Health Care Data Points

Joe,
.
There’s a LOT of “tone deafness” in evidence throughout all of this….
.
From ALL sides!!

Joe, if the tide is turning, what do YOU think is the (latest) tipping point? If there’s only one, of course. My pick would be the upcoming Anthem / Wellpoint insurance rate hikes. If the “if it doesn’t affect ME it doesn’t exist” mentality is all too common, maybe this finally did affect many. Now more than ever I hope KT titles her upcoming book “Anthem Shrugged.”

Agreed. On the turning point and the title.

If Rush moves then Michelle Obama’s obesity program goals will have been achieved.

Joe Klein:

They’ll be able to say: Because of us, you’ll never again have to worry about the insurance companies taking away your coverage.

…And they would be lying, if they said that.
.
Not only would they be lying, but it would be a lie that would be understood to be one by every single person who knew someone else who had lost their job, and therefore lost their coverage.
.
Even in 2013, when the state-by-state insurance exchanges are scheduled to be operational, insurance companies will still be able to “take away your coverage” when people lose their jobs. The remedy won’t be that those people keep the coverage they had from lost jobs –they’re on their own– but that they’ll then be eligible for enrollment in their state’s exchange, at which point they’ll have to buy whatever is offered.
.
At the point at which they enroll in the exchange, they had better hope that their savings will cover not only the lost income from their former jobs, but the 8% of income that these new premiums will cost them. Remember, subsidies will be provided for families only after the government receives the forms at tax time signifying their newly poorer status –if families qualify, that is.
.
Whatever else you want to say about the legislation, it would be very foolish to advise Democrats to literally lie in the faces of their constituents, and make believe that insurers will somehow continue to insure the unemployed with the benefits they received under their employers’ group plans.
.
Of course people will have to worry about the insurance companies taking away their coverage, that’s what the exchanges are all about: organizing the individual insurance market in each state by compelling insurers to offer some kind of minimum coverage, and compelling unemployed people to buy it.
.
Yes, Joe Klein, honest Democrats would be required to say “because of us,” but not in order to claim credit for a benefit that simply doesn’t exist.

Let’s not forget the Obama caucus debate and the Health Care summit where Obama looked like the grownup while the Republicans looked like a broken record. Obama’s involvement provides a bit more firepower and he’s just plain more trusted than the nameless suits that the Republicans have challenging him.

Joe’s gut feelings are just that, but in the reality-based world liberals inhabit, it is true that the project has rapidly become less unpopular than it was a few weeks ago (link to Chris Bowers, a “pass anything now” supporter):

In a truly surprising comeback, since the Massachusetts special election seven weeks ago, health reform has gained a net 7% in national popularity, and a majority no longer opposes it.
.
The Democratic health reform bill is actually 2% more popular on net now than it was back in early November, when the House first passed a bill.

With all that said, the bill is still not very popular, especially in relative historical terms. Congress rarely passes unpopular laws, and that has always been at the heart of the difficulty in passing this bill.

Hardly the kind of data that suggests supporters should put their party hats on, but it is now theoretically possible for the Democrats to pass a bill by April that isn’t totally opposed by a majority of Americans.

“Even in 2013, when the state-by-state insurance exchanges are scheduled to be operational, insurance companies will still be able to “take away your coverage” when people lose their jobs.”
.
That’s not quite true. When people lose their jobs they can keep their existing policy under COBRA, if they can afford it (in the House language there’s a very generous subsidy as well). I mostly agree with your serious criticisms of the legislation and there’s really no need to exaggerate it’s shortcommings.

But I do wonder why on earth the President is going to Indonesia in the midst of all this? Shouldn’t he stick around until it’s done?

Had Obama taken your advice, he’d have spent the past 14 months in DC playing Bejeweled while the Cirque de Hill-e was in full swing.
.
Or, to put it another way: are you suggesting that Obama “suspend his presidency” until this thing is passed?
.
That strategy didn’t work too well for the other guy…

shepherdwong:
.
I didn’t mean to exaggerate, I was trying to keep the commentary to reasonable length (for once), and focus on the main point, which is that it would be rank, obvious (and I think foolhardy) dishonesty for Democrats to claim “you’ll never again have to worry about the insurance companies taking away your coverage” because of this health care reform legislation. That’s Joe Klein’s claim, and it’s patently false.

When people lose their jobs they can keep their existing policy under COBRA, if they can afford it

Of course you’re correct about COBRA, in both points.
.
Yes, regardless of whether the Senate bill passes or not, existing COBRA law allows employees who are able to afford to pay both their own and their employers’ share of group plan premiums to do so for 18 months, as it has been the law since 1986.
.
Usually, that hasn’t been financially doable by most people, since only 10% of those who were eligible for COBRA were able to take advantage of it.
.
Also, the 2009 Stimulus bill included a 65% percent subsidy for families making under $250,000, if the wage-earners lost their jobs during the year 2009, which has since been extended last week to include 2010. (If you’d like to take me to task with respect to my statements about the efficacy of the Stimulus, go ahead.)
.
Obviously none of this has anything to do with the current health care legislation.
.
The current worries that people have about losing the employee benefits that come with group plan coverage won’t go anywhere –regardless of whether or not the Senate bill passes– so I think it would be crazy for Democrats to run on that claim.

the more Obama talks the more people walk.. Notice the age of his background drop they are getting younger and younger what next pre-preschooler’s ?
I was talking to my friends that were for health care at first then came the first bill, since we all went to schools where they actually taught you things like to read, do math, use common sense and logic we all read it and guess what we all came out with the same conclusion this bill has little to NOTHING to do with health care.. it does have many mandates to EXPAND government however.. it will also grab rights and privacy (what little we still have) and to raise taxes either directly or indirectly on the middle class and lower middle class and the seniors while paying great amounts to those who contribute to their campaigns.. NO Change just more of the same.. Obama care has lost even Democrats who have been doing that community thing and telling their friends what they found and have been changing the minds of others who THOUGHT it was a good idea.. BTW Pelosi saying they have to pass the bill to know what’s in it REALLY lost many who were on the fence.. The more they talk the more the people are against this bill

Wow – Dubya suspended his presidency? That explains a lot. Wait, what?

“Also, the 2009 Stimulus bill included a 65% percent subsidy for families making under $250,000, if the wage-earners lost their jobs during the year 2009, which has since been extended last week to include 2010.”
.
Yes, I think that’s basically the provision in the House health care legislation. Democrats would be wise to find a way to include it in reconciliation because you are absolutely correct that it will be far worse for them to have oversold whatever ends up being experienced by the public once passed into law (not that it will matter a bit to Klein).

the provision in the House health care legislation

Are you sure?
.
I was talking about this:

On March 3, 2010, President Obama signed into law the Temporary Extension Act of 2010.[11] The Act extends COBRA subsidy eligibility to employees who lost their jobs due to no fault of their own between March 1 and 31, 2010.[12] In addition, employees who lost group health insurance due to reduced work hours on or after Sept. 1, 2008, followed by involuntary termination between March 2 and March 31, 2010, will now be eligible for the COBRA subsidy.[13]

This is its own thing, nothing to do with HCR.

hey nfl: I think you caught on that I was refering to the guy who “suspended his campaign” to fix everything in DC.
.
But, now that you mention it, it *does* seem like Bush “suspended his administration” to…what?…golf? give it over to Cheney? Fly around the country?

sz-

“The remedy won’t be that those people keep the coverage they had from lost jobs –they’re on their own– but that they’ll then be eligible for enrollment in their state’s exchange, at which point they’ll have to buy whatever is offered.”

I thought that this was precisely Joe’s point- he doesn’t suggest that people could keep their private insurance if they lost their jobs, but that they needn’t worry because there would be (admittedly imperfect, but) reasonably affordable alternatives, which under the current system do not exist. Understand your longstanding objections to current HCR bills (and am a long-time single payer proponent), but can not this be seen as (baby) steps in the right direction?

Did you read Joe’s post and follow the link to Sullivan’s where polling data is analysed? Support for HCR is growing- GOP scare tactics and obstructionism being slowly recognized for what they are, and folks becoming more acquainted with the actual substance of the proposals.

“Are you sure?”
.
No, it appears that I was conflating a couple of things from this HuffPost article:

Ingram wouldn’t lose her benefits under the House plan. While the Senate bill does not extend health benefits for laid-off workers, the House version would keep Ingram covered through next year and until 2013, when the big reforms — the exchange, through which people can choose from a range of affordable policies, including a public option — are up and running. The bill allows any laid-off worker who continued his or her employer’s health care plan under the government’s COBRA law to keep that coverage until the exchange is in place. (The Senate bill pushes the start date of the big reforms back to 2014.)
.
COBRA gives fired workers 18 months during which they can pay full price for their policy under their former employer’s group plan — not very affordable, but typically less than it would cost to buy insurance on the individual market. The stimulus bill provided for 65 percent reduced COBRA payments, and it’s likely that Democratic leaders in Congress will try to renew that benefit for another year before the Christmas break.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/19/senate-health-care-bill-o_n_363757.html

Umm… Care to put up some evidence to support your “conclusion” ?

Someone may want to inform Joe Klein and other like-minded, clueless, leftist loons that Rush Limbaugh did not, as Klein falsely alleged, “threat[en] to move to Costa Rica.” Limbaugh advised a caller that in the event that Obama and the socialist in Congress forcibly collectivize health care in the United States and in the event that Rush Limbaugh needs medical care, he would seek private health care in Costa Rica in order to escape the socialized, third world medicine of Obama America.

Textee,

You are aware, I hope. that nobody outside of the far right of the Republican party actually cares very much about where Limbaugh goes, what Limbaugh does and even less about what Limbaugh says.

He is a punch line to a joke for everybody in the center or progressive!

Stuart,
Now I understand at least some of your concerns.

The only difference of opinion we have now is that I am still optimistic that health care for the unemployed can be worked out.

From what I gathered, you are pessimistic about this.

It is, with over 10% unemployment, some of those unemployed being single and others where both spouses are unemployed an issue worth knowing that I did not know about.

Textee,

Do you and your right wing buddies loose sleep over the possibility that you may have misquoted Michael Moore?

If not, why would you think that many people here care about Limbaugh?

BTW: I, among others, consider Micheal Moore an entertainer. Anything he says I do wish to see from another source before I consider it fact.

70northsullivan:

this was precisely Joe’s point- he doesn’t suggest that people could keep their private insurance if they lost their jobs, but that they needn’t worry because there would be (admittedly imperfect, but) reasonably affordable alternatives, which under the current system do not exist.

Not to be argumentative, but I think that Joe’s point was that Democrats could claim benefits that were close enough semantically to the truth that they would survive parsing.
.
When he says
.
They’ll be able to say:
.
I think he really thinks it’s a good idea to phrase:
.
they needn’t worry because there would be (admittedly imperfect, but) reasonably affordable alternatives [to your coverage]
.
as
.
Because of us, you’ll never again have to worry about the insurance companies taking away your coverage.
.
, which obviously is nowhere close to the literal truth of the situation.
.
The reasonably affordable alternatives will remain to be seen in 2013, of course. The Senate bill specifies premiums taking up a certain maximum percentage of income, and a certain minimum of claims benefits, certainly, but it does nothing to regulate co-pays, fees, claim denials and delays, and all of the other practices that cost individuals with no leverage money, whilst providing care that’s substandard to employer benefits.
.
Not to make that totally clear –not to tell people the clear truth that this bill doesn’t allow them to keep their relatively low-cost, high-claims paid insurance benefits– is to court the ruin of credibility.
.
The mere fact that you have to say something along the lines of
.
“Well, I don’t think that Joe really meant that people could stop worrying about losing their current coverage”
.
in response to Joe advising Democrats to claim
.
“you’ll never again have to worry about the insurance companies taking away your coverage”
.
suggests that this kind of language can’t possibly be used to sell the bill to a confused public without a backlash once the full truth is known and felt by people who lose their jobs and, of course, their employer-based coverage.
.
That’s really the point. I could debate with you the veracity of the phrase “reasonably affordable alternatives” the way that Nate Silver debates Marcy Wheeler, but that’s not what’s being discussed.
.
If Democrats sell this thing by blurring in people’s minds the difference between their employer coverage and the inferior, more expensive, compulsory insurance they must purchase from local insurer monopolies in the state-based exchanges (if everything goes as planned by 2013), that’s a bad, bad idea.
.
I think that Joe does suggest that people can keep their employer-based insurance. What’s more important than what I think is that Democrats steer absolutely clear of language like Joe’s, so that nobody gets the wrong idea about what will happen to their insurance if they lose their jobs. If Democrats take Joe’s advice literally, that’s a credibility loss that may take a long time to overcome.
.
By the way, I’m not a single-payer advocate.
.
I think that Germany’s a great model, as Ezra Klein laid out quite well in his excellent 2007 piece (link to “The Health of Nations”):

Germany was the first nation to enact mandatory health insurance, doing so way back in 1883. The system is funded through employer contributions, with half the money coming from your paycheck and half coming from your employer. Participating Germans — about 90% of the country — are enrolled in “sickness funds”, some of which are organized by geographical region, some of which are organized by trade, and some of which are organized by company. The funds are a mix between private and public entities and are all nonprofit. They can’t discriminate, and can’t charge customers at different rates corresponding to their health/age/lifestyle. That means no cherry-picking.
.
Various sickness funds have different contribution levels (so some will deduct 7% of your paycheck, others 8%), but all are required to cover a broad range of benefits (including prescription drugs) and demand only a modest copay. These funds, which are conducted through your employer, remain with you even after you lose or retire from a job. So if you’re fired, your employer will still have to make contributions for you, but the government will take up your end of the bargain. Same deal if you retire, though in that case the sickness fund covers a bit less of your expenses and your retirement pension makes up the gap. The funds are administered by a board that’s half company representatives and half worker representatives.
.
Insurance is mandatory for all Germans with incomes under $40,000. Those above can opt out, but few do. All told, about 8% of the country opts out of the sickness funds, and most of them are very wealthy. Private insurers pay doctors at much higher rates, and thus the folks they insure get preferential treatment.
.
The financing method is pretty regressive. The sickness funds can vary the percentage of your paycheck they deduct under the rationale that those with larger earnings need a smaller percentage to cover expenses. So the idea is not to have the rich covering the poor, but for everyone to be covered.
.
Cost Control:
.
The 1977 German Cost Containment Act created a body called “Concerted Action”, comprised of representatives from the nation’s health providers, sickness funds, employers, unions, and various levels of government. CA meets twice a year to set guidelines for hospital fees, physicians rates and so forth. Since 1986, physician’s fees have been capped.
.
How Do We Stack Up?
.
Due to some concerns over the viability of GDP spending and OECD rankings, I’m going to be changing some of the metrics I use here. Per capita, Germany spends $2,817 on health care for its citizens. America spends $5,267 (which in unbelievably high, by the way — you should really check out how nuts that is, a point well-made by this Excel file comparison). According to the WHO, Germany’s health care system is #6 in fairness of financial burden, #14 in overall goal attainment, and #14 in terms of overall performance. America’s system is 54th in fairness(!), 15th in goal attainment, and 37th in overall performance.

I think that the German system is the best fit for the United States to achieve, not necessarily single-payer like Canada.
.
I would love to be having that argument over which is better with you, but it’s moot, isn’t it?

can not this be seen as (baby) steps in the right direction?

It can be, but it seems very, very unlikely to me, given who will have won (industry) and who will have lost (liberal policy wonks) these arguments politically at the end of the day.
.
Thanks for reading and considering this, 70northsullivan.

Joe

You do “wonder why on earth the President is going to Indonesia in the midst of all this?”

Maybe he is going to look for a retirement mansion in Indonesia for when “We the People” kick his butt in November. Stranger things than this have happened, you know.

He bragged “I won” last time. Maybe he is scared of loosing this time.

http://ikejakson.wordpress.com/2010/02/11/this-is-power/

stuart: I’ve read only part of your posts, but plan to do so later on.
.
Having lived in Germany for 5 years in the late ’90s, I can concur with the points that you and E. Klein are making about the German Health Care system.
.
Frankly, at the time, I did not may much attention to Health Care because it was a payroll deduction and there were no restrictions on the medical care my family and I could choose. (No in-group / out-of-network BS, etc.) Life was good.
.
Oh. and, lastly, 2 words: house calls.
.
Yeah. When I had chicken pox and on a different occasion when my son had scarlet fever.
.
House calls.

sz-

Thanks for the reply. My initial reading focused on the “never again have to worry” part of Joe’s claim, and because helping to alleviate people’s fear of the consequences of losing coverage through work has been a stated goal of HCR, and because the bills make a (flawed, doubtless) attempt to address this issue, I thought it a fair claim (if perhaps overstated.) I see where he can be understood to infer that folks could keep their employment-based insurance, and your points are well-taken.

Ike,
Please!
Republicans retire to mansions.
Democrats BUILD houses after retirement like Jimmy Carter.

BTW. I think I saw GWB’s picture on a milk carton lately. Has anybody seen him?

I’d suggest to Joe Klein that he misspelled the name of the Secretary of HHS, but I’m pretty sure he never reads the comments here.

A Real Data Point:

According to the nonpartisan, non government, Joint Tax Committee: middle class Americans making less (LESS THAN!!) than $200,000 a year will have “large” tax increases to support HCR such as; including 42 million families mainly those owning small businesses, which will in turn pay for up to (read that carefully, “up to”) 13 million underclass individual Americans health care. Isn’t a family a minimum of two people? So 44 million people get to pay “large tax increases” to pay for “up to 13 million” other people? 13/44=.29545.

So at BEST 44 million people who are middle class get a serious tax burden to pay for 29.545% of that number of people to get some health care. Where does this stop?

Can you say “income redistribution”? Can you say “not worth the price”? “Less than $200,000″ includes a lot of people.

the nonpartisan, non government, Joint Tax Committee

Do you mean this, The Joint Committee on Taxation (link to The Joint Committee on Taxation)

The Joint Committee on Taxation is a nonpartisan committee of the United States Congress, originally established under the Revenue Act of 1926. The Joint Committee operates with an experienced professional staff of Ph.D economists, attorneys, and accountants, who assist Members of the majority and minority parties in both houses of Congress on tax legislation.
.
The Joint Committee is chaired on a rotating basis by the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. During the first Session of each Congress the House has the Chair and the Senate has the vice-chair; during the second session the roles are reversed.

, or do you mean some rightist carnie-barkers calling themselves “The Joint Tax Committee” who came up with a think-tank name that might persuade the gullible that they were listening to a real, non-partisan panel of experts, i.e. The Joint Committee on Taxation?

stuartzechman:

I believe it to be the first, but I honestly don’t know. Somehow I doubt that MSNBC would trust a “rightist carni-barkers” group, though I have to admit they weren’t mentioned by one of the opinion programs claiming to be news (looking at you Olberman and Maddow).

I caught that tidbit in the middle of the day during one of the short business segments. I will check to see if I DVR’d it so I can give you a program name and exact time.

They also apparently made the Varney & Company show as well (according to a friend of mine). So Fox Business News and MSNBC used the same stats apparently (how often does that happen?).

‘sasquatch08′ where is the URL?

Try selling your ‘snake oil’ to GOP House Leader Bohner. What do you think Liberals cannot read or cannot understand the stuff or what?

Try ‘su*king’ organs of your Rep. Paul Ryan even who cannot withstand the scrutiny with his own numbers in the end.

You GOP guys – you have done enough of misinformation all along. Elections are not far away, we will see how much of your wrong information Americans will accept in the end.

stuartzechman:

From what I can tell the show was MSNBC New Live around 2.30pm. I have no idea when Varney and Company is on on FBN because I don’t even get that channel. I did not DVR it as I rarely DVR the news.

From searching the net, I gather the refer to the http://www.jct.gov site. As for a think tank the only thing I can find is from The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities site who claim that a group called “The Joint Tax Committee” were slamming Bush tax cuts from 2001 to 2005, claiming they would cost more money than they saved. So I haven’t found a “right wing” group with the same name. If you have a link to them, please share it!

Ok, I went to my friends apartment across the hall, and it is the http://www.jct.gov report. I was probably wrong on the “non governmental” thing, maybe they did say that but more likely I misheard it or misremembered it. But it certainly was that group and not another.

Would you be so kind as to provide a link to a transcript in which these specific claims were made, so that we may evaluate them?
.
That’s a pretty important claim to substantiate, don’ you think?

stuartzechman:

I agree that it certainly is. Sorry the research took so long.

Being up due to my dogs continued sickness and being tired is better than cleaning partially dried dog vomit off the carpet, I shall provide what you seek right now. (Does anyone have any idea why a dog would puke at night like every 2-3 days? My vet is out of explanations and drugs. Suggestions anyone?) I admit I don’t totally understand it because it doesn’t have the references attached that I would like, but that’s government paperwork for you (see form Z-43543-D-25.52907 etc lol). It’s not so much a transcript as a large set of numbers in tabular format, I wish this sorta stuff was as simple as people saying what they mean.

http://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=3662

I tried to read parts of it, but I ended up taking MSNBC’s word for it because at 1AM it made my eyes want to bleed. I think that’s the right one, but if I am wrong please let me know. Also, if it doesn’t work let me know, it’s supposed to let you download the PDF format of the report from that page.

umeshgeeta:

I am rapidly losing patience with your type here.

“Try ‘su*king’ organs of your Rep. Paul Ryan even who cannot withstand the scrutiny with his own numbers in the end.

You GOP guys – you have done enough of misinformation all along. Elections are not far away, we will see how much of your wrong information Americans will accept in the end.”

As I have said many times, and everyone here with you being the exception apparently knows, I am NOT a Republican. I do not support either party based on ideology. But there are those here, like you, that couldn’t possibly understand that. I guess the idea of “free thinking” is over your head.

Further, I suggest that you stop “s*cking the organs” of the DNC (as you repugnantly claim I do of the GOP) and remove your head from your rectum.

You have interjected yourself into a civil conversation with a bunch of BS that means nothing; with no facts and no real argument, only unsubstantiated insults. I actually do believe that liberals LIKE YOU can’t understand stuff, because people like you pretty much prove that point with comments like the ones you’ve made here. You have no substance, only talking points, insults, lies and smears. Which is why I choose to talk to people with a brain like Mr. stuartzechman. While he and I may disagree we are civil about it. When he has a good idea and is attacked by a right winger on here, I actually defend him and anyone else for that matter.

When you’re ready to grow up and talk substance rather than throwing out nothing but insults and personal attacks, please get back to me (I won’t hold my breath).

Until then go back to watching Maddow, Olberman and Spongebob thinking they’re giving you “news without opinion”. While you’re at it, maybe get a learn something about government, world history, the Founders or the law.

While I may have disagreements with many people here at least they have a high school, basic college or better understanding of these things. No offense, but I try to avoid talking politics with grade/middle schoolers.

The information you desire but probably can’t understand was posted after your rant because it required something people of your ilk never preform called “research”.

Hey Joe,

He’s coming here to Australia to.

It may surprise you to learn we do have phones and the Internet out here in the colonies, not to mention unversal health cover. So maybe the press train might learn something relevant along the way (cos we all know they’re so good at learning)

This idea that the legislature can’t act if the President isn’t physically present to hold their hands strikes me as fairly adolescent.

When our PM has a tough domestic policy to push through he goes on a trip and let’s his deputy do it (she’s stronger on domestic policy anyway.)

“Did you read Joe’s post and follow the link to Sullivan’s where polling data is analysed? Support for HCR is growing”

.

“As President Obama and his congressional allies search for a way to pass their proposed health care plan, most voters remain opposed to the legislative effort.
.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 42% favor the plan while 53% are opposed. These figures include just 20% who Strongly Favor the plan and 41% who are Strongly Opposed.”

.
As I am not aware that Andrew Sullivan is in the business of “polling” anything but gay friends, it is hard for me to take anything he has to say with any credibility at all.
.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
.
All polls over the past month, including the most recent CNN poll have showed a growing disagreement with the Administration’s stand on healthcare reform. This is why you see the push going on right now by Obama to spin it otherwise.
.
They only thing which will pass this bill is if Nancy is successful in bribing her members for votes. Just like the Senate bill, you shall see “Cornhusker”-like deals all over the House of Representatives in order to get this bill passed. People vehemently rejected this style of politics once, what makes you think they will go for it a 2nd time?

Sasquatch,

You must be familiar with Keynesian Economics.
It has been the basis of all macro economics regarding fiscal policy since the late 1930s. Strangely enough, the New Deal preceded most of these theories and helped prove them true.

Yes, when it came to monetary policy Keynesians had their heads handed to them but that is another issue.

Should it be true that through reduced health care costs to the poor occur at the expense of the wealthy or the higher parts of middle income households (single people under 40 would need the least coverage and many – not all – studies refer to “households”) then this would stimulate the economy.

It works like this:
Ten thousand unemployed people get a government job (even, in theory – although not preferable in practice – something totally useless) and increase their income. Ten thousand hamburgers, ten thousand sodas and twenty thousand coffees get bought every day. This puts another one thousand people to work to serve this community.
On and on it goes until bringing money from outside of households or firms (from the government) increases the overall size of the pie.

So, if the pie gets 10% or 20% bigger at the cost of 4% to 5% of the people at the top of the food chain (or near the top) even those people win.

Health care is an atypical and complex example of wealth distribution, but, should any of those upper middle income people own a business, they will have healthier workers and benefit that way, too.

For democracy, the extremes of places like Saudi Arabia where there are two classes of have oil and have nothing is not a good system. The further away we get from this, the further we get to everybody standing on equal footing.

(As far as we have gone the past thirty years in income and wealth disparity, we are, far, far, far more equitable than Saudi Arabia and Nigeria are – those are just examples of the extreme opposite.)

To be clearer:
The money multiplier as it is called, from Keynesian economics is, on average, 250%.
That is, when the government inserts one dollar, the overall economy grows as money switches hands by $2.50.

However, this varies by income.
The Walton family (together significantly wealthier than Bill Gates) can safely be said to have all of the morning coffee they would like. The impact of giving them a tax break would be close to 0 in terms of the money multiplier.
Giving that same money to a Wal-Mart worker would be over 300% since they will spend nearly of that money on neglected needs or inexpensive minor luxuries.

So, it would take a PhD to figure out how much, if anything, these upper middle income households would loose or gain after the money multiplier effect has taken place.

Let’s be clear that we are not talking about Robin Hood or Communists here. We are talking about relatively small numbers in a country which places extremely high value on the opportunity to succeed.

Even if there is some net loss, don’t you think that a household making, say, $140,000 per year owning a business would mind that much if – to pick a random number – $500 per year of their income subsidizes the health care of the nine employees of their company?

Due to the fact that health care is an atypical service, doing the math would be unbelievably complex.

That is, in the last four years (without health coverage) I had one ear ache I ignored and, just the other day, a bad back ache I ignored. If I had infinite access to health care, I would have seen a doctor for those two times as well as four annual checkups. I would not, with my good health, ever go more than that for the obvious reason that I am not unwell.

So I gather the answer is, no, we didn’t look at the polling data collected at the link Joe provided, which clearly shows growing support for HCR over the last month. Rasmussen consistently leans to the right, but even when Rasmussen’s numbers are averaged in with the other major polls, the trend is clear. Take a look! Maybe you folks don’t speak for as many ‘Americans’ as you thought. (Yes, it’s possible!)

newfreedomblog (I am not going to call you that other name for civility if you at least respond reasonably),

You are aware that earnmarks, as they are now called can be traced back many generations in American politics.

I have heard of managing either house with representatives with their own agendas and their own egos (both parties equally) compared to herding cats.

Short of physically literally twisting arms, no body such as the house, the Senate or a democratically elected parliament can regularly get a majority without such things.

Together, I heard during the 2008 campaign, it is dramatically less than 5% of the budget which go to earmarks. Some earmarks are far more useful than others.

I, also, have reason to doubt the validity of some of your sources regarding public opinion polls.

sasquatch08:
.
First of all, thanks so much for getting back to me with an attempt to substantiate your claims with data, it is very much appreciated –especially given the unfortunate circumstances of your dog, for whom I have much sympathy (you too).
.
Unfortunately, there is absolutely nothing, and I mean nothing whatsoever in the document provided that could in any way be construed to support the claim:

middle class Americans making less…than $200,000 a year will have “large” tax increases to support HCR such as; including 42 million families mainly those owning small businesses, which will in turn pay for up to (read that carefully, “up to”) 13 million underclass individual Americans health care. Isn’t a family a minimum of two people? So 44 million people get to pay “large tax increases” to pay for “up to 13 million” other people? 13/44=.29545.
.
So at BEST 44 million people who are middle class get a serious tax burden to pay for 29.545% of that number of people to get some health care.

, because the data you provided is nothing to do with HCR legislation, it’s this report:

ESTIMATED REVENUE EFFECTS OF THE REVENUE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN
THE “AMERICAN WORKERS, STATE AND BUSINESS RELIEF ACT OF 2010,”

I went through the 8 pages of the report anyway, and the only thing that has anything to do with health care and taxes is the line in which the Committee states that they’re waiting for the CBO to give them numbers on the “Increase In Medicare Physician Payment Update”. Of course, even that last item has zero to do with HCR.
.
So, thanks for the effort, but I think it’s really important that you get your facts straight, and get some real sources for that claim. I’m perfectly willing to look at data in an objective manner, but this ain’t it.
.
In theory, this “large tax increases” on Americans earning “less than $200,000 a year” would be listed somewhere, and if I were you, I’d find it before I committed to a position based on faulty or false data.

Dear textee,

Whether he moves to Costa Rica or merely seeks health care there is immaterial given that Costa Rica has universal health care available to everyone in the world.

Either version of the statement is GOP (i.e. same as yours) hypocrisy at the finest.

Have a good day, though given how hard you’ve been railing on right-wing talking points for years, that’s probably an impossibility for you.

stuart

Eight pages you went through!
That’s longer than some of my entries!

You definitely do your homework.