but anyway----

YOU GET CHARGED A BILL FOR GOING TO THE ER.  It isn't a "free ride" where you can say "aw screw it, Ill just go the ER and the government pays for it."  You get the bill.  A lot dont pay it.  A lot bankrupt it.  Those people are irresponsible IMO.  You should make good on your debts.  But that's getting a bit tangential.

That's nonsense.  Romney's argument is nonsense and the people who use that argument as a justification for this bill are indulging in the very same nonsense.  

Quote from: stephendare on March 25, 2010, 11:32:52 AM

And Im not trying to antagonize the four of you, just understand your point of view.  Is it based in fact, or is it just more of the same political hysteria.  Right now, it sounds like a bunch of political hysteria since none of you can rationally explain the difference which would explain your support for one kind of mandatory insurance, but not the other.

Anyways, please do explain cogently why you are mad about one but not the other.  Thats all Im curious about.

How could I possibly be more cogent than what I have already posted?  What portion of it was veiled or difficult to understand?  I gave you facts supported by logic as to why they were different and why one bothered me and the other didn't.  Shwaz endorsed it, so it counts for him too.  That's 2 of us.  Where is the confusion?

Quote from: stephendare on March 25, 2010, 11:32:52 AM
Because none of you have yet explained why you are for mandatory auto insurance in a country where almost everyone drives, but are against mostly mandatory health insurance participation.

I really dont understand it.  Most of you guys were defending these same insurance companies a few months ago, werent you?

And Im not trying to antagonize the four of you, just understand your point of view.  Is it based in fact, or is it just more of the same political hysteria.  Right now, it sounds like a bunch of political hysteria since none of you can rationally explain the difference which would explain your support for one kind of mandatory insurance, but not the other.

As for me, I think its pretty clear where I stand on the matter.  I think that the insurance industry decision makers should all be rounded up and given life imprisonment or executions depending on how many people died as a result of their individual contributions to the policies of the past 40years.

Why on earth are we choosing to pay for our medical needs based on the risk factor that we might get sick anyways?  Its a stupid model.  Why not pay for building construction based on the risk factor that the business might be eventually bought out by another entity?

Anyways, please do explain cogently why you are mad about one but not the other.  Thats all Im curious about.

Stephen,

I think I have been very clear, you just choose not to listen, or better yet give any credence to any idea outside of your beliefs.

1) The Federal Government is restricted by the Constitution from requiring citizens to purchase a product. It is a gross use of the Commerce Clause.
2) Reform is needed in the Health care industry and Insurance Industry.
3) This Bill is not about health reform, this is an attempt to seize control.
4) The Public Option will not increase competition, rather it will destroy competition as it will be allowed to run at a deficit as most Government programs do.

My code is done compiling, so I need to test. Will check back later.

Stephen if I gave you the flu... would my insurance be charged for your antibiotics? Would health officers go out on location and draw up directions I coughed or sneezed? Maybe put caution tape & flares up around a door handle I touched?

Quote from: stephendare on March 25, 2010, 11:39:21 AM

Quote from: JagFan07 on March 25, 2010, 11:00:03 AM

QuoteIt's called the "Empowering States to be Innovative" amendment. And it would, quite literally, give states the right to set up their own health care system -- with or without an individual mandate or, for that matter, with or without a public option -- provided that, as Wyden puts it, "they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill."

Stephen,

I have had some time to peruse the Bill and can't seem to find this language in it. At least not in the actual bill that was passed. Now maybe I am missing something, but if you could show me where this phrase is worded in the bill I would like to read it.

To help you http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.+4872: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.+4872:)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111aVBTRI:e1429841:

QuoteHow to Get a State Single Payer Opt-Out as Part of Reconciliation
By: Jon Walker Monday March 8, 2010 6:06 pm    
TweetTweet25 Share9 

The current Senate health care bill has a provision (Section 1332. Waiver for State Innovation (PDF)) that will allow states to opt out of the current reform structure if they can provide the same level of care for the same amount or cheaper with a different plan. Given how poorly designed the Senate bill is, that shouldn’t be hard on a policy level. In theory, this could allow for state-based single payer plans, and reconciliation could deal with two major problems with the provision.

Delayed Until 2017

The first problem is the date of implementation. States can’t apply for the waiver until 2017, which is completely ridiculous. There is no reason for the delay, and it would make state innovation very difficult to implement. It would first require states to go through all the work of setting up the new system of exchanges for 2014, only to turn around and try to replace it with another new system three years later.

The other big problem with the date is that 2017 would be right after Obama left office (assuming that he served two terms). Since it is very rare for one party to hold the presidency for three straight terms, it will likely be a Republican in the White House in 2017. Assume their HHS secretary would not be open to granting the waiver for a state-based single payer system, it would likely not be until 2020 or 2024 that this provision could be used for creating state single payer, and that assumes a supportive Democratic president is elected. This is completely unacceptable.

Getting Around ERISA

The other major impediment is the scope of the waiver, which I interpret to mean it can’t be used for a waiver of ERISA. From the Senate bill (with Secretary defined as Secretary of HHS and Treasury):

    (c) Scope of Waiver-

    (1)IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall determine the scope of a waiver of a requirement described in subsection (a)(2) granted to a State under subsection (a)(1).

    (2)LIMITATION- The Secretary may not waive under this section any Federal law or requirement that is not within the authority of the Secretary.

ERISA falls under the jurisdiction of the Departments of Labor and Treasury. I don’t think this provision could be used waive ERISA without further action by Congress, at least I think it would become a potential legal mess if that were tried.

ERISA prevents states from telling employers or labor unions what kind of insurance they must offer. Not having an ERISA waiver would make adopting a true state-based single payer system incredibly difficult, if not impossible, and make implementing a very cost effective, Hawaii-style, strict employer mandate system impossible in other states.

Dealing with the Problem Through Reconciliation

To solve the problem, the start date would need to be moved up to as early as possible, and the Secretary of Labor would need to be added to the waiver. To make the changes possibly qualify under the Byrd rule would require a slight redesign for how the federal money is passed through if a state gets a waiver. Instead of providing the state with 100 cents on the dollar, the state would be required to prove its new plan would be at least 5% more cost effective for the federal government, with federal government able to keep that 5% of cost savings. This would make the provision deficit reduction (actual numbers could be changed as needed to qualify). Ideally, the waiver and the way the money is spent by the federal government could be changed so that it is calculated over a five- or ten-year window, potentially giving the most cost effective state single payer plans the ability to start in 2012 or 2013, with the first year of cost paid for with long-term savings.

Conclusion

The Senate bill spends a large amount of money on a very inefficient way of expanding coverage. With modest modifications, the state waiver provision could allow individual states to use that money to pursue single payer systems, a move that would potentially save the states and the federal government a large amount of money. Despite what Obama is telling Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the current state waiver provision can’t do that.

A better state waiver redesign would not just allow for state-based single payer, but other systems like a German-style all-payer system, a Hawaii-style strict employer mandate system, a Singapore-style system of HSAs combined with catastrophic insurance, etc. The current Senate bill is unpopular with a broad spectrum of people, and a true waiver for states to try something better should appeal to people across ideological boundaries. Even if the changes can’t be crafted to steer clear of the Byrd rule, it might still be possible to get 60 votes in the Senate for a waiver of the Byrd rule, or even convince Joe Biden to play hardball with reconciliation.

These slight modifications that could potentially be part of the reconciliation sidecar should be a rather small request. A small group of House Democrats/Progressives could easily demand the changes in exchange for their voteâ€"if they don’t follow Lynn Woolsey’s example of throwing away all negotiating leverage in return for nothing. Personally, I consider the inability of the single payer movement to actively force members of Congress into including a properly designed state waiver provision one of the most serious failings of the health care fight.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/08/how-to-get-a-state-single-payer-opt-out-as-part-of-reconciliation/ (http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/08/how-to-get-a-state-single-payer-opt-out-as-part-of-reconciliation/)

I saw this, however it currently is only a stub (as much of this bill we are arguing about is, BTW how do you pass a bill that isn't finished being written?) with many issues as this article points out.

Blah blah blah...

Next time you see some fat piece of shit coming out of a 7-11 with her arms full of Donuts, Mountain Dew...her Cheeto-stained paws filled with lotto tickets and a carton of Kools under her arm, hold you head up high and be proud that you are an American.  And be proud that we have a compassionate, benevolent Government who will confiscate your hard earned money to help her live in the style to which she is accustomed...and give her free Type II Diabetes medication.

Now, her problems are our problems. We are all in this together America - I feel righteous now that I can directly fund her poor choices.  We are all in this together America.  I am going to volunteer to pay more taxes next year...my cup filleth over with compassion for the bottom 10% of humanity.

Quote from: stephendare on March 25, 2010, 11:49:04 AM
So.  Schwaz is concerned about paying for my antibiotics if he gives me the flu,
Jag Fan has some kind of rusty argument about the commerce provision as well as suspicions of a government takeover (despite simultaneously believing that the anti tax corporations will be the main benefactors)
and Im still waiting on Trips explanation of the cognitive dissonance.

I guess this  administration  and the last have considered the Constitution to be "rusty". Looks like they just wish to throw out the old, and make up a nice shiny new one. Oh why bother just ignore the old man and do as you please. Maybe I missed it but where did I say Anti-tax corporations would be the benefactors? Its another argument but there is no such thing as taxing businesses, as all taxes are passed to the people either directly or embedded in the price of goods.

Quote from: Ron Mexico on March 25, 2010, 12:08:16 PM
Now, her problems are our problems. We are all in this together America - I feel righteous now that I can directly fund her poor choices.  We are all in this together America.  I am going to volunteer to pay more taxes next year...my cup filleth over with compassion for the bottom 10% of humanity.

Better her than a fat piece of shit banker coming out of the Palm confiscating our hard earned money to help keep him living in the style he's accustomed to.

My cup runneth over with compassion for the top 5% of the country that already owns 90% of the wealth, and still wants more.

One more time:

They are different, as I have illustrated.

I have no problem with being required to hold insurance should I choose to drive an automobile.  I recognize that driving is an inherently dangerous endeavor and that if something goes wrong, I might injure someone.  If I were poor and did not have insurance, I couldn't compensate the person I injured.  Thus, I have no problem with being made to carry insurance.  It is even more so in the reverse.  If some idiot causes me to be injured in a car accident, I want them to have insurance.  I have no problem with that being a two way street.


I do have a problem with the government telling me I have to buy insurance for myself and myself alone.  My failure to have insurance doesn't have the potential to directly impact the rights and property of others.

Quote from: finehoe on March 25, 2010, 12:24:43 PM

Quote from: Ron Mexico on March 25, 2010, 12:08:16 PM
Now, her problems are our problems. We are all in this together America - I feel righteous now that I can directly fund her poor choices.  We are all in this together America.  I am going to volunteer to pay more taxes next year...my cup filleth over with compassion for the bottom 10% of humanity.

Better her than a fat piece of shit banker coming out of the Palm confiscating our hard earned money to help keep him living in the style he's accustomed to.

My cup runneth over with compassion for the top 5% of the country that already owns 90% of the wealth, and still wants more.

What nonsense.  Bankers do not confiscate your wealth at the point of a gun.  Only government does this.  I don't understand when the rights of "predatory wealthy" have been defended.  Sadly I am rather certain that the two of you both feel anyone who is wealthy is "predatory wealthy".  That sort of attitude cannot be reasoned with.

Quote from: stephendare on March 25, 2010, 12:25:42 PM
Jagfan.

Please don't mistake your understanding of the Commerce clause as being synonymous with "The Constitution".

Well if we are going to ignore one part, why not ignore the whole thing.

Quote
Any ideas on the auto insurance v health insurance question?

Will you show me the Federal Law that mandates Auto Insurance? Would love to see it.

Quote
Or why we are funding our heath payments with a risk based pyramid scheme?

I never said the Health industry and insurance industry did not need reform. So how would you run a for profit Health Insurance company? If risk control isn't the model what works?

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on March 25, 2010, 12:28:19 PM
My failure to have insurance doesn't have the potential to directly impact the rights and property of others.

Oh, but it does.  If you're involved in a car wreck and are taken to the emergency room, they must treat you.  And if you don't have insurance, who do you think pays?  The people who DO have insurance, so it does direct impact others.

Quote from: stephendare on March 25, 2010, 12:28:29 PM
These guys never get tired of defending the right of the predatorily wealthy to take our  money from us, as long as they can keep the fat poor people from getting of theirs

Actually I am very much for helping the poor. I think we would be better suited to decrease their tax burden (yes the poor pay taxes embedded in goods and payroll) and allowing them to make free market choices. But sorry that is the evil Capitalist in me. Now back to health care.

Quote from: finehoe on March 25, 2010, 12:34:53 PM

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on March 25, 2010, 12:28:19 PM
My failure to have insurance doesn't have the potential to directly impact the rights and property of others.

Oh, but it does.  If you're involved in a car wreck and are taken to the emergency room, they must treat you.  And if you don't have insurance, who do you think pays?  The people who DO have insurance, so it does direct impact others.

I do.  The bill goes to me.  The bill doesn't go to the government for everyone else to pay with their tax dollars.

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on March 25, 2010, 12:31:41 PM
What nonsense.  Bankers do not confiscate your wealth at the point of a gun.  Only government does this. 

You need to be better informed:  http://www.prisonplanet.com/paulson-was-behind-bailout-martial-law-threat.html

Perhaps I should read what NotNow put out.  I missed it because I was late to this discussion and breezed through a lot of the beginning of it.  My understanding is that all of us may pay more in increased premiums based on uninsured ER visits.  I don't understand why the government is paying this.

Quote from: stephendare on March 25, 2010, 12:40:38 PM
Jagfan.  Thanks for asking.

I wouldnt run a health insurance system at all.

It seems pretty simple.  The United States spends a certain amount of money every year on health care.  Find out the per capita cost and work out a way to pay into a common fund, pay it out as necessary, and take our health and ability to stay alive out of the arena of corporate profits.

Private insurance works the same way presently, except that they take a huge profit, steal a huge amount of money from their customers, and use the monies collected to fund the risky kinds of investments that caused the economy to collapse.

Is 2.2% an obscene profit? Steal money? Come on Stephen, I've known you a long time. Even at 16 you debated better than that.

Finehoe.. what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?  Last I checked, Hank Paulson was working for the government.  Sun Trust doesn't confiscate money from me.  The Government does.  If the government used some of my tax money in an imprudent fashion or a fashion directed toward the benefit of an influential official's cronies... what else is new?  That has been a problem identified and bemoaned about government for quite some time.

Of course, if we let the government start running health care in this country, it would drastically reduce the frequency of such things happening, I am sure.  

Quote from: stephendare on March 25, 2010, 12:47:26 PM
lol.  Especially if it was going to piss off Furches.

Im pretty cynical about the health insurance industry, Jag.  I got to see it up close and personal at the Practice.

Oh I can understand, they are not choir boys. I probably could sum up most people's fears as "Better the monster I now, than the one I don't" (accept in this case we know both monsters). "lesser of two evils" maybe?

Quote from: stephendare on March 25, 2010, 12:40:38 PM
Jagfan.  Thanks for asking.

I wouldnt run a health insurance system at all.

It seems pretty simple.  The United States spends a certain amount of money every year on health care.  Find out the per capita cost and work out a way to pay into a common fund, pay it out as necessary, and take our health and ability to stay alive out of the arena of corporate profits.

Private insurance works the same way presently, except that they take a huge profit, steal a huge amount of money from their customers, and use the monies collected to fund the risky kinds of investments that caused the economy to collapse.

The insurance companies have profit margins far lower than most businesses.

What money are they stealing from their customers?

And your last point of insurance companies having to use their capital to invest in risky funds.  Are you implying that they are undercharging customers and thus need to gain more capital to pay for services rendered?  That seems counter intuitive to points one and two.

QuoteBut there is the opt out option provided, and I don't see the real difference legally between mandatory car insurance and mandatory buy in.

The difference to me is one is State mandated and the other is federally mandated. If I disagree with the Auto Insurance requirement I could move to New Hampshire.

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on March 25, 2010, 12:44:56 PM
Finehoe.. what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?  Last I checked, Hank Paulson was working for the government.  Sun Trust doesn't confiscate money from me.  The Government does.  If the government used some of my tax money in an imprudent fashion or a fashion directed toward the benefit of an influential official's cronies... what else is new?  That has been a problem identified and bemoaned about government for quite some time.

What does the former head of Goldman Sach threatening the Congress with blood in the streets if they don't hand over almost a trillion taxpayer dollars to the banksters have to do with it?  Are you kidding me?

And I can only suppose that you must not pay taxes since you say Sun Trust hasn't taken any of your money:  http://www3.gsionline.com/legalcurrents/Article_20090108_E1.asp?contactid=LearnWLCB

Political payback:

QuoteThursday, January 15, 2009
Citibank Top Donor to Obama Inauguration:
Citibank employees were big campaign contributors to Barack Obama's Presidential campaign.Not a bad rent-seeking "investment".Obama voted for TARP.Now Newsmax reports:

    Employees of Citibank, which received $45 billion in rescue funds in the federal bailout, have contributed the most to Barack Obama's inauguration fund, at least $113,000 as of Wednesday.

    And the bank is lobbying behind the scenes for more money from the second $350 billion installment of federal bailout funds, according to The New York Times.

    Among the contributions from Citibank executives is $50,000 from Ray McGuire, the bank's co-head of global investment banking, and $50,000 from Louis Susman, the recently retired vice chairman of Citigroup, the Huffington Post reports.

    Susman also bundled $300,000 in donations for the inaugural committee, according to Politico.com.

    Bundlers are fundraisers who collect checks from friends and associates and deliver them to a campaign or committee.

    Citigroup employees also gave $586,000 to Obama during the 2008 election cycle.

This is the flow of how the socialist redistribution of wealth works.TARP money for Obama's inauguration,which only insures more TARP money! We have a feeling Chris Dodd and Barney Frank don't mind Citibank making campaign contributions to politicians with TARP money.Citibank may be on the verge of insolvency( because of their inability to run a prudent bank) but they have the money to be the biggest donors at Obama's inauguration! Is Barack Obama(Democrat-Citibank)?

http://nalert.blogspot.com/2009/01/citibank-top-donor-to-obama.html (http://nalert.blogspot.com/2009/01/citibank-top-donor-to-obama.html)

Here is a less partisan view of how insurance works...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance

QuoteInsurers' business model
[edit] Underwriting and investing
The business model can be reduced to a simple equation: Profit = earned premium + investment income - incurred loss - underwriting expenses.

Insurers make money in two ways:

Through underwriting, the process by which insurers select the risks to insure and decide how much in premiums to charge for accepting those risks;
By investing the premiums they collect from insured parties.
The most complicated aspect of the insurance business is the underwriting of policies. Using a wide assortment of data, insurers predict the likelihood that a claim will be made against their policies and price products accordingly. To this end, insurers use actuarial science to quantify the risks they are willing to assume and the premium they will charge to assume them. Data is analyzed to fairly accurately project the rate of future claims based on a given risk. Actuarial science uses statistics and probability to analyze the risks associated with the range of perils covered, and these scientific principles are used to determine an insurer's overall exposure. Upon termination of a given policy, the amount of premium collected and the investment gains thereon minus the amount paid out in claims is the insurer's underwriting profit on that policy. Of course, from the insurer's perspective, some policies are "winners" (i.e., the insurer pays out less in claims and expenses than it receives in premiums and investment income) and some are "losers" (i.e., the insurer pays out more in claims and expenses than it receives in premiums and investment income); insurance companies essentially use actuarial science to attempt to underwrite enough "winning" policies to pay out on the "losers" while still maintaining profitability.

An insurer's underwriting performance is measured in its combined ratio[5] which is the ratio of losses and expenses to premiums. A combined ratio of less than 100 percent indicates underwriting profitability, while anything over 100 indicates an underwriting loss. A company with a combined ratio over 100% may nevertheless remain profitable due to investment earnings.

Insurance companies earn investment profits on “float”. “Float” or available reserve is the amount of money, at hand at any given moment, that an insurer has collected in insurance premiums but has not paid out in claims. Insurers start investing insurance premiums as soon as they are collected and continue to earn interest or other income on them until claims are paid out. The Association of British Insurers (gathering 400 insurance companies and 94% of UK insurance services) has almost 20% of the investments in the London Stock Exchange.[6]

In the United States, the underwriting loss of property and casualty insurance companies was $142.3 billion in the five years ending 2003. But overall profit for the same period was $68.4 billion, as the result of float. Some insurance industry insiders, most notably Hank Greenberg, do not believe that it is forever possible to sustain a profit from float without an underwriting profit as well, but this opinion is not universally held.

Naturally, the “float” method is difficult to carry out in an economically depressed period. Bear markets do cause insurers to shift away from investments and to toughen up their underwriting standards. So a poor economy generally means high insurance premiums. This tendency to swing between profitable and unprofitable periods over time is commonly known as the "underwriting" or insurance cycle.[7]

Property and casualty insurers currently make the most money from their auto insurance line of business. Generally better statistics are available on auto losses and underwriting on this line of business has benefited greatly from advances in computing. Additionally, property losses in the United States, due to unpredictable natural catastrophes, have exacerbated this trend.

Quote from: JagFan07 on March 25, 2010, 12:44:07 PM
Is 2.2% an obscene profit?

Where does 2.2% come from?  The numbers for 2009 are
Aetna: 3.7%
Wellpoint: 7.3%
Cigna: 7.1%
United Health: 3.7%
Humana: 3.4%
Healthspring: 5.0%
Coventry Health Care: 2.3%
United American Corp: 2.7%
Unum Group: 8.4%

Nice Find BT. Are insurers in Florida also required to keep a reserve fund to cover loses?

Quote from: finehoe on March 25, 2010, 02:38:30 PM

Quote from: JagFan07 on March 25, 2010, 12:44:07 PM
Is 2.2% an obscene profit?

Where does 2.2% come from?  The numbers for 2009 are
Aetna: 3.7%
Wellpoint: 7.3%
Cigna: 7.1%
United Health: 3.7%
Humana: 3.4%
Healthspring: 5.0%
Coventry Health Care: 2.3%
United American Corp: 2.7%
Unum Group: 8.4%

QuoteQuick quiz: What do these enterprises have in common? Farm and construction machinery, Tupperware, the railroads, Hershey sweets, Yum food brands and Yahoo?

Answer: They're all more profitable than the health insurance industry.

In the health care debate, Democrats and their allies have gone after insurance companies as rapacious profiteers making "immoral" and "obscene" returns while "the bodies pile up."

Ledgers tell a different reality. Health insurance profit margins typically run about 6 percent, give or take a point or two. That's anemic compared with other forms of insurance and a broad array of industries, even some beleaguered ones.

Profits barely exceeded 2 percent of revenues in the latest annual measure. This partly explains why the credit ratings of some of the largest insurers were downgraded to negative from stable heading into this year, as investors were warned of a stagnant if not shrinking market for private plans.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=8910507 (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=8910507)

Finehoe-

In your emotion you are completely twisting logic.

First, Paulson wasn't saying that he was going to go out and slaughter.  He wasn't threatening to let your blood.  Sun Trust wasn't threatening to let my blood.  He was telling them that if the system totally collapsed, and we ended up in a state much worse than the Great Depression, that there would be mass chaos, blood and perhaps the need for martial law.

Was this an intentional overstatement meant to help his cronies?  Perhaps.  Was it an honest belief that turned out to be hyperbole?  Perhaps.  Was he actually right, and we don't know it?  Perhaps.

The fact remains:  No Bank Ever Threatened To Take To The Streets And Start Killing People.

As to Sun Trust taking my money... you have a very bizarre way of looking at confiscation. 

The government paid them money.  As such, they received money that the GOVERNMENT confiscated from me.  Whether I agree with the government's decision is meaningless on this point:  Sun Trust doesn't have the power to confiscate money from me.  Only government does.  You cannot claim that the banks took that money from me by force.

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on March 25, 2010, 02:54:10 PM
No Bank Ever Threatened To Take To The Streets And Start Killing People.

But having a mandate to purchase insurance is government forcing you to do something "at the point of a gun".  It would seem I'm not the only one emotional.

If you want to drive in this country YOU NEED CAR INSURANCE
If you want to live in this country YOU NEED HEALTH INSURANCE.

So no car insurance then we fine you then later if done again take you to jail
No health insurance we fine you, then later kill you if done again...


>_>

Quote from: finehoe on March 25, 2010, 12:34:53 PM

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on March 25, 2010, 12:28:19 PM
My failure to have insurance doesn't have the potential to directly impact the rights and property of others.

Oh, but it does.  If you're involved in a car wreck and are taken to the emergency room, they must treat you.  And if you don't have insurance, who do you think pays?  The people who DO have insurance, so it does direct impact others.

So why don't you fine that guy instead of me?

The technical aspect of this is it is a tax with ways to be exempt. You have as much choice as you do with any tax.

Quote from: NotNow on March 25, 2010, 03:33:50 PM

Quote from: finehoe on March 25, 2010, 12:34:53 PM

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on March 25, 2010, 12:28:19 PM
My failure to have insurance doesn't have the potential to directly impact the rights and property of others.

Oh, but it does.  If you're involved in a car wreck and are taken to the emergency room, they must treat you.  And if you don't have insurance, who do you think pays?  The people who DO have insurance, so it does direct impact others.

So why don't you fine that guy instead of me?

becuase that would make since

What part of my statement is inaccurate, finehoe?

If you refuse to pay, you could be jailed.  If they come to take you to jail and you refuse to go, they make you go.

How do they do that?  At the point of a gun, or the very least a taser.

Government is the only entity who can do that.  Private corporations cannot.

Refuse to pay your share of our tax dollars going to pay AIG bonuses and see if the result is any different. 

Quote from: JeffreyS on March 25, 2010, 12:21:50 AM
The mandate is actually a tax that you are exempted from if you have insurance. Technically it is not a mandate and it is a tax on the poor, middle class and rich.  note the "mandate" tax is not intended to ever be paid subsidized out for some exempted for others.

Technicality to be sure. A rose by any other name...

Quote from: stephendare on March 25, 2010, 12:55:49 AM
I dont think thats an apples to apples comparison.

The issue is insurance that you are compelled to purchase.

Like Car Insurance and Health Insurance.

Why don't you object to the Car Insurance requirement?

You are NOT compelled to buy car insurance.

Quote from: JeffreyS on March 25, 2010, 09:00:09 AM
Mandate is just a buzz word it is a tax. The government can tax you. Now they have given us a way to opt out of the tax but it is a choice. I know both sides have called it a mandate but the legislation calls it a tax.

It is a mandate, buzz word or not. If you fail to comply with the mandate, you pay a fine... errr... tax. If you fail to pay the fine penalty tax, you are taken to prison. If you resist, well you know the rest.

Quote from: finehoe on March 25, 2010, 12:34:53 PM

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on March 25, 2010, 12:28:19 PM
My failure to have insurance doesn't have the potential to directly impact the rights and property of others.

Oh, but it does.  If you're involved in a car wreck and are taken to the emergency room, they must treat you.  And if you don't have insurance, who do you think pays?  The people who DO have insurance, so it does direct impact others.

This is the defense (although shakey) for the whole enchilada. Why do progressives never consider that a person might pay his debt for emergency services rendered?

Indemnity/accident/catastrophic insurance is what is needed.

This is far from what has been passed.

I do not so much disagree BH. Even though I am a big government health care guy I do not like the governing by tax method.  The reason I point out that it is a tax rather than a mandate is just that IMO it will hold up to legal scrutiny and has precedence as a method the government uses to "manage" us all.

QuoteIf you steal, this makes you a thief, if you cheat it makes you a cheater.

Exactly.  My post shows that the insurance companies do not steal... nor do they cheat... on the grand scale which you and those to the left of you claim.  It is simply hyperbole and demonization of an industry you prefer to be nationalized.

BT I agree it is not good or bad corporations it is good or bad policy. Now I do not feel health insurance should be a for profit industry but it is for now and those companies should try to make their profit.

At this point, I don't think it's well understood how many of the GOP's central health-care policy ideas have already been included as compromises in the health-care bill. But one good way is to look at the GOP's "Solutions for America" homepage, which lays out its health-care plan in some detail. It has four planks. All of them -- yes, you read that right -- are in the Senate health-care bill.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/five_compronises_in_health_car.html

So republicans wanted to give the Health Insurance industry a 100 % captive market too?

I guess that it is a good idea!

Quote from: PJparker on March 30, 2010, 12:41:54 PM
At this point, I don't think it's well understood how many of the GOP's central health-care policy ideas have already been included as compromises in the health-care bill. But one good way is to look at the GOP's "Solutions for America" homepage, which lays out its health-care plan in some detail. It has four planks. All of them -- yes, you read that right -- are in the Senate health-care bill.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/five_compronises_in_health_car.html

Hmmm. Did the Republicans push to reform health-care for all Americans during the time they had control of congress and the presidency? If they didn't, what a shame! And if they did, those damn democrats must have railed against them.

Quote from: PJparker on March 30, 2010, 12:41:54 PM
At this point, I don't think it's well understood how many of the GOP's central health-care policy ideas have already been included as compromises in the health-care bill. But one good way is to look at the GOP's "Solutions for America" homepage, which lays out its health-care plan in some detail. It has four planks. All of them -- yes, you read that right -- are in the Senate health-care bill.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/five_compronises_in_health_car.html

Let's consider the source here PJ:

Ezra Klein (born May 9, 1984) is a blogger for the Washington Post and a columnist for Newsweek. He was formerly an associate editor for The American Prospect political magazine and an American liberal[1] political blogger at the same publication.  Besides his online contributions, Klein worked on Howard Dean's primary campaign in Vermont in 2003.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Klein

He also likes to wildly distort the truth in the cited article:  "The solutions the GOP has on its Web site are not solutions at all, because Republicans don't want to be in the position of offering an alternative bill. "

Even though Republicans offered several alternative bills and plans, among them:  

Patient's Choice Act: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2520   and
Empowering Patients First Act  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3400:

Posting an article by Ezra Klein to prove your point is like me posting an article by Sean Hannity to prove mine.  None of the Republican ideas are in the bill in a workable or substantive way or anywhere near their actual form as offered, so far as I can tell.  And an article by an openly far-left blogger from 6 weeks before the bill was actually passed... well, it's not very persuasive.

Tripoli1711  “Posting an article by Ezra Klein to prove your point is like me posting an article by Sean Hannity to prove mine.  None of the Republican ideas are in the bill in a workable or substantive way or anywhere near their actual form as offered, so far as I can tell.  And an article by an openly far-left blogger from 6 weeks before the bill was actually passed... well, it's not very persuasive.”

Thanks for the Wikipedia biography of Ezra.  I already knew he was an editorial writer for The Washington Post, hence the notation and link at the bottom of my post.
I usually get a lot of responses from openly right-wing posters like yourself, but yours was intriguing because you gave me some links to further clarify your opinion.  I did follow those up.
“We first released our health care plan in June, and over the last six months, we have introduced at least eight bills that, taken together, would implement this blueprint. You can go right now to healthcare.gop.gov and get all the details, but for now, I just want to share with you four ideas Republicans have proposed:
•         Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines;
•         Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do today;
•         Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs; and
•         Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.
“These are four smart, fiscally-responsible reforms that we can implement today to lower costs and expand access at a price our nation can afford.  Again, you can learn more about these and all the health care initiatives Republicans have supported by visiting healthcare.gop.gov.   â€" Boehner, House GOP Leader John Boehner (R-OH) Delivers Weekly Republican Address

As Boehner points out, there have been eight bills submitted by the GOP, not just the two you indicated in your links.  The four points he listed were the ones Boehner considers the most important.  They are in the bill.
Citing two more Republican ideas that were included which forced further Democratic compromises, he explains how the Republicans voted against their own ideas.  You must have read that, given the quote you used out of context. 

The facts do check out.  You may think the article is biased, but when you look at the facts on the GOP website, I don’t see how you can call the facts biased.  The conclusion is that the Republicans voted against their own ideas in an effort to obstruct the government process, and will continue to obstruct government. 
Here’s what McCain said:
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, it seems like there are a lot of ruffled feathers over here. In fact, even Senator McCain came out with some strong language...
GRAHAM: Yes!
VAN SUSTEREN: ... saying there'd be no more cooperation until the end of the year.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589842,00.html

As you can see, obstruction is not going to stop the process.  Just like with a two-year-old who says he is not going to cooperate with you, at some point, you just have to do your job anyway, despite the kicking and screaming.

Quote•         Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines;

I have not seen where this is written in the current bill. Can someone point me to it?

Quote•         Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do today;

The pools are a great idea, This is actually common ground both parties share.

Quote•         Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs; and

This is poorly written in the current bill. What they have done is allow states to be exempt from the Federal Insurance program provided the states program meets the same criteria of the federal plan. So the states are only able to add to the Federal plan. They will not be able to drop any part of the federal plan that they may find costly or unnecessary. This does not allow for innovation.

Quote•         Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

I didn't find any tort reform in this bill. Again, if someone could point me to the language in the bill I would love to see it.

I don't know what sort of stigma is supposed to be attached to me for being an "openly right wing poster", but that's cool... from listening to and reading the quotes of a lot of the Congressional leadership, I guess that's supposed to mean I am a scared racist.  But that's a story for another thread.

I think JagFan responded about as well as I could.  As far as posting the bio on Ezra, I already knew all of that stuff, but saying something akin to "You know Ezra Klein is one step away from being a pinko, right" wouldn't be as intelligent of a response as just showing his biography.  He is an openly left wing poster.

I didn't take any quotes out of context, the quote is directly from the article and within the proper context.  He suggested the Republicans refused to offer any bills.  I stated that the GOP had offered several alternatives, among them:  and then gave the two. 

I am certain you know that the republicans are by and large incapable of "obstructing government".  I also do not think it is their intention of obstructing government.  I do believe that the Republicans felt shut out of the process from the beginning.  I cannot recall the number of stories about Pelosi and Reid meeting with D leadership "behind closed doors" with no republican input whilst drafting the bills.  I don't have the time to go and pull the myriad articles on the topic.  Is there politics involved in McCain's statement?  Sure.  But it's a pretty clever play seeing as how the majority of Americans were vehemently opposed to the legislation.  McCain may be saying the republicans are going to take their ball and go home, but the voters appear ready to send quite a few democrats home permanently in November.  Its politically viable for McCain to take the position he did, and will not serve to actually "obstruct" anything, since the democrats control everything quite handily at the present time.

Quote from: Tripoli1711 on March 31, 2010, 08:51:30 AM
I also do not think it is their intention of obstructing government. 

I guess you aren't aware of these: http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/201003230006

Here we go again.  Geez.  How bout you guys ever take a hint from, or support a point with, anything other than the sycophantic far-left media?  Media matters.  Wow, what a bastion of objectivity.  No.  I had not read these before.  Now I have.  I suppose principled opposition is now equal to dreadful obstructionism? 

I mean.. just look at some of the highlights from the memos:

Why.. there's no fewer than 17 bullet points of what they support or want to propose as alternatives coupled with an exhortation to make sure to put forward ideas so that they aren't the “same outdated republicans who oppose everything”.

What obstructionist jerks.

And then there's this passage: 

“The Democrats have accused us of trying to delay, stall, slow down and stop this bill.  They are right.  We do want to delay, stall, slow down and ultimately stop them from experimenting on our nation's health care.  And guess what, so do a majority of Americans.  I have heard Republican political operatives say it will be good for our Party next November if the Democrats pass this bill. They note that the bill is unpopular with Independents, suburban voters and senior citizens.  They say the voters will run them out of office for it.  That may be, but we cannot take that approach.  Some things are more important than politics.  This is one of those times.  Please do everything you can to stop this bill... before its too late”

Just blind obstructionist lemmings, those Republicans.  There's no substance there.  Just a robotic hard-wired program running on loop to say no and obstruct the poor Democrats who are just trying to make flowers bloom and life grand.

Yes.  Media Matters calls them the "obstructionist memos" or whatever they called them, so that's precisely what they must be.

Guess what.  Democrats have internal memos too.  They talk politics.  They have talking-points.  They probably look quite the same.  To use your tactic- If I got a Heritage Foundation blog that had obtained some of them, and posted them under the heading "Democrat Memos on Shoving Unpopular Power-Grabs Down People's Throats", I could simply throw a link on here, sit back cross my arms and smile.  My point would be proven!  Democrats are evil.  That's all I'd have to do....

If you do not think one party is obstructing the other party for purely political reasons you have not been paying attention to American politics for a long time.

QuoteDemocrats who are just trying to make flowers bloom and life grand.

:D :D

Sorry to fulfill the video's substance, but isn't their point essentially a recitation of your MO when debating? 

I was unaware that a thoughtful response could be summarily dismissed because it invoked sarcasm. 

Perhaps it was a bit steamy.  It just gets frustrating how often on here and other places I get replies that cite Daily Kos or Media Matters, etc... and it's supposed to just speak for itself as gospel. 

Probably more instructive as to my edge is the fact that I am on day 8 of kicking a 7 year long pack a day cigarette habit.   :)

Obstruction of government?...

Sounds reasonable.

Not to hijack the thread... but as unsolicited and uncompensated advertisement:  I am using Chantix.  I was fearful of the scary testimonials about homicidal/suicidal rages, et al, and side effects.. but nothing bad.

It's actually quite a miracle.  I'm a little touchy and there are moments when it's a bummer I can't smoke.. but the cravings are very minimal and easy to let pass... I have tried to quit before and it was unbearable.  With this stuff the awfulness of quitting is maybe 5% of what it was without it.  Thus far (14 days in, because you can smoke for the 1st week of taking the pills), I would HIGHLY recommend it. 

QuoteObstruction of government?...

Sounds reasonable.

Amen!  The whole purpose of the Senate is to obstruct the House of Representatives and the reverse.  The whole purpose of the Congress is to obstruct the Executive Branch and the whole purpose of the Supreme Court is to obstruct them all.  It was designed that way, thanks to some really suspicious old revolutionaries in about 1790.