Competition and Choice? Not in the Montana Insurance Market

I'll add a third option .. (0.00 / 0)

A Swiss-style combination of heavily regulated private insurance along with a public program.

As long as we're not getting any of this stuff, we might as well have a academic debate about it.  

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Thu May 28, 2009 at 16:42:38 PM CDT

True story. (0.00 / 0)

I remember the little chat I had with baucus just prior to the invasion of Iraq.  I explained that it was going to be a disaster, and that we should stay the hell out.  While Mini didn't disagree, he said that a war was what people wanted so he must support it.  That's our Mini, always thinking about what the people want.  Fast foward to the health care  debate.  At LEAST sixty-five percent of the American people want single payer.  Hmm.  Where's Mini's conern for majorities now?  Up his ass I'd say, along with his head!  Which IS it, Mini?  Do you listen to the people  or  don't you?  I think we know.

---

by: Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers! @ Thu May 28, 2009 at 16:57:57 PM CDT

Ha, Max wrote me and said his vote for the IWR wasn't for war 'cause it required another UN vote. (0.00 / 0)

So it was just to get Saddam to quit making nukes and to give back all that yellow cake to Valerie Plame, or something.

i notice he never raised a stink that there wasn't another UN vote, and George went to war on Max's vote, so what's with that? As the Beatles said;

"Lies, Lies, I can't believe a word you say!"

---

by: Steve W. @ Thu May 28, 2009 at 17:35:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Author doesn't get it (0.00 / 0)

 Every indicator across the board bears witness to the brutal, virulent Insurance industry from Care to Cost, there is NOT one Single redeeming value in the Corporate Health Care FREE Market for anyone on any level.
So why does the writer insist in being WRONG on Health Care? i suggest that possibly he is a Stockholder in the Health Care industry? or is a 'Clinton/Baucus Triangulator' always squirming on the fence of 'what if'!!!

  Or possibly the Writer doesn't understand that WE HAVE PUBLIC OPTION NOW !!! we don't need to wait and let the gd insurance industry let us know when we can have a turn. That's not how it works...WE have Public Option now and it's Called Single Payer. Now how hard is that to comprehend. There's is plenty of work to be done on making HR 676 better than all the rest.

  Why does the writer insist on incorporating the gamut of insurance industry manipulations and deceit to be nice to the stupid and ignorant 'public option' ruse? HELLO??? If you mean Universal Health Care ~ Single Payer, then SAY that don't give me the flaccid 'public option' HCAN drivel. HCAN was set up to diffuse the immanent take over by Single Payer...HCAN is in the Corporate Court!

  From what i can ascertain in the 8 or 9 listening sessions i received word on the silly and senseless notion of "public option" was near invisible. What was VERY VISIBLE was the majority of the listening sessions had to deal with SINGLE PAYER ~ National Guaranteed Health Care HR 676.
  The staffers were long on trying to keep Max's Interest front and center from making hearing sessions in tiny little rooms to switching the times around like in Columbus. But the overall results appear to be a an overwhelming Push for Single Payer!!!  

  So if this is the case why doesn't the Author not join the right side in this death struggle for Health Care instead of sitting on some Corporate political fence?

   William Crain
   Billings, MT

     PS: outside of this woeful major Wrong tangent on Health Care - The writer is excellent as well as the LitW Blog. and if you're on the wrong side of this major issue one is a major enemy of the People; And the HCAN, SEIU, MT Health Care, are just PAID Mercenaries if you will, they are bottom feeders.

   

---

by: Darwin26 @ Fri May 29, 2009 at 14:45:29 PM CDT

William.. (0.00 / 0)

you are absolutely right..making this a complicated, "health care wonkery", thing is unnecessary...

We have an excellent government operated system (actually more than one system) in place right now...why grind this through the hoops, and come up with a long list of what doesn't work, to reach a conclusion that we have to settle for something less than the system we have right now, only to protect the "private" insurance industry and their billions in profit, is a giant crock...a smoke screen.

---

by: big sage @ Fri May 29, 2009 at 15:08:46 PM CDT

What is the point of having a degree (0.00 / 0)

in Politicsl Science if you can't discuss everything as a case of wonkery?

---

by: jed @ Fri May 29, 2009 at 17:49:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Do you have one? (0.00 / 0)

Politicsl Science

I've never heard of such a degree.  How does one acquire such a thing, and what knowledge does it bestow?  Do you know anyone here who has such a degree?  I don't think you do. I think you're pulling this stuff out of your ass.

Seriously, jed, do you understand blogging at all, even just a little?  If one chooses, blogging is wonkery. If you don't like that, go the fuck away.  It's an opt-in kinda dealio.  Your choice, of course ...  

---

by: Wulfgar @ Fri May 29, 2009 at 18:01:34 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Aren't you mistaking Jed for Me? (0.00 / 0)

This was the exact message you gave me last night. At least vary the theme based on the object of your scorn.  

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Fri May 29, 2009 at 22:12:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wulfie is limited in his rhetorical ability (0.00 / 0)

but make up for it with his willingness to heap scorn and vitriol.  Perhaps his minor was poly sci..?

---

by: jed @ Sat May 30, 2009 at 01:08:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Then why isn't the message clear, Mark? (0.00 / 0)

Myself, and no doubts a whole lotta other folk, are getting extremely tired of your bullshit Ad Hominems.  The same goes for jed.  Such things deserve nothing save scorn and vitriol.

---

by: Wulfgar @ Sat May 30, 2009 at 14:34:02 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bite me ... (0.00 / 0)

Max has a 'position' for you on his staff - under his desk.  

---

by: Mark Tokarski @ Sat May 30, 2009 at 20:47:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's all you have left. (0.00 / 0)

You are supporting a loser's position in the hope that if the position finds favor, you might as well.  Give it up, Mark.  Others actually want something good.  The defeat you yearn for will still be nothing more than failure, and you a failure for supporting it.  You have no credibility.  You can't even foster an argument.  So, I guess "Bite me" really is all you have left.

---

by: Wulfgar @ Sat May 30, 2009 at 21:53:30 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Join with wulfie and Max. (0.00 / 0)

Having achieved mediocrity, you can now work toward absolute corporate control and failure of the state...

---

by: jed @ Sun May 31, 2009 at 11:46:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Blogging (0.00 / 0)

ain't the same as trying to come up with a better health care plan...and it would appear (to me at least) that Matt is way caught up in the wonkery of policy development...all this bullshit about collusion legalities and who controls what is wonk matsturbation...wonks LOVE to write policy because they are then the only people that can understand it...

Keep it simple...expand Medicare to everyone.

---

by: big sage @ Sat May 30, 2009 at 18:01:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Or, pass the Sanders Bill and let states use federal dollars for their (0.00 / 0)

single payer insurance pool.  It would be a compromise. Max could keep getting his prostitution payoffs from the privates while smart states could put medicare, medicade, schip and tax dollars into a single payer plan that would cover everyone who lived in the state.

It would be double payer because the VA could still handle veterans care.

Going to Medicare would entail  a serious overhaul to get all doctors enrolled as providers, and it would also require an expansion of existing benefits. It would also require that the  theoretically stupid and real life unworkable medicare d plan be dismantled for a global budgeting approach that would mean negotiating better deals on drugs for people.

---

by: Steve W. @ Sat May 30, 2009 at 18:43:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Getting doctors enrolled (0.00 / 0)

as providers would be no problem...most are currently enrolled as providers, and if 95% of Americans were in an expanded Medicare program, all doctors would jump on board.

---

by: big sage @ Sun May 31, 2009 at 05:36:01 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Most doctors I've talked to are cool with a single payer fee for service system. But (0.00 / 0)

the fees would need to be negotiated.

Medicare hasn't paid for to many cesareans I would imagine.

---

by: Steve W. @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 00:23:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

My understanding (0.00 / 0)

is that the doctors' lobby is among the most opposed to single-payer. The AMA is no friend of single-payer. Correct me if I'm wrong...

---

by: Matt Singer @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 09:48:55 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

When was the last time any of us (0.00 / 0)

voted to cut our personal living standards?

---

by: jed @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 16:50:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Every time I vote for a mill levy (0.00 / 0)

Next dumbass question?

---

by: Wulfgar @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 17:11:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The AMA has been losing membership for the last 30 years. Knocking on 40 doors a night (0.00 / 0)

5 nights a week across 7 states for 3 years put me on a lot of doctors door steps. and since 1993 when I quit canvassing the trend has continued to favor single payer.

My experience was that doctors weren't shy about expressing themselves.

this is from wikipedia:

Physician membership in the group has decreased to lower than 19% of practicing physicians. In 2004, AMA reported membership totals of 244,569, which included retired and practicing physicians along with medical students, residents, and fellows. The medical school section (MSS) reported totals of 48,868 members, while the resident and fellow section (RFS) reported 24,069 members. Combined they account for almost 30% of AMA members. [3] If every other member of the AMA was a fully qualified practicing physician then the AMA would represent 19% of America's practicing physicians (There are currently approximately 900,000 practicing physicians in America). However, MedPage Today estimates that the AMA only represents 135,300 "real, practicing physicians" as of 2005 (15.0% of the United States practicing physicians). [4] When asked about this, Jeremy Lazarus, MD, a speaker in the AMA House of Delegates, stated that membership was stable, avoiding commenting on the low overall numbers (2005 AMSA annual meeting, AMA vs. PNHP healthcare debate, Arlington, Virginia).

---

by: Steve W. @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 22:58:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What is your point? (0.00 / 0)

That the doctors that Steve talked to aren't representative of the AMA position?

From the AMA's "Voice for the Uninsured" reform proposal:

In short, the AMA advocates a clear role for government in financing and regulating health insurance coverage, with health plans and health care services being provided through private markets, as they are currently.

So the AMA represents a republican approach, one that Baucus is signaling he wishes he could advance, of taking public dollars and throwing them at a private insurance reform plan.

You all know what I think of that. The AMA supports fascist health care reform.

So am I to take that the AMA's position has any bearing on your positions on reform, Matt? Or are you willing to reject them summarily?

As far as I'm concerned, the AMA, by taking this position, is just reinforcing Gawande's notion that our health care system is (going) broke because of excessive profiteering. The AMA's reform proposal just plays into that strategy of profiteering by a culture of doctoring that has more to do with the bottom line, than with a moral and ethical place in our society.

So, in other words, if you want to use the AMA position on single payer as a reason to move right on the reform debate, you should read the PNHP's critique of the AMA's position:

Their feeble and deceptive effort to explain why their proposal [Voice for the Uninsured proposal] is better than single payer reveals the fact that that the AMA is still controlled by those ideologically opposed to a national health program.

Reading the PNHP comments, I'm reminded that the AMA, when it comes to health care reform, is nothing more than another mouthpiece for Luntz-style Harry and Louise disinformation.

---

by: JC @ Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 23:19:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]