Why there is no public health insurance option

[highnote]

The following excerpt explains why there is no public health insurance option in Baucus's version of the health care bill. The full story is on Moyers' website:

SEN. MAX BAUCUS: Our plan does not include a public option.

BILL MOYERS: Take a close look at that woman sitting behind Montana Senator Max Baucus. He's the Democrat who's the Chairman of the Finance Committee. Liz Fowler is her name. And now get this. She used to work for WellPoint, the largest health insurer in the country. She was Vice President of Public Policy. And now she's working for the very committee with the most power to give her old company and the entire industry exactly what they want: higher profits, and no competition from alternative non-profit coverage that could lower costs and premiums.

I'm not making this up. Here's another little eye-opener. The woman who was Baucus' top health advisor before he hired Liz Fowler? Her name is Michelle Easton. Why did she leave the Committee? To go to work -- where else? -- at a firm representing the same company Liz Fowler worked for WellPoint. As a lobbyist.

It's the old Washington shell game. Lobbyist out, lobbyist in. And it's why they always win.

They've been plowing this ground for years, but with the broad legislative agenda of the Obama White House, it's more fertile than ever. The health insurance industry alone has six lobbyists for every member of Congress, and more than 500 of them are former congressional staff members.

Just to be certain Congress sticks with the program, they've been showering megabucks all over Capitol Hill. From the beginning, they wanted to make sure that the bill that comes out of the Finance Committee next week puts for-profit health insurance companies first, by forcing the uninsured to buy medical policies from them. Money not only talks, it writes the prescriptions.

In just the last few months, the health care industry has spent 380 million dollars on lobbying, advertising and campaign contributions. And a million and a half of it went to -- don't hold your breath -- Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, who said he saw "a lot to like" in two proposed public options but voted "no."

SEN. MAX BAUCUS: My job is to put together a bill that gets 60 votes. Now I can count and no one has been able to show me how we can count up to 60 votes with a public option in the bill.

BILL MOYERS: Of course not. They can't get 60 votes. Not when the people who want a public alternative can't possibly scrape up the millions of dollars Baucus has received from the health sector during his political career.

Over the last two decades, the current members of the Senate Finance Committee - you're looking at them -- have collected nearly 50 million dollars from the health sector. A long-term investment that's now paying off like a busted slot machine.

[Rookies]

Over the last two decades, the current members of the Senate Finance Committee - you're looking at them -- have collected nearly 50 million dollars from the health sector. A long-term investment that's now paying off like a busted slot machine.

" And there's a lot more where that came from. " Home Alone 1

Look: It's a + TRILLION Dollar game. Vested capitalist, insurance interests are protecting their own. It's about THEIR $$$, not YOUR health ! They're not going to just give up without tilting heavily towards Armageddon!

[lsbets]

" And there's a lot more where that came from. " Home Alone 1

Look: It's a + TRILLION Dollar game. Vested capitalist, insurance interests are protecting their own. It's about THEIR $$$, not YOUR health ! They're not going to just give up without tilting heavily towards Armageddon!

Buying profits through a corrupt government has nothing to do with capitalism.

I said months ago the big winners from "reform" would be the insurance companies. The left on here said I was nuts.

[GaryG]

I would rather deal with insurance companies than the govt, especially the socialists that are in power. There will be no so called "public option" because ithere are not enough socialists in the senate. I have been dealt with fairly by Blue Cross since 1970. This is not even an issue any longer.

[Tom]

The senate finance committee just laid a big egg.
Their bill FAILS on every point.

We must act now – this is urgent.
Nothing gos into effect for 3-4 years, conveniently, AFTER the next presidential election.

We must make sure everyone is covered.
29 million are not covered, and will not be covered 10 years from now.

Illegals will not be covered.
Many illegals WILL be covered.

No one making under $250,000 will pay one dime more in taxes.
Many will pay far more than a dime.

In addition, unconstitionally, everyone will be required to buy health insurance.

This bill fails on every point.

Congratulations.

[highnote]

Buying profits through a corrupt government has nothing to do with capitalism.

I said months ago the big winners from "reform" would be the insurance companies. The left on here said I was nuts.

Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. Society has created laws which attempt to prevent capitalism from taking certain courses. Capitalism is neither good or bad -- it's neutral -- it's just a concept.

Technically, buying profits through a corrupt government is one path that capitalists may choose to take. Some capitalists have a tendency to do whatever it takes to make money no matter who it affects. Capitalists may let their use of capitalism get out of of control. This is the worst use of capitalism. There is a reason society has laws and regulations that try to rein in corrupt behavior.

I have nothing against capitalism or capitalists. I'm a self-employed capitalist who has a tendency to pay the people who work for me more than I have to. I also pay my contractors before my clients pay me because I believe I am the one who is taking the risk -- I don't ask my contractors to share the risk that my clients won't pay me.

But I have had clients who refuse to pay me -- even when I've sued them and won in court or turned my uncollectable debts over to collection agencies. Yet, these clients still go about running their businesses. They are the worst capitalists and the laws that are meant to protect me are ineffective.

When capitalism is used by good people for the betterment of society is it a great concept.

But capitalism can also be used by evil people in evil ways to the detrement of society and sometimes laws are of no use.

The insurance capitalists use lobbyists to influence policy as part of the tools of their means of production. The insurance industry has more lobbyists than members of congress.

This is one industry where capitalism has been used to the detrement of society, where the political and judicial systems have failed and a lot of people are suffering as a result. True, some people benefit. But when some people suffer so that some can make excess profits then it is not a good system.

A good system is where one set of people can make reasonable profits through capitalism, but where others also benefit. But when the system gets out of balance and the disparity grows large and the solutions necessary to bring the system back to parity are painful then there is a systemic problem that needs to be addressed. It seems like this is where we are now in this country.

[lsbets]

John, you're smarter than Michael Moore. You know that buying influence and using it to guarantee your profits has nothing to do with the free market or capitalism. That is simply another path of the state dictating outcomes. I would expect zilly or NJ to be unable to understand how what the large corporations do in this country today has nothing to do with capitalism, but you're smart enough to know the difference.

[highnote]

John, you're smarter than Michael Moore. You know that buying influence and using it to guarantee your profits has nothing to do with the free market or capitalism. That is simply another path of the state dictating outcomes. I would expect zilly or NJ to be unable to understand how what the large corporations do in this country today has nothing to do with capitalism, but you're smart enough to know the difference.

Everyone has a duty to be a good citizen. Some people choose not to honor that duty. Directors of large corporations who use the capitalist system to put profits before the well being of society are acting immorally, in my opinion.

It's fine to make profits -- even excess profits -- but it is not fine to do it in a way that hurts others. Capitalism has no rules or morality. People do. People have to use capitalism responsibly.

In some cases, the directors may not be acting maliciously. They are just trying to protect their interests. But they are often shortsighted and can't see beyong the next earning period. That is why regulations exist.

Capitalism has a form that allows it to be used in any way that the capitalist chooses to. Capitalism allows a capitalist to choose to use political influence as tool of the means of production.

There is no rule of capitalism that says how the means of production are to be used to produce profits. To some degree the rules are dictated by morality and ethics. Laws can try to prevent the use of tools that harm society or one portion of society, but laws are not always effective. Laws are only as effective as the people who enforce them.

Enforcement of laws by our government on behalf of U.S. citizens does not seem to be a high priority. :bang:

[Tom]

John, that applies to the other end of the economic spectrum a well.
What about people that are NOT citizens?

Why is MY tax money carrying them?
Why are they not deported?

What about congress's responsibility?

Why are we losing good jobs and the fools in power not concentrating on bringing jobs back so we can take care of ourselves?

[lsbets]

John - capitalism functions in a free market. Using the government to take away that free market has nothing at all to do with capitalism. I don't see why that is so hard for you to grasp, I really thought you were smarter than that.

Tell me how on earth using the government to legislate that everyone be mandated to purchase your product has anything at all to do with the functions of a free market?

[highnote]

John - capitalism functions in a free market. Using the government to take away that free market has nothing at all to do with capitalism. I don't see why that is so hard for you to grasp, I really thought you were smarter than that.

Tell me how on earth using the government to legislate that everyone be mandated to purchase your product has anything at all to do with the functions of a free market?


I think we're talking about two different things. Or maybe not?

A truly free market would allow for monopolies until one company or even one person owned everything. A king who conquers a country owns everything and controls the means of prodution. A dictator/king is the ultimate capitalist.

Did I say that the government should legislate that everyone be mandated to purchase a product? I think I was trying to make a different point.

We need legislation to keep capitalists in check -- to keep them from becoming too powerful. To keep them from getting to the point where their thirst for profits is so great that harm is done to society.

I was speaking from a theoretical point of view. My point is that capitalism has no conscious. It will take any form that the capitalist can make it into. And because a capitalist does not always have the best interests of society in mind regulations must be put in place to protect society.

Organized crime is a good example of the use of capitalism. They make profits without regard to their effects on society. They operate in a free market. And their capitalism is the same as my capitalism. They just choose to use it differently than me.

[lsbets]

We are talking about two different things. I was addressing the quote you originally put up - how the insurance companies are buying influence to guarantee profits. That is not capitalism. That is corruption.

A king and a dictator are not capitalists. They are statists. They destroy markets rather than enable them.

Rookies was the one who referred to the insurance companies as capitalists. Even though they operate in an economic environment that is maybe 50% capitalism, they are clearly not capitalists. They see the path to success not as providing an outstanding product or service, but rather by graft and corruption. And our government enables them and created the conditions that they operate under by taking the marketplace out of the insurance industry. Our representatives profit through their criminal activities and give it the blessing of legislation. Our government has no interest in preserving a free market or personal liberties. Our government wants to create a state where the vast majority of people are dependent on the government for their very survival and our representatives and their corporate friends are guaranteed a lock on power because the people who think the government is looking out for them will not rebel against their rule, but instead see their representatives as acting in their best interests. It is the very people who are hurt the most by our corrupt government who will continue to vote for them and sing their praises. Sadly, most of America is blind to the state of our government, or else we would run them all out of town and burn all of DC down to the ground.

[highnote]

We are talking about two different things. I was addressing the quote you originally put up - how the insurance companies are buying influence to guarantee profits. That is not capitalism. That is corruption.


I agree it is corruption, but I think that capitalism as a form can take a shape that allows it to be used in ways that corruptive. I'm talking philosophically. But capitalism is not to blame. People who are immoral and who use capitalism in an immoral manner are to blame.

A king and a dictator are not capitalists. They are statists. They destroy markets rather than enable them.

Ultimately, they are statists, but on the way up, they are capitalists. AT&T was a capitalistic company. They grew too large and hampered innovation and commerce when they became a monopoly. The capitalism form was able to take a shape which allowed for the monopoly to occur. Finally, society decided that AT&T was harmful. But the spirit of capitalism still exists that allows monopolies to form.

Rookies was the one who referred to the insurance companies as capitalists. Even though they operate in an economic environment that is maybe 50% capitalism, they are clearly not capitalists. They see the path to success not as providing an outstanding product or service, but rather by graft and corruption. And our government enables them and created the conditions that they operate under by taking the marketplace out of the insurance industry. Our representatives profit through their criminal activities and give it the blessing of legislation. Our government has no interest in preserving a free market or personal liberties. Our government wants to create a state where the vast majority of people are dependent on the government for their very survival and our representatives and their corporate friends are guaranteed a lock on power because the people who think the government is looking out for them will not rebel against their rule, but instead see their representatives as acting in their best interests. It is the very people who are hurt the most by our corrupt government who will continue to vote for them and sing their praises. Sadly, most of America is blind to the state of our government, or else we would run them all out of town and burn all of DC down to the ground.

Agree. I have a major problem with being forced to buy health insurance from a private company. What really irks me is that if this legislation passes and I refuse to buy insurance I will be fined. And believe me, the gov will find a way to make me pay. (It's ironic, that when one of my clients doesn't pay me and I sue and win the gov is of no help in helping me collect.)

If the gov wants to create a public option that is affordable then I would buy it. We all know that corporations are not going to create a health insurance policy that is affordable to all people.

I can not see how the gov can mandate that everyone has to buy health insurance and buy it from private insurers.

Some will say that we have to buy car insurance from private insurers. That is true, but the gov does not force me to get a drivers license or own a car.

The only way I would ever buy mandated health insurance coverage is if there is a public option -- and then I would have to be dragged kicking and screaming to do it.

[ArlJim78]

We are talking about two different things. I was addressing the quote you originally put up - how the insurance companies are buying influence to guarantee profits. That is not capitalism. That is corruption.

A king and a dictator are not capitalists. They are statists. They destroy markets rather than enable them.

Rookies was the one who referred to the insurance companies as capitalists. Even though they operate in an economic environment that is maybe 50% capitalism, they are clearly not capitalists. They see the path to success not as providing an outstanding product or service, but rather by graft and corruption. And our government enables them and created the conditions that they operate under by taking the marketplace out of the insurance industry. Our representatives profit through their criminal activities and give it the blessing of legislation. Our government has no interest in preserving a free market or personal liberties. Our government wants to create a state where the vast majority of people are dependent on the government for their very survival and our representatives and their corporate friends are guaranteed a lock on power because the people who think the government is looking out for them will not rebel against their rule, but instead see their representatives as acting in their best interests. It is the very people who are hurt the most by our corrupt government who will continue to vote for them and sing their praises. Sadly, most of America is blind to the state of our government, or else we would run them all out of town and burn all of DC down to the ground.
:ThmbUp: well said.

that's also how I see it. government enables the corrupt. thats why ceding additional authority over the economy to the government is bound to fail.
there is nothing wrong with free market capitalism, its just that our government won't allow for it because it would render them relatively powerless.

[Tom]

We are talking about two different things. I was addressing the quote you originally put up - how the insurance companies are buying influence to guarantee profits. That is not capitalism. That is corruption.



That is what 99.999% of our government is. Any elected official that talks to a lobbyist is guilty of taking bribes. I dare say there is not one honest elected official in DC.

[highnote]

:ThmbUp: well said.

that's also how I see it. government enables the corrupt. thats why ceding additional authority over the economy to the government is bound to fail.
there is nothing wrong with free market capitalism, its just that our government won't allow for it because it would render them relatively powerless.


But the quandry is that by not ceding additional authority over the economy government is bound to fail and society will suffer.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with free market capitalism. It's when it runs amok that there are problems. It can not be left unregulated or we'll end up with a few companies running everything. And our government is not able to regulate it effectiveuly now because they are being bought off by lobbyists and campaign contributions and insider influence.

It is a huge, huge mess.

The good news is that we're just a few steps away from a revolution that would make Thomas Jefferson proud.

[lsbets]

But capitalism is not to blame. People who are immoral and who use capitalism in an immoral manner are to blame.


On that we agree 100%. For capitalism to function properly, it must be a moral system. That is where government should be involved - to enforce clearcut rules to keep it a moral system.

I also apologize for not being able to go into things in more detail. We have a large charity event off site tonight, and I have to prep dessert for 400 people. So, my thoughts (to me at least) seem a little incomplete. The only reason I've been back on here is I enjoy discussing the topic with someone of intelligence.

[ArlJim78]

But the quandry is that by not ceding additional authority over the economy government is bound to fail and society will suffer.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with free market capitalism. It's when it runs amok that there are problems. It can not be left unregulated or we'll end up with a few companies running everything. And our government is not able to regulate it effectiveuly now because they are being bought off by lobbyists and campaign contributions and insider influence.

It is a huge, huge mess.

The good news is that we're just a few steps away from a revolution that would make Thomas Jefferson proud.
the more regulations and oversight from the government the worse off we are. government intervention caused the financial debacle.

you say that they are bought off by lobbyists and such, you are correct. but still its government who are the enablers. most of the regulations they pass are to benefit some constituency or another.

we have a ruling political class, not public servants.

[jognlope]

There is no capitalism involved with the insurers. There are monopolies, enabled by the large corporations, within each state. Capitalism would allow all individual equal access, which they don't.

[ddog]

THis is ok, but I must confess the main contributors are in a way back time machine.

The sentiments expressed and the theory are ok,even noble, if in a time where they had some meaning.

The country has evolved to a place where the financial criminal system that funds gvt ONLY exists at the pleasure of certain interests.

In fact, the financing to RUN the gvt , such as we have now, DEPENDS on certain interests. Thus , those interests function with a no loss backstop , since the gvt CAN NOT fund WITHOUT THEM.

Given this , that system has LEFT capitalism far far behind.


People will not stop to take the time to see how we are really funding this place these days and how the TPTF now are GVT FUNDING providers. Essentially, if they decided to STOp, the gvt and many other gvts would crash within a week or month at the outside.


So, the cap v soc v commie debate is nice, but irrelevant anymore.

People don't want to see it and will avoid it.

But , U.S. thy gvt is fascist in all manner.

It's simple 8th grader type facts.

Ike , being his b-day today, was RIGHT way back when.

What he warned and WORSE has come to pass. Even if given a pass as out of the best of intents, it's still a crime ridden - liar infested - fascist system we have now.

P.s.

If the fraud was stopped and the marks were taken and a reset was done , many problems, including HC would be fixed.
When you prop up corruption on top of fraud on top of liars on top of fools on top of more fraud it's no wonder your systems don't work.

The simple fact is many many, maybe most now see the fraud and corrupt actions as having breached a limit.

Many are and will opt out. I don't blame them.

Get ready. THis last 2 years was the prep.

[highnote]

I also apologize for not being able to go into things in more detail.

I wondered how in the hell you were going to find time to sit around and post all day. :D

We have a large charity event off site tonight, and I have to prep dessert for 400 people.

Good luck!

So, my thoughts (to me at least) seem a little incomplete.

Seem fine to me.

The only reason I've been back on here is I enjoy discussing the topic with someone of intelligence.


You must be referring to GameTheory, cause I know it can't possibly be me. :D

[bigmack]

So his point is, Why bother, it's only $54Bil? The cost is now $2Tril??

This guy is doomed in the next election.

WQxyobV-Q8c

[Tom]

There is no capitalism involved with the insurers. There are monopolies, enabled by the large corporations, within each state. Capitalism would allow all individual equal access, which they don't.


Thank Congress for that. It is 100% their decision to restrict our ability to get good prices on health care plans, and they have the unmitigated gall to all the ins companies evil. There is no evil that can compare to our illegal government.