at the company I work at and afterward he is holding a public forum where we are encouraged to ask Congressman Price questions. So come on T-Dub...if you could ask Congressman Price something what would it be? I need something intelligent to ask...hahaha.

8/28/2009 9:08:57 AM

clearly you don't visit the soap box very often. these retards have nothing insightful to offer

8/28/2009 9:15:10 AM

Ask him if he will vote a bill that does not include a public option.

If he says yes, ask him why he doesn't support a public option.

8/28/2009 9:30:09 AM

ask him if he's ever read any of the US Constitution. If he says he has, ask him why he's supporting Obama's agenda that directly violates the 10th amendment.

8/28/2009 9:32:21 AM

Ask him when they start warming up the ovens.

8/28/2009 9:36:56 AM

Ask him for his ID.

8/28/2009 9:42:32 AM

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I'm not exactly sure what bcsawyer is getting at. Do you have any specific examples?

8/28/2009 9:53:08 AM

Quote :

"clearly you don't visit the soap box very often. these retards have nothing insightful to offer"

qntmfred

Quote :

"Ask him when they start warming up the ovens."

marko

These posts are "insightful"? Piss off.

And can you direct me to all of your "insightful" posts/threads here? No?! All you offer is snarky holier-than-thou bullshit.

To sparky, I would ask Congressman Price:

1. Why hasn't a clear health-care reform bill been formulated and articulated to the American people? (It is a fact that there have been several bills floating around the Hill, and this more than anything has led to the opportunity for the misperceptions that some are complaining about.)

2. How can we as a nation possibly afford the cost of this enormous new government program?

3. Why have many members of Congress not even bothered to read all of the bill or bills that they are pushing? (This seems to me to be a minimum standard for legislation of this magnitude.)

4. Will Congressman Price commit to not exploiting the death of Senator Kennedy to help pass health-care reform?

These questions are a good start and all of them are legitimate.

8/28/2009 9:59:52 AM

lol it ain't holler-than-though

it ain't even snarky

it's just absurdest bullshit

and in the end

it has just as much effect on the world as anything posted in here... well thought-out or not

i've been on here for almost ten years and i'm gonna say what i want

if you don't like it, ignore it

[Edited on August 28, 2009 at 10:13 AM. Reason : your blood pressure will thank you for it]

8/28/2009 10:10:18 AM

^ I was mainly referring to qntmfred's post. But your post had enough of your usual I'm-above-it-all air--with a sprinkle of mockery--that I included it.

8/28/2009 10:15:00 AM

there's nothing "above" anything... i don't approach this site like that

i'm in another dimension watching the hate train roll through on a monochrome monitor

8/28/2009 10:24:19 AM

marko is the LAST person on the website fitting a "I'm-above-it-all" attitude and mockery is his MO.
he does it so well with excellent thought out posts that amazes me sometimes.

8/28/2009 10:40:47 AM

OK so I'd really like to ask something about how Obama says that government provided health care will be optional, but from what I understand, it really won't be optional. Also, maybe mention the negative affects it will have on businesses that already provide their employees health care, but I don't have any references from the health care reform bill to back up my assumptions. Anyone have any ammo I can use?

8/28/2009 11:34:29 AM

I don't understand how "but from what I understand, it really won't be optional" and "I don't have any references" goes well together.

How do you feel that it won't really be optional?

8/28/2009 11:40:16 AM

i've heard it will and heard it won't. i don't have any proof though.

8/28/2009 11:52:03 AM

^^^^ Okay, I could be wrong--I've been wrong before. But marko's posts sure feel that way sometimes. BTW, this ain't the goddamned mod forum.

^ More potential questions:

5. If the need to pass health-care reform is so urgent, why does the plan not take effect until 2013?

6.

From a study by The Lewin Group, which is a health care and human services policy research and management consulting firm:

Quote :

"The American Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 would require all Americans to have health insurance. To assure access to affordable coverage, the bill expands the Medicaidprogram and provides premium subsidies for people living through 400 percent of the FPL (e.g., $88,000 for a family of four). It also requires employers to either cover their workers or pay a payroll tax of up to 8.0 percent."

What penalties will Americans suffer if they refuse to comply with the requirement to have health insurance?

And concerning your question above:

Quote :

"Of those who have ESI [employer-sponsored insurance], about 88.1 million people are in firms that would shift coverage to the exchange and then enroll in the public plan. . . ."

http://www.lewin.com/content/publications/LewinAnalysisHouseBill2009.pdf

And there's this:

Quote :

"(CNN) -- Immigrants living illegally in the United States could be mandated to have health insurance under the proposed health care reform bill but would be ineligible to receive subsidies to afford such coverage, a report from the Congressional Research Service says. The report, prepared by the nonpartisan policy research arm of Congress, provides a close reading of the treatment of noncitizens in the House bill on health care reform, HR 3200. While the report found that federal subsidies to obtain health coverage would be restricted to U.S. citizens and legal residents, it also noted that the bill does not specify a citizenship verification system, something that critics say creates a loophole for undocumented immigrants to receive subsidies anyway."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/27/health.care.immigrants/

Sweet Jesus.

[Edited on August 28, 2009 at 12:02 PM. Reason : No one has "proof" in this, sparky. I have, however, provided you with some evidence.]

8/28/2009 11:56:20 AM

It will be optional. Even in places like England, that have a strong government health care plan, people still can and do purchase supplemental private insurance if they want.

The only business that it will have a negative effect on is a healthcare insurance business, because they will have to reevaluate their pricing when competing against a government plan.

If you work for a healthcare insurance provider, then I'm sorry.

If you don't, then I don't see how this will negatively impact your company. If anything, they will save money by you switching to a public plan or when your insurance provider lowers their prices.

8/28/2009 11:58:48 AM

^ You are wrong.

Quote :

"The proposed reform requires that individuals carry health insurance, and the language in the current bill may obligate undocumented immigrants to get health insurance, too, the Congressional Research Service report concluded."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/27/health.care.immigrants/

[Edited on August 28, 2009 at 12:04 PM. Reason : ]

8/28/2009 12:02:47 PM

I've got a few for Rep. Price:

-Have you considered any alternative plans to the Obama proposal at all, such as the model proposed by CEO of Whole Foods John Mackey and many other reform advocates, which proposes shifting away from employer-sponsored insurance, toward individual catastrophic coverage and Heath Savings Accounts?

-According to the CBO, President Obama's plan currently proposes over a trillion dollars in new spending, yet only covers a fraction of the uninsured. Meanwhile, the same report estimates that the cost savings from covering said uninsured will be minimal. Therefore, how do you propose to cover this very large amount of new spending without further deficits, which are already quite extreme?

-How does this plan ultimately control the longer-term structural issue of a rise in medical spending?

-Do you favor normalizing the tax treatment of employer-sponsored and individual plans?

-Do you favor allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, rather than the current model where insurers are regulated at the state-level?

-Do you believe that eliminating risk-based pricing from insurance will somehow not raise costs on other consumers? Why?

-Do you favor eliminating risk-based pricing for other forms of insurance, such as auto insurance? Why or why not? How does this square with your current support of the Administration's plan?

Those are a few I could come up with.

8/28/2009 12:05:03 PM

Quote :

"The only business that it will have a negative effect on is a healthcare insurance business, because they will have to reevaluate their pricing when competing against a government plan."

Unless your employer decides that taking the tax penalty hit is cheaper than continuing to provide insurance. Then I suppose you're on your own too - regardless of whether you want the public plan. But who cares about those people, right?

8/28/2009 12:06:15 PM

^^ Those are good.

[Edited on August 28, 2009 at 12:06 PM. Reason : ^]

8/28/2009 12:06:15 PM

John Mackey also believes that Americans do not have a fundamental right to health care.

8/28/2009 12:07:28 PM

Quote :

"John Mackey also believes that Americans do not have a fundamental right to health care."

As do many normal people. Just because something is good does not make it a right. Especially when it is incumbent upon someone else to provide it.

But, let's dismiss ideas out of hand right now without further consideration because they come from someone with whom you have ideological disagreement. Man, that smells like honest debate to me!

8/28/2009 12:10:03 PM

Dr Steve...how does the proposed plan only "covers a fraction of the uninsured"

I thought the idea was to cover everybody?

8/28/2009 12:13:02 PM

i'm thinking about somethig more generic like

"Congressman Price, can you in layman's terms please explain how the proposed bill for the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, as introduced on July 14, 2009, will work to increase the overall health of American's while saving American taxpayers money?"

8/28/2009 12:18:14 PM

Quote :

"Dr Steve...how does the proposed plan only "covers a fraction of the uninsured" I thought the idea was to cover everybody?"

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10431/07-02-HELPltr.pdf

Quote :

"Once the legislation was fully implemented, CBO and JCT staff estimate, about 20 million fewer people would be uninsured compared with projections under current law. About 26 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges, and about 6 million fewer people would purchase nongroup coverage outside the exchanges. In the aggregate, the number of people obtaining coverage through an employer would change very little. The draft legislation does not include a significant expansion of the Medicaid program or other options for subsidizing coverage for those with income below 150 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL); such provisions may be incorporated at a later date. By CBO’s estimate, about three-quarters of the people who would remain uninsured under this version of the legislation would have income below 150 percent of the FPL."

So yeah. Pretty big chunk still not insured after all of that, according to the CBO. Not to mention that they also estimate several million people being pushed onto the public option by employers opting out of providing coverage.

Quote :

"I'm thinking about somethig more generic like "Congressman Price, can you in layman's terms please explain how the proposed bill for the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, as introduced on July 14, 2009, will work to increase the overall health of American's while saving American taxpayers money?""

Asking generic questions like that is the perfect way to give him a cop-out opportunity. It's practically a softball; there are so many ways to weasel out of giving a straight answer to that one that it's almost counter-productive. Basically his answer will be to blow smoke up your ass about how we're spending less on the uninsured now, even though this is not really true by any reasonable cost estimate. No sources, etc. He won't even touch the issue of accelerating medical spending and the so-called "cost curve," which despite my problems with Obama's particular plan, he has at least had the insight to point out.

I would suggest a more pointed - but still respectful question.

[Edited on August 28, 2009 at 12:30 PM. Reason : .]

8/28/2009 12:25:19 PM

Whatever you ask, make sure you know what you are talking about, when I've talked to him before it wasn't like asking a professor a question & waiting silently for the answer to take notes on... he is apt to start a conversation with you.

8/28/2009 12:27:59 PM

Quote :

"As do many normal people. Just because something is good does not make it a right. Especially when it is incumbent upon someone else to provide it. But, let's dismiss ideas out of hand right now without further consideration because they come from someone with whom you have ideological disagreement. Man, that smells like honest debate to me!"

-Education
-Electricity
-Food
-Water
-Shelter

All of these things fit the same criteria, that they are incumbent upon someone else to provide them. I do not make my own food, I purchase it from a grocery store, employed by workers who stock the food, which is grown by farmers who raise cattle. We can go even deeper and talk about all of the government subsidies given to these farmers, the subsidies that I contribute to by paying taxes.

8/28/2009 12:31:55 PM

Quote :

"All of these things fit the same criteria, that they are incumbent upon someone else to provide them. I do not make my own food, I purchase it from a grocery store, employed by workers who stock the food, which is grown by farmers who raise cattle. We can go even deeper and talk about all of the government subsidies given to these farmers, the subsidies that I contribute to by paying taxes."

Exactly what is your argument here? None of the items you list above are "rights" either. Most of them don't even need to be provided by the government, and for the most part, aren't, save for the poorest, and even then, it's often through a subsidy, rather than direct provision.

8/28/2009 12:37:59 PM

I just want to confirm this before moving forward. You believe that American citizens do not have a right, regardless of personal poverty, to food, water, and shelter?

8/28/2009 12:42:47 PM

I don't think these things qualify as "rights." These are things that we, as a society, have seen morally proper to provide. This does not make it the same thing as a "right."

Case in point: do you have a right to walk into a doctor's office and demand that they treat you? Do you have a right to walk over to a farm and demand that they feed you? Do have a right to walk into someone's private home and demand that they provide you shelter?

So why is it and different when it's more diffuse?

8/28/2009 12:46:42 PM

You're obfuscating what I mean by "right." I'm sorry if I was confusing.

By "right," I mean that I believe that a democratic government, as elected by it's people, is required to provide certain goods and services to it's citizens. These included, but are not limited to, food, running water, shelter, electricity, education, and, yes, healthcare. This is what I mean when I say that citizens have a "right" to these services.

8/28/2009 12:52:32 PM

This conversation reminds of this video I just saw:

8/28/2009 12:57:52 PM

Quote :

"You're obfuscating what I mean by "right." I'm sorry if I was confusing."

I don't think that word means what you think it means. "Rights" have a very specific meaning. What you are speaking of below is an "obligation."

Quote :

"By "right," I mean that I believe that a democratic government, as elected by it's people, is required to provide certain goods and services to it's citizens. These included, but are not limited to, food, running water, shelter, electricity, education, and, yes, healthcare. This is what I mean when I say that citizens have a "right" to these services."

Who or what requires it? The laws? Then you're making a circular definition out of it. The laws mandate that the government provides assistance (food, shelter subsidies, etc.) and so it does. Morality? This is not the undisputed premise you make it out to be.

Your contention is that the government has some kind of (moral) obligation to provide certain things. Which assumes that A) The moral obligation exists, and B) The moral obligation is incumbent upon the government, rather than individuals - and likewise, C) That the government is best suited and/or necessary to meet this obligation

8/28/2009 12:59:11 PM

I believe all of those assumptions, yes. What is the purpose of a government if not to provide those services, including leadership, to the people?

8/28/2009 1:04:18 PM

Quote :

"I believe all of those assumptions, yes. What is the purpose of a government if not to provide those services, including leadership, to the people?"

Providing "leadership?" Really?

This is where our premises part ways obviously, but here's my counter-proposal:

-Enforce laws which protect individuals against aggression by other individuals (or groups thereof) - laws against rape, murder, theft, fraud, etc.
-Protect citizens against external threats (i.e., maintain a military)
-Provide for a limited other set of public goods where it is generally impractical to do so otherwise (sanitation, roads, etc.)

But let's just assume that's too radical for you (which is probably not far from accurate). Then I'd still argue as much as possible where you think it's impossible for voluntary efforts to provide for things that you believe are a moral obligation (such as food, shelter, etc.), then the government still should as much as possible not be in the business of providing these things directly, but rather subsidizing those things on the private market.

This is the way we do food aid - and it works. You don't go to the public plan grocery store and pick out your government-provided food, you use a voucher to purchase it at the local supermarket. When the government has provided housing directly, the result has been terrible - therefore, we typically offer rent subsidies. Etc.

In other words, if the government must be involved, it should be so in as minimal as a way as possible.

8/28/2009 1:13:32 PM

I understand your position, that the government should provide for a few basic services but not others. How does one decide which services, though? You mentioned "sanitation, roads" as two services the government should provide. Why? Why can't a private, for-profit company be in charge of sanitation for a city? Why can't a private, for-profit company be in charge of building the roads in a city? Surely these two services can be provided more efficiently by a private company than the government.

8/28/2009 1:24:17 PM

Quote :

"I understand your position, that the government should provide for a few basic services but not others. How does one decide which services, though? You mentioned "sanitation, roads" as two services the government should provide. Why? Why can't a private, for-profit company be in charge of sanitation for a city? Why can't a private, for-profit company be in charge of building the roads in a city? Surely these two services can be provided more efficiently by a private company than the government."

I chose the specific example of sanitation as one where likely a city could contract the work out to a private, for-profit firm, but its actual provision in terms of individuals is somewhat less practical. That is, it is difficult to conceive of an infrastructure where private sanitation providers compete through a common infrastructure to provide service to individual homes. It doesn't make it impossible, it just seems impractical. But that may just be my failure of imagination.

In this case then, the likely result would be a city contracts the service out to private bidders who make use of a common infrastructure. Ditto with the roads example.

On the other hand, it is far more practical to provide food directly to the individual through the private market.

What makes the difference between what minimal public services the government should provide and shouldn't? In this example, I'm loosely relying on the definition of a "public good":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good

Quote :

"In economics, a public good is a good that is non-rivaled and non-excludable. This means, respectively, that consumption of the good by one individual does not reduce availability of the good for consumption by others; and that no one can be effectively excluded from using the good.[1] In the real world, there may be no such thing as an absolutely non-rivaled and non-excludable good; but economists think that some goods approximate the concept closely enough for the analysis to be economically useful."

So, for example, sanitation is a case where it is difficult to imagine it being anything other than non-rivalrous and non-excludable (not impossible, but difficult to imagine a practical outcome). Roads within a city are quite similar; a toll road is clearly an excludable good, and probably a decent argument could be made that it is rivalrous (i.e., traffic jams). But a city street is not excludable in the practical sense; so, at the very least, it's a "common good."

8/28/2009 1:37:40 PM

Government (July '09): You car dealers will be reimbursed in 10 days under the Cash for Clunkers program--and we can run health care the same way.

Car Dealers (September '09): Where's our money?

Government: Ah. . .um. . .paperwork and stuff. Oh, look, there's the Queen (runs way).

Car Dealers: (Tap, tap, tap.)

Government: (Crickets.)

8/28/2009 1:37:57 PM

Health care isn't excludable. Look at our emergency rooms.

[Edited on August 28, 2009 at 1:41 PM. Reason : ]

8/28/2009 1:41:00 PM

Quote :

"Health care isn't excludable. Look at our emergency rooms."

That's due to social policy, i.e., the law saying that they can't turn away individuals. There is no inherent structural reason that a hospital otherwise could not. (For example, a doctor's office clearly can.)

8/28/2009 1:43:12 PM

Quote :

"marko is the LAST person on the website fitting a "I'm-above-it-all" attitude and mockery is(sic?) his MO. "

you know, I'm pretty sure it's marko's complete MO... being "above-it-all"

as well as he should be... these people are very very silly

8/28/2009 1:43:42 PM

let us know how it went sparky

8/28/2009 2:48:18 PM

ok so this is the question that i asked

Quote :

"According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), President Obama's plan currently proposes over a trillion dollars in new spending, yet only covers a fraction of the uninsured. Meanwhile, the same report estimates that the cost savings from covering said uninsured will be minimal. Therefore, what is the benefit of this legislation and how do you propose to cover this very large amount of new spending without further deficits, which are already quite extreme?"

His response was...and i'm going to do this in a bulleted fashion because that's how I took the notes.

1. We already cover the uninsured because when they get sick they go to the emergency room which charges very high rates. that causes general health care costs to go up which makes insurance go up. So there is one cost savings.

2. Obama's plan incorporates zero co-pay for preventative care. so we save on the back end with prevention.

3. He believes that all americans should have access to affordable health coverage

4. Under obama's plan there will be the removal of discrimination due to pre-existing conditions.

5. Funding will come form cuts to other programs (didn't eloborate) or a tax surcharge on the super wealthy

6. nothing in the bill will affect employee provided insurance

7. government option will not enter the public market

8. basically, the government option is an option for people who don't have EPI to have access to affordable insurance. the government option is not burdened by profit margin.

9. people with existing EPI will not choose the public option because EPI is partially paid by the employer, so the government option would be more expensive for that person, however the government option will be cheaper for people who are trying to get insurance on their own.

8/28/2009 3:26:02 PM

Quote :

"We already cover the uninsured because when they get sick they go to the emergency room which charges very high rates. that causes general health care costs to go up which makes insurance go up. So there is one cost savings."

Cost research indicates otherwise. It's a nice soundbyte, but the data doesn't back it up. People will have healthier outcomes, but it's not going to cut costs. Again, most studies show costs going up - preventative care costs money too. And not every person seeking preventative care immediately leads to a cost savings.

Quote :

"2. Obama's plan incorporates zero co-pay for preventative care. so we save on the back end with prevention."

Uh... no.

Quote :

"3. He believes that all americans should have access to affordable health coverage"

Fine and good, but not a cost savings. Also does not imply that this plan is the only or even best way to do things.

Quote :

"4. Under obama's plan there will be the removal of discrimination due to pre-existing conditions."

I kind of get the feeling that Price either doesn't know or willfully neglects what insurance is.

Quote :

"5. Funding will come form cuts to other programs (didn't eloborate) or a tax surcharge on the super wealthy"

This sounds like a cop-out. Cuts specified later. Tax the rich more. In other words, "I don't have an answer."

Quote :

"6. nothing in the bill will affect employee provided insurance"

This contradicts the CBO's report. Perhaps Price has access to information we lack, however? Doubtful.

Quote :

"7. government option will not enter the public market"

1) Isn't entering the market theoretically the "point" of the public option? Otherwise, why bother having it? 2) It doesn't have to "enter" the market in order to have an effect. Again, if the marginal cost of dumping your employees onto the public option is cheaper than the cost of providing health insurance, chances are, an employer will do it. Again, as the CBO has already predicted.

Quote :

"8. basically, the government option is an option for people who don't have EPI to have access to affordable insurance. the government option is not burdened by profit margin."

So why is a public option any better than a co-op or not-for-profit under this model? By Price's logic, BCBSNC should be fantastically more affordable. It is not.

Quote :

"9. people with existing EPI will not choose the public option because EPI is partially paid by the employer, so the government option would be more expensive for that person, however the government option will be cheaper for people who are trying to get insurance on their own."

This is kind of a strawman. The argument isn't that people will voluntarily leave EPI, it's that they'll get dumped from it as a means of employer cost-cutting.

8/28/2009 3:50:09 PM

Quote :

"I kind of get the feeling that Price either doesn't know or willfully neglects what insurance is. "

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you deny that private insurance companies regularly deny customers treatment for preexisting conditions?

8/28/2009 4:14:53 PM

Quote :

"Do you deny that private insurance companies regularly deny customers treatment for preexisting conditions?"

No, I'm saying a pre-existing condition really isn't a matter of "insurance" anymore. Much like if you tried to get homeowner's insurance after your house is already on fire. It's not really fitting the definition of "insurance" anymore. Insurance exists in that you pay a premium to insure against some future, unforseen risk; insurers have armies of actuaries on staff to determine just what those risks are and thus how to set premiums.

A pre-existing condition doesn't really fit this definition anymore. You're basically walking in and telling the insurer to immediately take a known net loss. It's not really "insurance" anymore. So why try to pound a square peg in a round hole?

8/28/2009 4:18:47 PM

Because everyone in America should be insured regardless of how healthy they are?

8/28/2009 4:19:23 PM

Again, the issue here is a conflation between insurance and care. Your premise is likely more one that, "Every American deserves health care." Which is fine and all, but let's be clear to start.

If I am walking in with a costly existing condition, how is this insuring against an unknown future cost? It's no longer an unknown, possible future risk. Again, every American also deserves shelter; does this mean we should insure your house after it burns down?

At this point, it's not really "insurance" anymore. So why are we trying to pretend otherwise?

8/28/2009 4:23:06 PM

I suppose that's comforting to persons with cancer who are denied treatment from private health insurance companies.

8/28/2009 4:37:37 PM