<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Serially Principled Opposition To Healthcare Reform</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.1115.org/2009/11/23/serially-principled-opposition-to-healthcare-reform/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.1115.org/2009/11/23/serially-principled-opposition-to-healthcare-reform/</link>
	<description>west coast cap peelers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:18:37 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: sarabeth</title>
		<link>http://www.1115.org/2009/11/23/serially-principled-opposition-to-healthcare-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-170494</link>
		<dc:creator>sarabeth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 23:19:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.1115.org/?p=11282#comment-170494</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s an asinine comment.  

a) what does it have to do with the specific content of the post?
b) who is the &quot;little capitalist idealist&quot; it&#039;s addressed to, anyway?
c) your argument that they have a monopoly &lt;i&gt;because&lt;/i&gt; they write the policy you buy whose price is then set by the same insurance company makes no sense (every company sets prices for its goods or services; all price-setting is not illegal; only collusive price-fixing is)
d Maybe you haven&#039;t heard but the competition myth was loudly exploded back in June, when Health Care for America Now (HCAN) &lt;a href=&quot;http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/healthcare_market_characterized_by_consolidation_n.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;released this report&lt;/a&gt;:
&lt;blockquote&gt;The report, released by Health Care for America Now (HCAN), uses data compiled by the American Medical Association to show that 94 percent of the country&#039;s insurance markets are defined as &quot;highly concentrated,&quot; according to Justice Department guidelines. Predictably, that&#039;s led to skyrocketing costs for patients, and monster profits for the big health insurers. Premiums have gone up over the past six years by more than 87 percent, on average, while profits at ten of the largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007.

Far from healthy market competition, HCAN describes the situation as &quot;a market failure where a small number of large companies use their concentrated power to control premium levels, benefit packages, and provider payments in the markets they dominate.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s an asinine comment.  </p>
<p>a) what does it have to do with the specific content of the post?<br />
b) who is the &#8220;little capitalist idealist&#8221; it&#8217;s addressed to, anyway?<br />
c) your argument that they have a monopoly <i>because</i> they write the policy you buy whose price is then set by the same insurance company makes no sense (every company sets prices for its goods or services; all price-setting is not illegal; only collusive price-fixing is)<br />
d Maybe you haven&#8217;t heard but the competition myth was loudly exploded back in June, when Health Care for America Now (HCAN) <a href="http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/healthcare_market_characterized_by_consolidation_n.php" rel="nofollow">released this report</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>The report, released by Health Care for America Now (HCAN), uses data compiled by the American Medical Association to show that 94 percent of the country&#8217;s insurance markets are defined as &#8220;highly concentrated,&#8221; according to Justice Department guidelines. Predictably, that&#8217;s led to skyrocketing costs for patients, and monster profits for the big health insurers. Premiums have gone up over the past six years by more than 87 percent, on average, while profits at ten of the largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007.</p>
<p>Far from healthy market competition, HCAN describes the situation as &#8220;a market failure where a small number of large companies use their concentrated power to control premium levels, benefit packages, and provider payments in the markets they dominate.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: paul hanseen</title>
		<link>http://www.1115.org/2009/11/23/serially-principled-opposition-to-healthcare-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-170488</link>
		<dc:creator>paul hanseen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:14:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.1115.org/?p=11282#comment-170488</guid>
		<description>There is great deal of miss-information purporting that there are a large number of insurance companies, who, if existed, would compete. In fact, there are only about four companies and they do not compete, they have a legal monopoly, they all practice price setting; they set the price of a policy you buy. Once again there are only 4 companies that write, underwrite, and then buy the insurance plans, hire the commisioned agents, that sell the policy, that you buy!.

 

I do not understand why the competition myth has not been exploded, it is, as if, everyone still believes in Santa and telling someone the truth is anomalous with disappointing a three year old with the news, &quot;Santa does not exist&quot;.

 

Then let me say it this way, Santa does not exist, nor does health insurance competition exist, nor can it. It is impossible to for them to compete, they have a monopoly, they write the policy you buy whose price is then set by the same insurance company. 

 

It’s okay, don’t cry, my little capitalist idealist.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is great deal of miss-information purporting that there are a large number of insurance companies, who, if existed, would compete. In fact, there are only about four companies and they do not compete, they have a legal monopoly, they all practice price setting; they set the price of a policy you buy. Once again there are only 4 companies that write, underwrite, and then buy the insurance plans, hire the commisioned agents, that sell the policy, that you buy!.</p>
<p>I do not understand why the competition myth has not been exploded, it is, as if, everyone still believes in Santa and telling someone the truth is anomalous with disappointing a three year old with the news, &#8220;Santa does not exist&#8221;.</p>
<p>Then let me say it this way, Santa does not exist, nor does health insurance competition exist, nor can it. It is impossible to for them to compete, they have a monopoly, they write the policy you buy whose price is then set by the same insurance company. </p>
<p>It’s okay, don’t cry, my little capitalist idealist.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: paul hanseen</title>
		<link>http://www.1115.org/2009/11/23/serially-principled-opposition-to-healthcare-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-170487</link>
		<dc:creator>paul hanseen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:12:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.1115.org/?p=11282#comment-170487</guid>
		<description>There is great deal of miss-information purporting that there are a large number of insurance companies, who, if existed, would compete. In fact, there are only about four companies and they do not compete, they have a legal monopoly, they all practice price setting; they set the price of a policy you buy. Once again there are only 4 companies that write, underwrite, and then buy the insurance plans, hire the commisioned agents, that sell the policy, that you buy!.

 

I do not understand why the competition myth has not been exploded, it is, as if, everyone still believes in Santa and telling someone the truth is anomalous with disappointing a three year old with the news, &quot;Santa does not exist&quot;.

 

Then let me say it this way, Santa does not exist, nor does health insurance competition exist, nor can it. It is impossible to for them to compete, they have a monopoly, they write the policy you buy whose price is then set by the same insurance company. 

 

It’s okay, don’t cry, my little capitalist idealist.

Paul Hanseen</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is great deal of miss-information purporting that there are a large number of insurance companies, who, if existed, would compete. In fact, there are only about four companies and they do not compete, they have a legal monopoly, they all practice price setting; they set the price of a policy you buy. Once again there are only 4 companies that write, underwrite, and then buy the insurance plans, hire the commisioned agents, that sell the policy, that you buy!.</p>
<p>I do not understand why the competition myth has not been exploded, it is, as if, everyone still believes in Santa and telling someone the truth is anomalous with disappointing a three year old with the news, &#8220;Santa does not exist&#8221;.</p>
<p>Then let me say it this way, Santa does not exist, nor does health insurance competition exist, nor can it. It is impossible to for them to compete, they have a monopoly, they write the policy you buy whose price is then set by the same insurance company. </p>
<p>It’s okay, don’t cry, my little capitalist idealist.</p>
<p>Paul Hanseen</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sarabeth</title>
		<link>http://www.1115.org/2009/11/23/serially-principled-opposition-to-healthcare-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-167806</link>
		<dc:creator>sarabeth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:37:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.1115.org/?p=11282#comment-167806</guid>
		<description>Yes, in fact, there is a coherent argument against &lt;strong&gt;every&lt;/strong&gt; transient rationale Joe Lieberman has hidden behind.  (But only for those who are willing to let facts get in the way of their beliefs.)

Just click on the second link in the post, and follow the links from there.

Your &quot;easy proofs&quot; are facile and/or misinformed.  There&#039;s also &quot;deliberately dishonest&quot; as a possibility. You&#039;re making tired Republican &quot;arguments&quot; that have been repeatedly debunked.  

Just for example:
1) There may be hundreds of insurance companies, but in most markets 90% of the market is controlled by 1 or 2 companies.  Nor even the Republicans -- who have proved willing to lend their name to a hell of a lot of lies in opposing healthcare reform -- are willing to call that competition.
3) The CBO scored both the first decade and the second decade.  How convenient to pretend their analysis doesn&#039;t go beyond the first 10 years.
4) Depends on the definition of &quot;learn&quot;, doesn&#039;t it?  As even some in the &quot;fair and balanced&quot; mainstream media have felt compelled to point out, one side has only been peddling lies and spreading misinformation.  And the public &lt;strong&gt;&lt;i&gt;still&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/strong&gt; strongly supports a public option.  This is a &lt;em&gt;Washington Post-ABC News&lt;/em&gt; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;poll from mid-October&lt;/a&gt;:
&lt;blockquote&gt;On the issue that has been perhaps the most pronounced flash point in the national debate, 57 percent of all Americans now favor a public insurance option, while 40 percent oppose it. Support has risen since mid-August, when a bare majority, 52 percent, said they favored it. (In a June Post-ABC poll, support was 62 percent.)&lt;/blockquote&gt;

5) You don&#039;t seem to understand the difference between the public option and subsidies to low-income Americans.  (No doubt you are also vehemently opposed to other grand entitlement programs like Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.)
6) And we should never ever do anything for the first time, right?  (That&#039;s ignoring the fact that the government is already in the heath insurance business, via Medicaid, Medicare, and the VA system, not to mention the Cadillac plans provided to members of Congress.)

&lt;blockquote&gt;None of the bills will reduce health care costs. &lt;/blockquote&gt;

No doubt you have conducted your own authoritative analysis of the issue, which is more reliable than that of the CBO?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, in fact, there is a coherent argument against <strong>every</strong> transient rationale Joe Lieberman has hidden behind.  (But only for those who are willing to let facts get in the way of their beliefs.)</p>
<p>Just click on the second link in the post, and follow the links from there.</p>
<p>Your &#8220;easy proofs&#8221; are facile and/or misinformed.  There&#8217;s also &#8220;deliberately dishonest&#8221; as a possibility. You&#8217;re making tired Republican &#8220;arguments&#8221; that have been repeatedly debunked.  </p>
<p>Just for example:<br />
1) There may be hundreds of insurance companies, but in most markets 90% of the market is controlled by 1 or 2 companies.  Nor even the Republicans &#8212; who have proved willing to lend their name to a hell of a lot of lies in opposing healthcare reform &#8212; are willing to call that competition.<br />
3) The CBO scored both the first decade and the second decade.  How convenient to pretend their analysis doesn&#8217;t go beyond the first 10 years.<br />
4) Depends on the definition of &#8220;learn&#8221;, doesn&#8217;t it?  As even some in the &#8220;fair and balanced&#8221; mainstream media have felt compelled to point out, one side has only been peddling lies and spreading misinformation.  And the public <strong><i>still</i></strong> strongly supports a public option.  This is a <em>Washington Post-ABC News</em> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html" rel="nofollow">poll from mid-October</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>On the issue that has been perhaps the most pronounced flash point in the national debate, 57 percent of all Americans now favor a public insurance option, while 40 percent oppose it. Support has risen since mid-August, when a bare majority, 52 percent, said they favored it. (In a June Post-ABC poll, support was 62 percent.)</p></blockquote>
<p>5) You don&#8217;t seem to understand the difference between the public option and subsidies to low-income Americans.  (No doubt you are also vehemently opposed to other grand entitlement programs like Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.)<br />
6) And we should never ever do anything for the first time, right?  (That&#8217;s ignoring the fact that the government is already in the heath insurance business, via Medicaid, Medicare, and the VA system, not to mention the Cadillac plans provided to members of Congress.)</p>
<blockquote><p>None of the bills will reduce health care costs. </p></blockquote>
<p>No doubt you have conducted your own authoritative analysis of the issue, which is more reliable than that of the CBO?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Holmes</title>
		<link>http://www.1115.org/2009/11/23/serially-principled-opposition-to-healthcare-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-167780</link>
		<dc:creator>David Holmes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:41:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.1115.org/?p=11282#comment-167780</guid>
		<description>Is there a coherent argument against any of the 6 reasons listed above of why Joe is against a public option? Every one listed can easily be proven.
1) Plenty of competition, especially if insurance companies are permitted to cross state lines. How many hundreds of insurance companies are in the US?
2) The public will end up paying for it. Where do you think the government will get the money? Oh, liberals don&#039;t see the &quot;rich&quot; and middle class paying higher taxes as &quot;the public&quot; paying for it.
3) Waiting until out of recession is smart. The author stated the public option wouldn&#039;t kick in for quite awhile. True. Sometime in 2014. However, the Senate version so far has the tax increases to pay for the bill beginning Jan 1, 2010. That&#039;s 36 days from now. We&#039;ll get to pay for it for 4 years before seeing any benefit. That&#039;s why the CBO&#039;s 10 year projection is bogus. Pay for 10 years, receive 6 years of benefits. True analysis would compute 2014-2024, but liberals don&#039;t want to do that because it shows a $2 trillion+ cost.
4) The public doesn&#039;t support it. Reputable polls show that easily. The more Americans learn about it, the more they oppose it. If you think different, post a reputable poll.
5) The public option is a grand entitlement program (people will be given something from the government without having earned it. The money to do this will come from productive people&#039;s labors). With major additions to the deficit (see #3 above).
6) Name a business the government entered in to because competition failed. 

The health care bills are nothing more than a means of redistributing wealth. Part of the progressive&#039;s agenda to achieve &quot;social equality&quot;. None of the bills will reduce health care costs. None address portability, tort reform (with resultant defensive medicine),  or competition across state lines.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is there a coherent argument against any of the 6 reasons listed above of why Joe is against a public option? Every one listed can easily be proven.<br />
1) Plenty of competition, especially if insurance companies are permitted to cross state lines. How many hundreds of insurance companies are in the US?<br />
2) The public will end up paying for it. Where do you think the government will get the money? Oh, liberals don&#8217;t see the &#8220;rich&#8221; and middle class paying higher taxes as &#8220;the public&#8221; paying for it.<br />
3) Waiting until out of recession is smart. The author stated the public option wouldn&#8217;t kick in for quite awhile. True. Sometime in 2014. However, the Senate version so far has the tax increases to pay for the bill beginning Jan 1, 2010. That&#8217;s 36 days from now. We&#8217;ll get to pay for it for 4 years before seeing any benefit. That&#8217;s why the CBO&#8217;s 10 year projection is bogus. Pay for 10 years, receive 6 years of benefits. True analysis would compute 2014-2024, but liberals don&#8217;t want to do that because it shows a $2 trillion+ cost.<br />
4) The public doesn&#8217;t support it. Reputable polls show that easily. The more Americans learn about it, the more they oppose it. If you think different, post a reputable poll.<br />
5) The public option is a grand entitlement program (people will be given something from the government without having earned it. The money to do this will come from productive people&#8217;s labors). With major additions to the deficit (see #3 above).<br />
6) Name a business the government entered in to because competition failed. </p>
<p>The health care bills are nothing more than a means of redistributing wealth. Part of the progressive&#8217;s agenda to achieve &#8220;social equality&#8221;. None of the bills will reduce health care costs. None address portability, tort reform (with resultant defensive medicine),  or competition across state lines.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sarabeth</title>
		<link>http://www.1115.org/2009/11/23/serially-principled-opposition-to-healthcare-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-167562</link>
		<dc:creator>sarabeth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:50:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.1115.org/?p=11282#comment-167562</guid>
		<description>Which is why nobody we know -- or are willing to admit to knowing -- argues that he&#039;s standing on principle.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Which is why nobody we know &#8212; or are willing to admit to knowing &#8212; argues that he&#8217;s standing on principle.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephanie Hunter</title>
		<link>http://www.1115.org/2009/11/23/serially-principled-opposition-to-healthcare-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-167560</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephanie Hunter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:41:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.1115.org/?p=11282#comment-167560</guid>
		<description>Not to mention the fact that Lieberman supported the public option a few years ago.  The claim that Joe is standing on principles simply isn&#039;t defendable in light of facts like these.  He continues to play politics like the rest of them!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not to mention the fact that Lieberman supported the public option a few years ago.  The claim that Joe is standing on principles simply isn&#8217;t defendable in light of facts like these.  He continues to play politics like the rest of them!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.1115.org/2009/11/23/serially-principled-opposition-to-healthcare-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-167290</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:17:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.1115.org/?p=11282#comment-167290</guid>
		<description>Who says you can&#039;t teach an old dog new tricks. I believe the Senator is practicing that wonderful dodge of the last administration. IF THE FIRST LIE DOESN&#039;T FLY TRY ANOTHER.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Who says you can&#8217;t teach an old dog new tricks. I believe the Senator is practicing that wonderful dodge of the last administration. IF THE FIRST LIE DOESN&#8217;T FLY TRY ANOTHER.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
