U.S. 2012 Election

[cupper]

Even Rupert Murdoch is critical about Romney;s campaign and choice of advisors.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/07/rupert-murdoch-mitt-romney-twitter-tom-cruise-/1#.T_JTqfX0_xh

 

[a_majoor]

Interview on YouTube:

WSJ Chief Economist: 75% of Obamacare Costs Will Fall on Backs of Those Making $120K or Less

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ixRRuzmxzTg

Smart people would run with that in an election year.....

 

[exabedtech]

Every argument to support the democrats in here in based on how evil Romney is.
Every argument to support the republicans in here is based on how horrible a job Obama has done.

This is what US politics is reduced to.  God help us all.

 

[PuckChaser]

Every argument to support the democrats in here in based on how evil Romney is.
Every argument to support the republicans in here is based on how horrible a job Obama has done.

And which of those isn't just fear mongering? The Dems are screwed if their whole strategy is "The right is evil!!!".

 

[Brad Sallows]

"Every argument to support the liberals in here in based on how evil Harper is.
Every argument to support the conservatives in here is based on how horrible a job Martin has done."

I don't think our emperor's clothes are much better.

 

[captloadie]

Interview on YouTube:

WSJ Chief Economist: 75% of Obamacare Costs Will Fall on Backs of Those Making $120K or Less

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ixRRuzmxzTg

Smart people would run with that in an election year.....

Although, would it not be fair to say that 75% of the American population makes less than $120K per year, and also requires at least 75% of the medical care?
In that case, it is hard to say that it is taxing the rich, or that the it isn't a user pay system.

 

[Redeye]

Although, would it not be fair to say that 75% of the American population makes less than $120K per year, and also requires at least 75% of the medical care?
In that case, it is hard to say that it is taxing the rich, or that the it isn't a user pay system.

That's the whole thing with headlines. When you give them a few seconds of critical thought you realize that what the're saying isn't as "shocking" as they'd like you to think.

 

[Sythen]

That's the whole thing with headlines. When you give them a few seconds of critical thought you realize that what the're saying isn't as "shocking" as they'd like you to think.

Wonder how many of those 75% are actually paying taxes? In reality the cost will fall on the already badly hit middle class, who would have already (usually) had health insurance. Now they will be paying a lot more for much less coverage.

That's the whole thing about critical thought.. It usually trumps bias.

 

[Redeye]

Wonder how many of those 75% are actually paying taxes? In reality the cost will fall on the already badly hit middle class, who would have already (usually) had health insurance. Now they will be paying a lot more for much less coverage.

That's the whole thing about critical thought.. It usually trumps bias.

Paying more for a lot less coverage? In what way will they be paying for a lot less coverage?! They'll have the same coverage, and there's actually, once it all takes effect, a chance (albeit small, since that's not usually how things work) they'll be paying less, because of some provisions. Like forcing insurance companies to spend money on care, with regulators being strict about that (see the recent article from Forbes). Never mind all the other provisions which will benefit those middle class folks. Making sure more people have access to regular care should cut use of the single most expensive form of care, ER visits, because people who've in the past waited too long should be able to access other forms of care for earlier intervention. That's the whole thing of this debate, it's being argued based on distortions and outright lies, and that is the real problem with the US political system.

 

[Rifleman62]

Possibly a hot topic in the US. The Obama administration support this.

I think the Obama and the Democrats' aim is US gun control. Fast and Furious appears to be an attempt to implicate the gun lobby/owners/manufactures/etc.

If this comes about, Obama will back door it through regulations. The Obama led USA and like countries will comply but Russia/China will not. The NDP will bray for Canada to join in. Same old, same old problem of the UN.


http://www.examiner.com/article/un-reps-register-for-firearms-conference

Michael McGuire - July 1, 2012
 
UN reps register for firearms conference

Representatives for the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty arrived in New York Sunday.

The conference is set for July 2-27.

The UN has operated a Register of Conventional Arms since 1991. In advance of the meeting, the UN announced the types of arms registered is being expanded.

"The Register covers seven categories of arms, which are deemed the most lethal ones," according to the UN. "Recently, countries decided that small arms could be added to the Register. Many countries now include small arms in their yearly reports."

"Insurgents, armed gang members, pirates, terrorists - they can all multiply their force through the use of unlawfully acquired firepower," the UN said. "The illicit circulation of small arms, light weapons and their ammunition destabilizes communities, and impacts security and development in all regions of the world."
Advertisement

While the UN insists it is not trying to outlaw firearms, the Arms Trade Treaty conference is under the auspices of the United Nations Office of Disarmament Affairs.

"Small arms facilitate a vast spectrum of human rights violations, including killing, maiming, rape and other forms of sexual violence, enforced disappearance, torture, and forced recruitment of children by armed groupsm," the UN said. "More human rights abuses are committed with small arms than with any other weapon. Furthermore, where the use of armed violence becomes a means for resolving grievances and conflicts, legal and peaceful dispute resolution suffers and the rule of law cannot be upheld."

The National Rifle Association issued a report in July 2011 challenging the treaty.

"We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community," the NRA said.

To follow developments at the conference from the UN's point of view, follow its Twitter account.

 

[a_majoor]

Paying more for less coverage is a certainty for most people, as small and medium sized business dump their employee health care plans. This is one of the consequences of how Obamacare is written; most companies will find it much cheaper to pay the fine/penalty/tax (depending on how politicians choose to word it) than to take on the additional expenses of maintaining current plans or insuring new employees.

Large corporations may or may not choose to dump their employee benefits as well; this WSJ article from March 2010 explains how Obamacare caused large corporations to restate their earnings; adding millions in liabilities:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312504575141642402986422.html

ObamaCare Day One
Companies are already warning about higher health-care costs.

smaller Larger Democrats dragged themselves over the health-care finish line in part by repeating that voters would like the plan once it passed. Let's see what they think when they learn their insurance costs will jump right away.

Even before President Obama signed the bill on Tuesday, Caterpillar said it would cost the company at least $100 million more in the first year alone. Medical device maker Medtronic warned that new taxes on its products could force it to lay off a thousand workers. Now Verizon joins the roll of businesses staring at adverse consequences.

In an email titled "President Obama Signs Health Care Legislation" sent to all employees Tuesday night, the telecom giant warned that "we expect that Verizon's costs will increase in the short term." While executive vice president for human resources Marc Reed wrote that "it is difficult at this point to gauge the precise impact of this legislation," and that ObamaCare does reflect some of the company's policy priorities, the message to workers was clear: Expect changes for the worse to your health benefits as the direct result of this bill, and maybe as soon as this year.

Mr. Reed specifically cited a change in the tax treatment of retiree health benefits. When Congress created the Medicare prescription drug benefit in 2003, it included a modest tax subsidy to encourage employers to keep drug plans for retirees, rather than dumping them on the government. The Employee Benefit Research Institute says this exclusion—equal to 28% of the cost of a drug plan—will run taxpayers $665 per person next year, while the same Medicare coverage would cost $1,209.

In a $5.4 billion revenue grab, Democrats decided that this $665 fillip should be subject to the ordinary corporate income tax of 35%. Most consulting firms and independent analysts say the higher costs will induce some companies to drop drug coverage, which could affect about five million retirees and 3,500 businesses. Verizon and other large corporations warned about this outcome.

U.S. accounting laws also require businesses to immediately restate their earnings in light of the higher tax burden on their long-term retiree health liabilities. This will have a big effect on their 2010 earnings.

While the drug tax subsidy is for retirees, companies consider their benefit costs as a total package. The new bill might cause some to drop retiree coverage altogether. Others may be bound by labor contracts to retirees, but then they will find other ways to cut costs. This means raising costs or reducing coverage for other employees. So much for Mr. Obama's claim that if you like your coverage, you can keep it—even at Fortune 500 companies.

In its employee note, Verizon also warned about the 40% tax on high-end health plans, though that won't take effect until 2018. "Many of the plans that Verizon offers to employees and retirees are projected to have costs above the threshold in the legislation and will be subject to the 40 percent excise tax." These costs will start to show up soon, and, as we repeatedly argued, the tax is unlikely to drive down costs. The tax burden will simply be spread to all workers—the result of the White House's too-clever decision to tax insurers, rather than individuals.

A Verizon spokesman said the company is merely addressing employee questions about ObamaCare, not making a political statement. But these and many other changes were enabled by the support of the Business Roundtable that counts Verizon as a member. Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg's health-reform ideas are 180 degrees from Mr. Obama's, but Verizon's shareholders and 900,000 employees and retirees will still pay the price.

Businesses around the country are making the same calculations as Verizon and no doubt sending out similar messages. It's only a small measure of the destruction that will be churned out by the rewrite of health, tax, labor and welfare laws that is ObamaCare, and only the vanguard of much worse to come.

Taxing insurers simply means that extra cost will be passed on to consumers as well. So yes, people will lose their existing benefits and will have to pay more, possibly much more for much less (since there will have to be rationing to contain the costs, as we all should know from our experience here in Canada).

 

[Redeye]

Taxing insurers simply means that extra cost will be passed on to consumers as well. So yes, people will lose their existing benefits and will have to pay more, possibly much more for much less (since there will have to be rationing to contain the costs, as we all should know from our experience here in Canada).

Economics 101: Rationing exists already. It does in any market for a scarce resource. It's common to suggest that it'll somehow be new. You can find plenty of stories from the States of people who've been the victims of insurers rationing life-saving care when it will take away from their sole (and entirely rational) objective of maximizing profit.

 

[a_majoor]

So just one post upthread you were telling us that Obamacare would not increase costs and cause people to lose their coverage, now you are doing a 180o and agreeing that healthcare will be rationed? (That is to say, rationed more severely than now).

 

[cupper]

So just one post upthread you were telling us that Obamacare would not increase costs and cause people to lose their coverage, now you are doing a 180o and agreeing that healthcare will be rationed? (That is to say, rationed more severely than now).

There is a difference between rationing and eliminating coverage / raising premiums / increasing costs.

And lets agree that costs and premiums are two different things.

 

[Redeye]

So just one post upthread you were telling us that Obamacare would not increase costs and cause people to lose their coverage, now you are doing a 180o and agreeing that healthcare will be rationed? (That is to say, rationed more severely than now).

Funny enough, I didn't say any of that. At all. It will make sure coverage is universal, and should bring costs down in the long run. I said rationing exists no matter what the structure when scarce resources are involved. I made no statement beyond that.

 

[cupper]

Also, rationing is more likely to exist in the current system, as the insurance companies are quick to have a non medically trained paper pusher make an assessment based on a written protocol rather than any evidence provided by the patient's doctor. Or they will use an outside company to make an assessment using a professional who is being paid by the company, so is beholden to the insurance company and not the patient.

I've had both situations occur over simple prescriptions, physiotherapy for lower back pain, and other issues.

So if anyone makes the argument that this is a government takeover of health care and they don't want anyone coming between them and their doctor hasn't got a clue as to what is going on with the private insurance industry, and needs to rethink their comment.

It's the multiple levels of administrative processing that creates the greatest part of the huge money sucking machine that everyone is bitching about.

Unfortunately the Dems didn't have the balls to go universal single payer health care, and the GOP weren't in a mood to look at the reality of what they were doing when they decided to take an obstructionist tact. So what we got was the best that they could come up with. And as with any go big or go home institutional change it is going to take several years for the real results to roll in. So all these doom and gloom scenarios, along with the a roses and sunshine projections are simply political BS.

I'm looking at this as a first step to addressing the problems with the whole US health cares system. It's a framework to build on and simply that. There were big problems with how the private insurance industry managed care for their customers. The uninsured act as a drain on the system for those that are insured (the free rider problem). Young people going without until they really needed it. All of thise issues are addressed under the ACA.

Is it perfect, no. Are there ways it can be improved, yes. Will we be better off than what the current system provides. Certainly. BUt it's going to take 18 more months for the full act to take effect, and at least a couple of years beyond to get enough feed back to determine what works and what needs improvement.

Oh, and Mitt seems to have had a change of heart again, and now sees that this is a tax, not a penalty.  :

 

[a_majoor]

Obviously you have not looked at the actuality of people losing their work coverage and being forced into much lesser coverage in the "pools", which is the effect of Obamacare. The escalation in costs to individuals has also been well documented, so if you still wish to constest the point then you are not arguing based on the evidence.

As for "having the balls" to go to a single payer system, all you need to do is look at our system, or the UK's NHS and you will realize that any politician who tried to impliment an even more dysfunctional system than they currently have would be strung up from lamp posts. If anything, Canadians would benefit from leaving a single payer system...

 

[dogger1936]

I've been awaiting surgery on my leg since tour in 08. I would gladly pay someone right now to just fix it so I could lead a more productive life. Unfortunately I am stocked on a list with every person in the province requiring orthopedic surgery. I've been told another year at least to even see a orthopedic surgeon for a consult. Then I get placed on another list for surgery.

4 years waiting for surgery so I can walk normally again thus far. I figure it will be 6 long years before I actually get fixed.

Pro patria I guess.

 

[Edward Campbell]

We need, in my opinion:

1. A highly rationed, single payer system that protects everyone from the costs of catastrophic illness;

2. A competitive (maybe even including a public competitor) health care insurance market that caters to both groups (most commonly employees) and individuals; and

3. Something akin to the US Medicare system for those retirees who have paid into a programme ~ it should be commonly "topped up" with private insurance.

People should not be forced to buy insurance, but nor should doctors and hospitals be required to provide other than real emergency care.

 

[cupper]

Obviously you have not looked at the actuality of people losing their work coverage and being forced into much lesser coverage in the "pools", which is the effect of Obamacare.

Explain to me how one looks at evidence which has yet to occur? The pools have not been set up yet, and the mandate does not come into effect until 2014. Call me in 24 months, then I will give you what I have seen as evidence at that time. Until then, stop trying to say that people are or will lose coverage through their employer. No one has any idea what will happen this far out.

The escalation in costs to individuals has also been well documented, so if you still wish to constest the point then you are not arguing based on the evidence.

Costs to individuals for insurance are indeed going up. This is one failing under the ACA that didn't put the caps into effect until 2014. So the insurance companies jacked rates up to put them in a better position when the caps and limits come into force. As for cost for care, the evidence is mixed at best that costs are continuing to rise, or at least rise at slower rates than before the act was passed.

Like I said, be clear about what you mean by costs.

And by bringing more uninsured into the pool (the free riders) the lower the costs that have to be passed on to those who are insured to make up for services provided to uninsured that go unreimbursed.

As for "having the balls" to go to a single payer system, all you need to do is look at our system, or the UK's NHS and you will realize that any politician who tried to impliment an even more dysfunctional system than they currently have would be strung up from lamp posts. If anything, Canadians would benefit from leaving a single payer system...

As long as you are willing to shell out upwards of $2000 per month for the privilege to have access services the health care industry provides, then pay a user fee or percentage of the cost for said services, all the power to you. Just remember that a serious / catastrophic illness or injury could leave you in dire financial circumstances. And that assumes you have insurance through an employer. Premiums are higher and coverage less if you go on your own, or lose coverage when you lose you job.

We need, in my opinion:

1. A highly rationed, single payer system that protects everyone from the costs of catastrophic illness;

2. A competitive (maybe even including a public competitor) health care insurance market that caters to both groups (most commonly employees) and individuals; and

3. Something akin to the US Medicare system for those retirees who have paid into a programme ~ it should be commonly "topped up" with private insurance.

People should not be forced to buy insurance, but nor should doctors and hospitals be required to provide other than real emergency care.

Aren't 1 & 2 mutually exclusive?