Our 2 brilliant Senators

[Rideron]

When Harry Reid was handing out the candy to secure the 60 votes needed for last Saturdays vote; Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu saw the opportunity to squeeze a $300 million Federal guarantee pledge of Medicare reimbursement for her state, in exchange for her senate vote to bring the healthcare bill to the floor for debate.

Now, isn't it nice that our 2 Senators are good reliable little party animals that went right along with what Mr. Harry Reid wanted, without any muss or fuss or requiring anything special for Michigan in return??

I guess we're all so well off, Michigan really does not NEED any attention from Washington!

If guess if our own 2 senators think everything here is fine, why are we complaining????

I guess Michigan voters are so fucking stupid in who they send to Washington that we have no RIGHT to be complaining

[elganned]

I thought conservatives were against pork-barrel spending?
Yet you're pissed that we didn't get our fair turn at the trough...

[Rideron]

I'm against ships sinking, too.

But if the Titanic has already hit the iceberg, I'm looking for a lifeboat.

[elganned]

Hot news flash: The crew ain't worrying about you. Better get used to it.

[rb336]

so they should be wrong until they are bribed to do the right thing? how honorable

[elganned]

Typical conservative reaction: Whine about something that's being done and then whine because we're not the ones doing it.

[Mikeg]

Stabenow's top priority was "jobs" and then "protecting our families" and now with her new Senate Energy Committee assignment, it's fighting the alleged man-made climate crisis - presumably because she can feel the global warming. Unfortunately, her priorities seem to be out of sync with the needs of her constituents. In my opinion, her last significant accomplishment as a "public servant" was her role in bringing Proposal A to the voters of Michigan. On Capitol Hill, she has demonstrated that she is dangerously incompetent.

Levin is so enraptured with wielding his power on Capitol Hill and appearing on the Sunday talk shows that he has lost touch with the priorities of his constituency.

[TKshreve]

I thought conservatives were against pork-barrel spending?
Yet you're pissed that we didn't get our fair turn at the trough...

I try not to get involved with these polar arguments. They are basically a waste of time, but Rideron makes a good point and you should take a deeper look at this.

Nothing's changed. Pork is fair game and it's the way things work - Still. My understanding was it was going away, but that remains to be dealt with. So....... if our state is not going to play along, WTF [[and that's WHO The F*%&)
are we paying to look out for the best interets of the state?

>>>>> Or do you think the State doesn't need/deserve an extra 300 mil if offered? <<<<<<

[Retroit]

NO MORE earmarks!
NO MORE pork-barreling!
NO MORE socialistic programs!
NO MORE deficit spending!
NO MORE politics as usual!

Elect people who are going to be fiscally responsible. The federal government should only be involved in those things that the states are not able to take care of on their own. Any federal money spent on a state should be spent in proportion to the taxes collected by that state.

Wake up America! Wake up Congress! What kind of country are we leaving to future generations of Americans?

[rb336]

tell you what, retroit, I bet you can't go three days without using any of those "socialistic programs"

wanna go some where in your car? too bad [[btw, using privately funded roads would break the bank)

wanna watch TV? even Sat or Cable? too bad -- all those comsats were heavily subsidized

wanna go online? obviously -- totally created out of federal funds

wanna take a shower? unless you have a well and septic -- too bad

wanna take a dump? same as above, or you can dig a hole in the back yard

wanna think? well, obviously you don't, so that is moot

[Retroit]

Okay, rb336, in the Spirit of Bipartisanship, I will withdraw my

"NO MORE socialistic programs!"

if you promise to pay for my car, cable, internet, and water.

[elganned]

We already do, Retroit. We already do.

[Ray1936]

Since being on Social Security and Medicare from 2001 on, this conservative is starting to think that socialism may not be so bad after all.

[elganned]

Hear, hear! ^^

[Retroit]

We already do, Retroit. We already do.

Who's "we"? The Chinese? Our grand-children?

[ccbatson]

Regarding Medicare....a contract that MUST BE FULFILLED for all those having upheld their end. That said, there is nothing wrong [[and everything right) in phasing it out and privatizing it.

[rb336]

there is EVERYTHING wrong with phasing it out/privatizing it.

health insurance is another arena where a mostly privatized, unregulated market has resulted in consistently falling overall quality with skyrocketing costs. making the entire thing private would result in making both sides of that equation worse

[Retroit]

there is EVERYTHING wrong with phasing it out/privatizing it.

health insurance is another arena where a mostly privatized, unregulated market has resulted in consistently falling overall quality with skyrocketing costs. making the entire thing private would result in making both sides of that equation worse

One of the reasons that health care costs are skyrocketing is because the government currently pays for 60% of US health care costs [[http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...yKf_23L0w1UOIA) and there is no accountability on the part of the government to contain those costs.

Another problem is employer funded health care. This allows employees to receive health care without knowledge of how much their employers are actually spending on their health care. Therefore there is no pressure or incentive on their part to keep costs down.

The only way to keep health care costs down is by encouraging individuals to become more aware of how much health care is actually costing them. Look at how the cost of elective [[i.e. non-insured) procedures comes down over time. The less hidden the costs are, the more price conscious health care consumers will be. Yes, we will still have health insurance, but it should be purchased by individuals, not their employers. There should be higher deductibles and co-pays. People should be given tax breaks for health insurance costs so as to encourage those who do not have insurance to purchase it.

Of course, we would still offer public assistance to those who are truly in need, but why change the whole system for just a few [[relatively) people.

[elganned]

I find it interesting that the bulk of your post indicates that you are in favor privatizing our healthcare system altogether, yet the link you provide leads to a report which actually concludes in favor of a public single-payer health-care option.

Was that your intent?

[elganned]

One of the reasons that health care costs are skyrocketing is because the government currently pays for 60% of US health care costs ... and there is no accountability on the part of the government to contain those costs.

In a third-party-pays system such as we currently have [[health insurance), nobody has accountability or incentive to contain costs.

-The patient has no such incentive, because he/she doesn't pay directly.
-The provider has no such incentive, since increasing prices means increasing income.
-The insurance industry has no such incentive, since they can neutralize any price increases through higher premiums, higher co-pays, or curtailed coverage.

Nobody's minding the till.

Another problem is employer funded health care. This allows employees to receive health care without knowledge of how much their employers are actually spending on their health care. Therefore there is no pressure or incentive on their part to keep costs down.
The only way to keep health care costs down is by encouraging individuals to become more aware of how much health care is actually costing them.

Simply knowing how much someone else is spending on your behalf does not act as an incentive for you to seek cheaper alternatives. Why should I be concerned with how much my boss is paying if it doesn't impact me?

Look at how the cost of elective [[i.e. non-insured) procedures comes down over time. The less hidden the costs are, the more price conscious health care consumers will be.

The key element in this equation, however, is that elective surgery is discretionary; when you've suffered an accident or illness, you aren't really in a position to say, "Well, I'll put that off for the moment. Maybe I'll be able to afford stitches [[or antibiotics) next week." Apples and oranges, Retroit.

I have some thoughts on the whole let's-attack-cost-from-the-demand-side, but I want to develop them a little more before presenting them.

Good post, though. I'll get back to you.

[Retroit]

I find it interesting that the bulk of your post indicates that you are in favor privatizing our healthcare system altogether, yet the link you provide leads to a report which actually concludes in favor of a public single-payer health-care option.

Was that your intent?

I provided the link to substantiate the fact that the government pays for 60% of health care spending, not for any other "intention". If I used an article that supported my point of view, you probably would have claimed that that figure is not correct. Can't do that now, can you?

[Retroit]

In a third-party-pays system such as we currently have [[health insurance), nobody has accountability or incentive to contain costs.

I agree with you that the only way to truly bring prices down would be to make patients pay the entire cost out of pocket. Obviously, it can't be done due to catastrophic illnesses. But the more price conscious we can make the consumer the better.

-The patient has no such incentive, because he/she doesn't pay directly.

Not completely true. People still have co-pays and deductibles. They also may not have complete medical coverage [[dental, vision, prescriptions). And some pay for their own insurance. People without insurance who still pay for their own health care are the ones who are most price conscious.

-The provider has no such incentive, since increasing prices means increasing income.

And the reason they can do this is because they know that the someone other than the customer [[either insurance or the government) is going to pay.

-The insurance industry has no such incentive, since they can neutralize any price increases through higher premiums, higher co-pays, or curtailed coverage.

If they could lower their costs, I'm sure they would. They don't profit by having high health care costs. And you are right, the costs are ultimately passed on to the customer, so why not make the consumer more aware of the costs that they will ultimately end up paying.

People seem to think that as long as insurance is paying for it, or as long as the government is paying for it, that they [[the consumer) isn't paying for it. WRONG!

Nobody's minding the till.

And who will mind it if the government is running it? Who is minding the federal budget [[$12,000,000,000,000 debt and counting) now?

Simply knowing how much someone else is spending on your behalf does not act as an incentive for you to seek cheaper alternatives. Why should I be concerned with how much my boss is paying if it doesn't impact me?

Because it does impact you. If your employer wasn't spending so much on health insurance, they could pay you more. How much is your employer actually paying for your health insurance? I don't know.

The key element in this equation, however, is that elective surgery is discretionary; when you've suffered an accident or illness, you aren't really in a position to say, "Well, I'll put that off for the moment. Maybe I'll be able to afford stitches [[or antibiotics) next week." Apples and oranges, Retroit.

That is certainly true. But there are many costs we can control. Also, you can lower the cost of a procedures that are used for both emergencies and non-emergencies.

[ccbatson]

Health savings accounts plus high deductable/catastrophic insurance fixes the incentive issue in the private sector, at lower overall cost and better quality....IT IS AVAILABLE NOW...how do I know? Our company uses this method. Oh, btw, health care reform will outlaw it.

[Diehard]

Regarding Medicare....a contract that MUST BE FULFILLED for all those having upheld their end. That said, there is nothing wrong [[and everything right) in phasing it out and privatizing it.

Ah yes, remember the good ol' days of 2005 when your boy Bush wanted to put Social Security in the capable hands of Wall Street? Too bad that never happened.

[ccbatson]

Not Wall Street, in the hands of the rightful owners....they could just as easily put the money in gold, or CDs, or WHATEVER THEY LIKE TO DO WITH THEIR EARNED MONEY.