All of you who are arguing about how much profit these companies make… WHO CARES? Our for profit health care system, has FAILED!

Yesterday, I received a notice from Blue Cross, notifying me that: “effective October 1, 2009, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan will adjust the rate you pay for medical coverage. Your current rate will increase by 31.56%...”

Look through these postings and you will see posters using double speak - these are the individuals who have a free ride… In other words, I got mine, fuck y’all who don’t!

SINGLE PAYER, MEDICARE FOR ALL, IS THE ONLY REASONABLE, TIMELY ANSWER.

You see, I have a pre-existing condition, MY AGE!

FACT: Our for-profit health care system sucks.
I don’t have to say so; the World Health Organization says so. With 47 million Americans uninsured and millions more under-insured and millions more ignorant of their own health care coverage inadequacies (until a catastrophic injury or illness strikes) we rank far, far down the list on the two most telling health statistics: infant mortality and average life expectancy.
FACT: Health care companies and pharmaceuticals fund politicians’ campaigns.
This support is a matter of public record and is irrefutable. For a politician to walk away from that money source would be, for all but the bravest, political suicide.
FACT: Almost every single first world industrialized nation operates on a government funded (but NOT typically a government owned) UNIVERSAL SINGLE PAYER health care system.
There is NO argument that their systems are successful. They are. They work. On a per capita basis, their citizens pay half what we pay and have better health care. This is NOT something to be argued. It is fact.

So, WTF is this all about? WHY are we having this conversation? WHY are we pretending there’s controversy surrounding this issue? Because our health care corporations own our politicians, own our corporate news media, and own our president. THEY frame the debate and THEY create and plant the disinformation. And it’s because ignorant, clueless sheep swallow the corporate lies.

Save money and live better. And have a nice day!

Profits can be an elusive and easily managed ( mangled) number…Some believe inflated executive compensation to be a part of the profit picture:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/19/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5253373.shtml

Re: voice of truth

I see my error, you are correct. Sorry about that.
 
Your comment: “For the RECORD, in 2008, AETNA’s net income was $1.38billion on revenues of $30.95billion, for an after tax profit margin of 4.5%.  This was a 31.8% DROP from 2007’s profit margin of 6.6%.  This proves that a) it does have a relatively small profit margin and b) it fell dramatically from the previous year, even though revenues rose by over 12%.

While having a 6.6% profit margin sounds low, it is deceiving, this profit was $1.38 billion dollars.  At this same time, care was being denied that many times resulted in the deaths of their paid policy holders.  These same companies scammed billions from their patrons via bookkeeping acrobatics, so lets definitely put a plug in for UNITED HEALTH who made it all happen. 

Additionally, there were enormous pay packages being distributed during this same period.  I don’t deny anyone a living, even a very good living.  That’s a good thing…. everyone should have it, but they shouldn’t do it by causing the deaths of others or profitting from their suffering.  Very clearly, I see a difference between a very good living, greed and profit margin mania.

Yet this is what has been going on.  In 2008, CEO Ronald A. Williams @ Aetna had a pay package of over $24 million, but he certainly wasn’t alone.  The profit has to be taken out of healthcare or these things will continue.

With privatized healthcare every movement through the chain requires a profit (some, flagrantly unwarranted).  By the time services/products arrive to the patient…. charges have skyrocketed.  It has to be brought under control. It is obvious that capitalizing on healthcare leads to all types of malfeasance, by all involved, whether they agree with the dictates or not.  The undeniable eventual outcome is many suffer needlessly, or die.  And for what…?

The almighty dollar.

Who cares WHAT the profit margins or percentages are? As long as any company makes money off of the health and death of Americans, WE THE PEOPLE are going to die. NO CORPORATION should be making a single cent providing health care coverage for the Public. Once a company’s bottom line depends on how many people they can kill and get away with, where is the impetus for them to change? WE THE PEOPLE are nothing but prey to them, and they own our government. Have a nice day.

Re: voice of truth

“As for the compensation packages, you don’t even know those people.  What makes you hate them so much and/or believe that their income is evil?  Who are you to be that judge?”

Trial by implication again.  I said nothing of the kind, I said the profits are obscene, and these profits are calculated AFTER these enormous salaries, benefit packages and bonuses.  Additionally, the orginal numbers used were 2007 numbers, I was simply following the same format so as not to be confusing.  They appeared acceptable to you before….. they were what you used to come up with your erroneous percentages.

I have some errands to attend, be back later.  My numbers are correct for 2007, although I did use the approximation of profit (which I stated), since it was not listed….(ie.. quarterly profit times four to arrive at yearly approx.)  Common practice.

Actually, Outraged, you’re even more incorrect.

First, I don’t need a lesson in how to compute the profit ratio of anything, that is what I do for a living.  The genesis of my original comment was simply in relation to what I thought was an error by Cain, and when he pointed out what he had been referring to, I actually noted that he was correct.

For the RECORD, in 2008, AETNA’s net income was $1.38billion on revenues of $30.95billion, for an after tax profit margin of 4.5%.  This was a 31.8% DROP from 2007’s profit margin of 6.6%.  This proves that a) it does have a relatively small profit margin and b) it fell dramatically from the previous year, even though revenues rose by over 12%.  Do that math.

As for the compensation packages, you don’t even know those people.  What makes you hate them so much and/or believe that their income is evil?  Who are you to be that judge?

Re: cain is abel and voice of truth

Your comment, cain is abel: “2) the example sited by Outraged is not a very good one.  ATENA would only be making a profit of about 1.5% on revenues of 27.6 billion.”

Your comment, voice of truth: ”““ATENA would only be making a profit of about 1.5% on revenues of 27.6 billion.  if we assume that the profits are quarterly, that is still a 6% profit. “”

This is incorrect.  You can’t add percentages like that.  1.5% per quarter = 1.5% for the whole year.”

Both are incorrect.

The correct computation is much different.  We are talking about $2.7 billion in revenue for the YEAR, 434 million in profit for the QUARTER.

Both percent assertions do not move the decimal point over two places, only one.  It would be 16% not 1.57% but that was not the only “error”.

If you take those quarterly profits ($434,000,000.00) and multiply them by FOUR which would be an approx. YEARLY profit of, $1,736,000,000.00 dollars.

Then simply by dividing that $1,736,000,000.00(the approx. YEARLY profit) by the $2,700,000,000.00 dollars (the yearly revenue) you will arrive at “profit as a percent of revenue”.

To put this in simplier terms if I want to know the what percent “25” is of 100.  I cannot divide 100 by 25…... I would get “4” or 400%. no, no, no.  I have to divide 25 by 100 to get the correct percent…..25/100=.25, then simply move the decimal two places to the right to arrive at percent.  In other words, 25%.

Therefore not only did you not use the correct amounts in the first place, it appears you forgot to MOVE THE DECIMAL POINT to put the percent in its rightful place.

So then….. back to the correct computation. By dividing that $1,736,000,000.00(the approx. YEARLY profit) by the $2,700,000,000.00 dollars (the yearly revenue) you will arrive at “profit as a percent of revenue”.

$1,736,000,000.00 divided by $2,700,000,000.00 equals .64296296296, move the decimal two places to arrive at 64%.

Of course profit is computed AFTER bonuses and salaries are paid….. this is where the obscenity really becomes stark as this article shows:

(2007 figures)
“Aetna Ronald A. Williams: $23,045,834
Cigna H. Edward Hanway: $25,839,777
Coventry Dale B. Wolf : $14,869,823
Health Net Jay M. Gellert: $3,686,230
Humana Michael McCallister: $10,312,557
U.Health Grp Stephen J. Hemsley: $13,164,529
WellPoint Angela Braly (2007): $9,094,271
L. Glasscock (2006): $23,886,169

http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2009/05/20/health-insurance-ceos-total-compensation-in-2008/

Outraged, you’re right, that was a singularly bad time for me to use the wrong in my comments!  Wow.

Anyway, my point is, and I do believe this, and I think that Mr Krueger and I at least have a basis for some common ground, that in a truly competitive insurance industry, the price would go down and the service would get better.

For every unfortunate story, there are millions of others who have not had any problems.  I simply do not believe that the government needs to step in and destroy something so personal to so many, and something that every poll shows that 80% of Americans are happy with.

There are many ways to help the less fortunate without trashing everyone else.

As for the others, Ardee, with all your statistics, you have yet to refute any of the ones I mentioned.  DoubleStandard, your just too whacked out.  Your comments belie a complete ignorance of economics and rational thought.

Cain is Able wrote:
” truthdigger3- You have bring up the very reason most people are opposed to government run health care.  You said, “it has been proven and shown that many members of the FDA are in bed with the pharmaceutical companies”
_____________________________________________________

Your statement is flat out wrong. Public option or single payer programs don’t mean a government run health care. The government will pay your medical bills without threatening you with termination if you get severly sick and costly or don’t accept you if you have previous condition or deny your treatment to save money.  What is wrong or corrupt about that??!! There is no reason or incentive for corruption in such an arrangement.
FDA members are always tempted with Pharmaceutical companies grants, fees for writing drug testimonials, stock ownership or outright bribery.

Voice of Truth,

Let’s see - there is no competition now, so, having a single payer (Public Option) plan will make too much / unfair competition! I see. If there were 47 million people without health care in 2007. And statistically, most people get their health care from their place of employment… Hmm…. Good thing millions haven’t lost their jobs in the past 18 months!

You talk about pre-existing conditions and I am talking about an industry who rescinded coverage for any old discovery… A woman, the day before she had a double mastectomy, was canceled because she had been treated for acne by a dermatologist and had not included that on her application. You really think the stop-loss departments of the insurance companies are a figment of my imagination?

You gloss over my comment about car insurance - don’t they check your driving record, credit report… BEFORE they issue you a policy? You’re damn right they do! If they issue you a policy and take your premium money, they can’t decide later that you lied, omitted information or your driving record made you a poor risk… Can they?

I do know and agree about state to state regulation. I guess you think that I just got off the banana boat yesterday. I confess, I am tired of gimmicky slogans and PowerPoint backgrounds - something needs to be done! And MEDICARE for ALL is it!

There is no compromise between my thoughts about this with a learned individual like yourself. Who pays for your health care, Mr Truth?

Who pays your health care Mr Truth?

Re: voice of truth

Your comment: “For example, you have BCBS Michigan.  That is not the same plan as BCBS Florida.  It is against the law to offer interstate insurance coverage.  If that single barrier were removed, it would increase competitiveness drastically.”

Drastically…?????!!!!!  No kidding..?  DRASTICALLY!  Oh my, oh my…..  oh me, oh my.

What an incredible point “VOT”.  So, I was wondering who do you think it was that lobbied and pushed through THAT type of legislation?  Those poor insurance companies relegated to following laws DISTINCTLY in their favor.  Those poor misbegotten souls, I can’t tell you how that moves me, I mean that really moves me….  And the more I think about it, the more it moves me….. that is simply outrageous.

That’s it!  No more insurance companies having to “put up” with all those regulations in their favor!  MEDICARE FOR ALL!

All for one, and one for all!

and yet again:

http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

Suite 810
Washington, DC 20005

202.638.7151

http://www.nchc.org
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Health Insurance Coverage

This document is also available as a printable .pdf file.
Facts on Health Insurance Coverage

Facts on the Cost of Health Insurance Coverage

Most Americans have health insurance through their employers, yet employment is no longer a guarantee of health insurance coverage.  As America continues to move from a manufacturing-based economy to a service economy, and employee
working patterns continue to evolve, health insurance coverage has become less stable.  The service sector offers less access to health insurance than its manufacturing counterparts.

Due to rising health insurance premiums, many small employers cannot afford to offer health benefits.  Companies that do offer health insurance, often require employees to contribute a larger share toward their coverage.  As a result, an increasing number of Americans have opted not to take advantage of job-based health insurance because they cannot afford it.

How Many Americans Are Uninsured?

  * Several studies estimate the number of uninsured Americans. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007, their latest data available.
  * The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) estimated that the percentage of uninsured Americans under age 65 represented 27 percent of the population.  According to the MEPS data, nearly 54 million Americans under the age of 65 were uninsured in the first-half of 2007. 2
  * A recent study shows that based on the effects of the recession alone (not job loss), it is projected that nearly seven (7) million Americans will lose their health insurance coverage between 2008 and 2010. 3 Urban Institute researchers estimate that if unemployment reaches 10 percent, another six (6) million Americans will lose their health insurance coverage.  Taking these numbers together, it is conceivable that by next year, 57 to 60 million Americans will be uninsured.
  * The Urban Institute estimates that under a worse case scenario, 66 million Americans will be uninsured by 2019. 4
  * Nearly 90 million people – about one-third of the population below the age of 65 spent a portion of either 2007 or 2008 without health coverage.5

Who Are the Uninsured?

  * The large majority of the uninsured (85 percent) are native or naturalized citizens.6
  * Nearly 1.3 million full-time workers lost their health insurance in 2006. 1
  * Over 8 in 10 uninsured people come from working families – almost 70 percent from families with one or 7
  * The percentage and the number of uninsured Hispanics increased to 32.1 percent and overall to 15 million in 2007.1

Why is the Number of Uninsured People Increasing?

  * Even if employees are offered coverage on the job, they can’t always afford their portion of the premium.  Health insurance premiums have increased 119 percent for employers since 1999 and employee spending for health insurance coverage (employee’s share of family coverage) has increased 117 percent between 1999 and 2008.7
  * Rapidly rising health insurance premiums are the main reason cited by all small firms for not offering coverage. Health insurance premiums are rising at extraordinary rates.  The average annual increase in inflation has been 2.5 percent while health insurance premiums for small firms have escalated an average of 12 percent annually.7

Ardee, are you really serious?!?!?!

The data in your article is 14 years old!!!!!

14 years!!!

For those enamored of statistics I give:

http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house/ways-and-means/sec2.pdf
Loads of facts regarding the lack of care and the demographics involved. I fear voice of truth is a bit off on his assumptions regarding the numbers.

Alan

You are spouting talking points.  Learn the facts.  There are not 50M Americans unable to get health insurance.  In fact, after removing young people who choose not to get it (I used to get $$ back from my company instead of paying for benefits), illegal immigrants, and others who opt out on purpose, there are essentially only about 10M people left.

To your specific point about a level playing field, it is actually government regulation and intervention that removes the true competition.  For example, you have BCBS Michigan.  That is not the same plan as BCBS Florida.  It is against the law to offer interstate insurance coverage.  If that single barrier were removed, it would increase competitiveness drastically.

Secondly, government regulations mandate that a whole host of specific procedures that have to be covered.  As a male, does it make sense that I have to “buy” an insurance policy that is forced to pay for breast exams?  Every cause with enough voice has And isn’t forcing companies to insure against pre-existing conditions sort of the antithesis of insurance.  That’s like getting into a car crash, then buying insurance.

Auto insurance has become pretty cheap, because there is competition.  Allstate is now running ads that about accident forgiveness, so your premiums don’t go up.  That’s pretty enticing to me.  Before you deride an entire industry, you really should understand what they do and the constraints they are operating under.

The people that are losing sleep over what MIGHT happen to the private insurance companies, perhaps ought to think about what IS happening to 50 million people without coverage.

I am a baby boomer. I have BCBS. My plan has no prescription drug coverage, a high deductible and has gone up 300% since I moved from a group plan to an individual plan eight years ago. In Michigan, the BLUES have just been granted a 22% increase in individual premiums effective october. This will move my monthly premium from $550 per month to $660. I have not had a claim paid in eight years and have no idea whether BCBS will find a mistake on my paperwork from 2001 and deny my coverage altogether! Just think if you paid for full coverage auto collision and when you had a crash, they found a error on your application and rescinded your coverage! Of course, they keep all the money you have paid them from point A to point B! Only in CORPORATE AMERICA is such nonsense possible!

POOR private insurance companies… Don’t make me laugh - level playing field my ass! People with a FREE LUNCH are worried about the POOR private insurance companies…

I apologize for not doing the proper research.  Atena made about $1 billion dollar on $31 billion in revenue.  That is a profit of roughly 4.5%.  Very few businesses operate with lower margins than that.

Voice,

I could agree more.

That would be correct, Cain, thanks.  Either way, 1.5% or 6%, is nothing to crew about.  Heck, restaurants typically earn 10-20%.  Let’s nationalize them for earning too much on food.

Voice of truth,

I guess id did not fully explain my assumptions.

The original post quoted the source as saying the revenue was yearly and profits were quarterly.  Assuming the same quarterly profits you can simply add the percentages.  The revenue would be unchanged.  The unknown is the quarterly revenue.

““ATENA would only be making a profit of about 1.5% on revenues of 27.6 billion.  if we assume that the profits are quarterly, that is still a 6% profit. “”

This is incorrect.  You can’t add percentages like that.  1.5% per quarter = 1.5% for the whole year.

By Allan Krueger, August 24 at 1:15 pm #

“We need, MEDICARE FOR ALL!”

There is a legitimate concern that a public option will provide an un-level playing field against private insurers and *may* lead to forcing them out of the market altogether.  This possibility must be considered, though many here would be just fine with killing the private insurance market.

But personally I don’t think medicare is a good model for our entire system.  Govt. run programs lack accountability too, are subject to the whims of changing political winds, and tend to make up for their budget shortfalls by simply sucking funding from elsewhere.  We’re going to see this very soon as Medicare’s underfunding issue really kicks in when baby boomers retire in greater numbers.  The only advantage I can see over private insurance is the reduced marketing costs of a public system.

So in the end I see only two possible paths to meaningful change; 1) A hybrid system with a public option whose goal is to eventually end the private option, or 2) tweaks to the current system which leave it unchanged at its core but address its current shortcomings.

“Sometimes ardee, what you write has a delphic quality to it, which leaves room for more meaning. I enjoy that. “

Meaning is such a personal thing apparently. Delphic Oracle I am not, I think you needed to be a virgin for that job, and have access to psychotropics as well.

A couple of things:

1) truthdigger3- You have bring up the very reason most people are opposed to government run health care.  You said, “it has been proven and shown that many members of the FDA are in bed with the pharmaceutical companies.”  Government official are no less corruptible than insurance executives, and government official are much harder to get rid of than employees in the private sector. When the government runs everything part of the business who is there to keep them honest?  Elected official can be voted out, but a corrupt system is much harder to clean up.

2) the example sited by Outraged is not a very good one.  ATENA would only be making a profit of about 1.5% on revenues of 27.6 billion.  if we assume that the profits are quarterly, that is still a 6% profit.  that doesn’t seem obscene to me.  And study have shown that fraud makes up about 10% to 15% of medicare outlays.  that is nearly double the profits of ATENA.

We need a public option… Why do the spinmeisters control all of the arguments with their bullshit slogans and PowerPoint backgrounds?

We need, MEDICARE FOR ALL! Those who have it made now (paying nothing or next to nothing), can keep their PRIVATE OPTION!

I am sick to death of SPIN and LIES!

We got tort reform in Texas and what it did was limit the ability of the working class to sue by limiting the financial amount anyone could recieve in puntative damages to 20 times that person’s yearly income. Result? Only the upper classes could sue as a lawyer on contingency was limited in their compensation.

The truth of the matter is that as Obama colluded with Wall St. and gave it all what it asked for and more, he is now colluding with the insurance companies and pharma/medical complex and he will give them what they want and more.
It is all make-believe, theatrics and bullshitting.
Watching his pathetic and spiritless performance, and his shifting and changing positions, any person cann’t help but to conclude that his heart is not in it and this is not what he REALLY shooting for.
It is all another theatrical show from team Obama.

Re:glider, August 24 at 12:04 am #

The limited number of the superfluous law suits are publicized and sensationalized by the corporate owned/controlled news media to prepare and pave the way for the so called “reforms”.
On the other hand, many people who have been harmed and wronged by shoddy products and services, are not able to go to court because their cases, although legitimate are hard to prove.
You critisized me for calling for depending on honest and competent judges and lawyers to police the legal profession, but in the same time you are callng for the FDA to be the sole responsible for drug safety and not the drug companies. That is strange, because it has been proven and shown that many members of the FDA are in bed with the pharmaceutical companies.
Again, the real goal of the so called tort “reforms” is to limit access to courts by common people against corporate power.
Another trend is the spread of arbitrations clauses in contracts which restrict resolving of any future disputes to arbitration boards.
Most of these boards are in bed with big business.

“Reform hangs on two pins: whether Obama is able to reach progressives and moderates, and whether progressives kick-start a dynamic and expansive rally within their ranks.”

Does this writer believe his own trajectory in this article?

Is Obama trying to reach progressives? The progressives I know, including myself, have been fighting as hard as we can—letters, petitions, phone calls, rallies, etc. As far as I can tell, we have all been ignored—since what we are advocating for is a single-payer system. We are demanding real reform. 

I have heard Obama say that the legislation, and “health insurance reform,” he supports will NOT cover everyone, and it won’t even take effect until 2013. Then, there’s the fact that buying insurance will be mandatory and when people get sick, if they don’t have insurance, mostly due to the fact that they can’t afford it, they will have to pay a fine of 2.5% of their yearly income.

As Chris Hedges stated, THIS IS NOT REFORM, THIS IS ROBBERY.

Outraged asked: I wonder, are some so removed from common decency or basic critical thinking skills that they cannot grasp this simple point?

Keep everything as simple as possible. To keep things black and white, just claim its both. I lack common decency AND critical thinking.

To make things really fit in with your view of the world you should add a third accusation, that we are being influenced and paid by big corporations. Heaven forbid there might be opposing ideas compreting with yours, dear me I dont think you could handle that. You will feel better if you think of it as propaganda and shady (if not illegal) activity.

my quote: I would like to know who appointed liberals as keepers of the gate?

ardee answers: then thinks it written stone. Nice job Mikey.

Thanks! (I think)

Sometimes ardee, what you write has a delphic quality to it, which leaves room for more meaning. I enjoy that.

Ozark Michael makes an assumption:

I would like to know who appointed liberals as keepers of the gate?

then thinks it written stone. Nice job Mikey.

“Everyone does it of course - it’s not just the left.  But I’m always amused at how
quickly the left abandons its principles when its agenda is at stake, while still
pretending that it’s upholding some other deeply held principle. “

You might be more amused at your own complete lack of morals.

Its so incredibly sad to see those who would rather support business interests than their fellow citizens.  It appears they feel that if someone can’t afford healthcare, even though MORE and MORE people are joining these ranks daily, they should simply suffer or die.

Being denied care isn’t like being denied good service or a Mercedes Benz…. it’s about controlling and relieving pain and suffering, it’s about saving lives.

Maybe they believe the commercials put out by insurance companies that show all the nice doctors and hospitals, as if insurance companies are a part of bring health to their clients.  They’re not, they’re are about denying care which in turn sentences innocent people to pain, suffering and death…. this is how they “turn a profit”.  And these profits are enormous as the caption in Chris Hedges has shows, “Protesters, in front of health insurer Aetna’s headquarters, hold signs with the company’s profit for 2007’s first quarter, $434 million. The company would report $27.6 billion in revenue for the year and $31 billion for the following year.”
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090823_this_isnt_reform_its_robbery/

I wonder, are some so removed from common decency or basic critical thinking skills that they cannot grasp this simple point?

We need substantial healthcare reform.
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4106

“Short And To The Point…”

“tort reform is just a gimmick to protect corporations and practitioners from the result of their shoddy products or incompetence, negligence or misconduct”

That is a strong opinion.  As unique as we are in not having some form of universal health care, we are equally unique in allowing extraordinary predation by litigating lawyers. I would like to see a cost analysis but I know for a fact it effects the way my own doctor performs his work (litigation protective medicine).  For drug companies I would for example say that once they have fully complied with their $100,000,000 clinical studies and obtained FDA approval they should not be subject to lawsuits for approved indications usage (suits should be allowed for excesses of their marketing people).

“but there are other ways to stop that by electing and appointing honest competent judges and honest policing by the state bar boards”

That should be about as easy as correcting our health care problem by hiring honest and individuals to manage private insurance companies.  Your logic escapes me.  Because we can correct a situation with a virtually impossible different method we should not address the issue in the current health care reform.

Read Obama’s Audacity of Hope.  This is the exact type of solution that would be consistent with his emphasis on finding common ground amongst opposing parties.

By OzarkMichael, August 23 at 11:27 pm #

You’re dead right.  Those deeply held moral objections to separation of church
and state are easily dismissed if breaching that wall is in the service of a liberal
cause - all you have to do is frame it as a matter of life and death.  Of course the
author just invents the certainty that passing some health care reform legislation
will “save thousands of lives” - that’s supposed to be good enough to throw out
the church/state wall. 

Everyone does it of course - it’s not just the left.  But I’m always amused at how
quickly the left abandons its principles when its agenda is at stake, while still
pretending that it’s upholding some other deeply held principle.

Reaching out to the religious community was a sound idea. Some will argue that to lobby the clergy drills a hole in the church/state barrier. Well, perhaps, but history offers ample examples of presidential administrations using moral suasion in the churches to further political agendas. Surely the saving of thousands of lives is a matter fit for discussion with religious leaders, who, sadly, in the past sometimes have been pressed to support morally dubious actions.

Ah. So if its a “morally dubious action” then its important to point out the impenetrable wall of separation of church and state. 

But if “thousands of lives are at stake” then there is a special gate in the impenetrable wall. The keepers of that gate will allow some religious people to influence the political debate. And guess which religious people? The liberal ones. And guess which causes? The liberal ones.

I would like to know who appointed liberals as keepers of the gate?

Re: By glider, August 23 at 7:40 pm #

Tort reform is just a gemmick to protect corporations and practitioners from the result of their shoddy products or incompetence, negligence or misconduct.
Yes, sometimes there is superfluous letigation but there are other ways to stop that by electing and appointing honest competent judges and honest policing by the state bar boards.
In my state we had tort “reforms” law more than two years ago. It did nothing to reduce insurance rates, doctor fees or attract more doctors to the state than the usual trend.
All that law did was to prevent victims of malpractice or shoddy products from getting fair compensation.

Glider, I’d agree that each side would be showing an actual willingness to compromise, but Democrats would give up the public option, give up a single payer and even get on all fours and bay at the moon before they EVER considered angering their #2 source of donations, the trial lawyers.  It will never, ever even occur to them.

One area where the Republicans have an opportunity to make a contribution if they would negotiate faithfully would be to advocate some sort of tort reform in trade for accepting the public plan.  It would be an opportunity for them to actually look reasonable and maybe even show up Democrats for there own lobbyist tendencies.  It is interesting that nothing is being discussed in this regard.