"Death Spiral" - Its a terrifying name. Its also the de-facto description of what the public option will undergo if it is "optional" because optional will mean not enough money will be devoted to it to avoid the "Death Spiral"

It starts with a nice, but misleading idea: "All other things being equal, public, nonprofit insurance can be cheaper than for-profit insurance"

Right? No - wrong. Because PUBLIC insurance HAS to be fairer and serve the public good and not the god of money.

The private insurance we all are hoping to replace is very profitable and expensive, because they deny care, right?

The catch is in that "if all other things are equal". The problem that eventually kills public option is that they wont, they can't be equal in profitability..

They will be extremely unequal. Any public option has to be fair to the sick. The for profit insurers don't. Not even Obama can EVER force a COMPANY to lose money.  They have to make money so they avoid insuring many. That willingness to insure the sick makes the public option the insurance of last resort for many, inherently a money loser. It will drive up its losses or it will have to raise its premiums
(This is one of several links documenting these so-called "Death Spirals")
If the risk pool gets sicker. And the higher the premiums go, the fewer people, healthy or sick can afford it.

Their only public option will become Medicaid loans for the indigent. (Which people are eligible for ONLY AFTER THEY OWN OR MAKE VIRTUALLY NOTHING.)

There's more...

I am going to attempt to make a list of the ways that the opponents of affordable healthcare are spinning the situation so they can keep healthcare costs expanding. They are already too high and they are going to get higher and higher, relative to most of our income, unless we take steps now to change that.

1.) Anything thats OPTIONal doesn't save enough money to make healthcare affordable. Why, because the two systems have to exist side by side, and as the cost of the armies of bureaucrats, is huge, and since also the cost of paying for healthcare for the sick is so expensive, its basically a choice, which one do we choose. If we keep both, we simply could not save any money, in fact, two options side by side means administrative costs rise, they might hit 40%

thats what happened in MA. net result, healthcare is LESS AFFORDABLE

2.) Schumer's proposal to make 'public option' "revenue neutral" means that the public insurance will soon cost MORE than private insurance. It will be better, but unaffordable to almost everybody. Sick people might find a way to pay, because they will need a plan that, for example, covers more, but the more of them who join, the higher the premiums will have to go thanks to Schumer's constraint. This is called "adverse selection", and the result will be prices getting higher and higher, soon the well wont be able to afford it. It will die and the right will say that universal healthcare "failed"

3.) Medicaid is not Medicare!!! BEWARE!Medicaid is a LOAN - for the indigent, and its only available once you have literally been rendered penniless by debt. Then it adds even more debt. At 9% interest. Medicaid will NOT HELP MAKE HEALTHCARE AFFORDABLE IN THE WAY MOST OF US THINK IT WILL. Expanding Medicaid will reduce insurers costs, because right now hospitals pass on those costs to others. The poor will have to pay them directly. No more writeoffs or free riders. THEY WILL OFTEN NEVER BE ABLE TO REPAY AND THE DEBT WILL MAKE THEM A NEW UNDERCLASS, LIKE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

There's more...

The list is very long and the "public option" PR campaign is clearly extremely well organized and well funded, but you can't put lipstick on a pig, and the healthcare industry-centric and unacceptably vague, probably unaffordable "public option" exposes Americans to far too much risk. In this economic climate, we should be following the path we KNOW can lead to a successful, healthy nation, joining the civilized nations in the 21st century.

Misconceptions:

1.) The primary vehicle for channeling health care to low income people, Medicaid, is a means tested loan program, it is not a grant or an insurance plan, per se. the huge bills incurred by the poor are supposed to be repaid.

That said, Medicaid has saved hundreds of thousands of lives of people who would not have been able to get health care any other way. For example, people with AIDS. Typically, it steps in after they have lost jobs and spent most of their pre-illness assets on medical care. (I think they are allowed to have some assets, the equivalent of around one months rent in urban areas)

The interest rate for repayment on Medicaid's loans is I think 9%. people often have to sign over assets like homes, inheritances, and lawsuit settlements to repay their medical debt to Medicaid. People are trying to imply that a non-single payer public option would somehow offer free money to the poor for insurance. Also, I think they are downplaying by a huge margin the probable expense of the insurance plan, given what such comprehensive plans cost nationally.

2.) I think it is extremely imprudent to NOT rush into a decision on healthcare without considering all of the options, and to date, discussion on single payer seems to have been suppressed, sometimes brutally. Any salesman who says "buy now or its gone" is trying to hide something. I strongly recommend that all of you watch the film Sicko, (I think you can find it online through Google) which shows how incredibly different the universal healthcare systems in a number of countries are from the propaganda, It will make Americans nostalgic for the simpler times of the past when healthcare was not this black cloud hovering over our nation. People in other countries still live like that, they still have fun. Life goes on for them.

There's more...

The Finance Committee is meeting again next Tuesday. The options they have been discussing so far are anemic. They can't save enough to make healthcare affordable and won't - don't even seem to try, to address the huge number of uninsured or especially the uninsurable people (everyone with chronic health issues, the 20% of all uninsured Americans - the people who the commercial insurers don't want to insure for any price.)

Their care wont EVER be "profitable". Obama is implying that he may help them, but his proposals don't begin to save enough money to do it. Certainly it wouldn't be possible without subsidies that, because of adverse selection would become too expensive. If Obama's publc option needed to be revenue neutral, premiums would rise as sick people joined up, subsidies if they existed, would not be funded adequately. There would be bitterness because of the unaffordable expense of the premiums of the public option. Lets not fool ourselves, there is no safety net. Obama's public option doesn't provide one. In this economy it isn't what we need. What we need is single payer, universal health care for all. Politically, this nation is in a state of crisis because of the unaffordability of basic healthcare. It is the single largest cause of bankruptcies and homelessness. There is no safety net. Just look at the states failure to fund a Medicaid for single adults, in 41 states you can be penniless with NO income and unless you have kids, they wont help you with one penny. That means that adults dont get care - people are desperate. We can't let them waste another decade. In ten years, the money wont be there. Realistically, Obama's public option can't help most of us. Its rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, his own economic advisors have admitted that they cant have a mandate BECAUSE they wont be able to make healthcare affordable. Subsidies would probably be limited to the poorest of us only- Obama's proposals to date conspicuously preserve the existing system which ties insurance to jobs, keeping wages down, reducing innovation in our economy by making it hard to start new businesses, and by all accounts preventing those near or over 40 from getting jobs that they are otherwise qualified for because of the higher cost of insuring them.

Obama says "nobody will be turned away IF they can afford the premiums". That is a big "if" because if the public option requires guaranteed issue, the public option will be a magnet for people with high medical costs. The name of this effect is adverse selection, and its been a serious problem from the beginning with Obama's proposals. If the public option looks like the high risk pools.. as insurer of last resort its premiums will rise.. We wont be able to afford Obama's untested experimental procedure because of adverse selection

Please follow the link below to the phone numbers for the Finance Committee. Dont let them sacrifice affordable healthcare and subject millions of Americans to Obama's risky untested medical procedure..Its designed to fail, its not going to be affordable, and our rising costs won't stop. He throws away a historic opportunity and exposes us to much more risk and costs than we can afford - probably for another decade - Our lives and futures will be sacrificed on the altar of their lobbyists and their status quo.

There's more...

As the subsidy that would have made a healthcare "public option" affordable for those who really need it vanishes in a puff of bull doo, there is a debate raging in the blogosphere about WHAT exactly DID Obama promise to get elected last November?

Wall Street Asked For Another 75 Billion Today

Since its such a subject of debate, what do YOU think WAS promised by Obama in those heady last days of the primaries, when he was struggling against HRCs lead in popular votes?

My friends think he promised results.

A quick, nonscientific poll of several (nonpolitical) friends indicated to me that those Americans believe that Mr. Obama did promise to work for an AFFORDABLE PUBLIC OPTION THAT INSURED EVEN THOSE WITH HEALTH ISSUES AFFORDABLY.

Not just "something".

What do you think was promised?

Please take the informal poll.

Remember, there will be Presidential elections in 2012 and 2016. "Perhaps" lucky Americans will get lucky get universal healthcare THEN, heh heh.
(nudge nudge, wink wink)

There's more...

A few years ago, somebody handed me a pen at a community event that had a little handle on the side that you could pull out, revealing two charts that unfurled to around 5 x 7, large enough to make their points. (current versions below)

US FEDERAL SPENDING PIE CHART 2009

Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion
MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion



Thinking about the current debate over the utility of bank bailouts  vs. universal healthcare I was reminded of them. - I keep wondering, IF 60-70% of Americans want universal healthcare, WHY are our (bad?) political actors saying that its off the table?
What is tying their hands? Perhaps the charts help explain one of the many reasons why. We are spendng more money on our military than the whole rest of the world, combined, is spending on theirs!

US DEFENSE SPENDING COMPARED WITH REST OF WORLDS DEFENSE SPENDING
(US on left, rest of world on right)

Source for 2009 pie chart figures:"The pie chart figures are from an analysis of detailed tables in the "Analytical Perspectives" book of the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2009. The figures are federal funds, which do not include trust funds -- such as Social Security -- that are raised and spent separately from income taxes. What you pay (or don't pay) by April 15, 2008, goes to the federal funds portion of the budget. The government practice of combining trust and federal funds began during the Vietnam War, thus making the human needs portion of the budget seem larger and the military portion smaller. "
Thats it.  The above quoted text and images come from this site.

There's more...

The times they are a changin!

The New York Times and Washington Post are crying foul on the Obama camp's seeming willingness to cave on all-important campaign promises.

"Health-Care Dialogue Alarms Obama's Allies: As Congress returns to begin an intense debate over reshaping the nation's $2.2 trillion health-care system, prominent left-leaning organizations and liberal House members are issuing a warning to their Democratic allies: Don't cave on us."

NYT, reporting on the Democratic leadership's ominous post-bailout predictions of tight money in Washington for healthcare reform in the article "Obama's Revenue Plans Hit Resistance in Congress"says: "Administration officials say there is a tremendous amount of money to be found in savings gained through changes in health care delivery and information technology, and such savings will reduce the revenue Congress must find. "By combining Medicare and Medicaid savings and these game-changing efficiency improvements with some additional revenue," said Mr. Orszag, the president's budget chief, "I think a deficit-neutral health care reform is eminently doable."

That sounds like a broken promise to me.

Is Obama's a Bait and Switch Presidency?

Is anybody really surprised that now, after Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama's 800 Billion dollar bailout for bankers, money for healthcare reform seems to have (surprise) dried up? (It almost seems as if it was planned out in advance, doesn't it?)

According to the New York Times, the Obama regime, with Democrat cooperation, seems to be giving up on meaningful healthcare changes. (surpriiisseee!) In their place, we will receive the things the healthcare cartel has been asking for. Especially health IT, which will simplify the pricing process for insurance - its a huge gift for insurers.

This country is like an abusive family, in which the kids don't even know that things could be better. It is frustrating to hear again and again these endless stories of people trying to obtain health insurance, when it is provided as a public service for all in other countries.

There's more...

Cheerleaders for Mr. Obama will protest, but let them. Its becoming clear that the ambitious candidate Mr. Obama appeared to many to be is turning into a timid President who is content to let conservative Senators like Max Baucus define his administration's positions on important issues like health care, overjoying corporate lobbyists who were fearful that a Democratic administration would represent actual change.

The media is starting to understand the situation, for example, the New York Times has a good article today on the unexpected positions Mr. Obama is taking: Despite Major Plans, Obama Taking Softer Stands

The controversies that he is avoiding are important ones and the positions he is taking are not the positions that Americans elected Mr. Obama to champion.

Online forums are where one would expect to see diverse views discussed, right? But instead, groups of inevitably Obama-supporting posters attempt to intimidate free discussions, as they did during the election. This behavior, reminiscent of recent AI research (using robotic influencers), influences the decisions of legitimate groups, causing them to seem to be making "decisions" that are "not always in their best interests". For example, on healthcare, (the costs of which may destroy the futures of an entire generation). 70% of us want it to be implemented. But "our" Mr. Obama in his Ivory tower House, tells us its "off the table".

The combination of Obama's bailouts and his cheerful embrace of the failed private healthcare insurance model for the forseeable future represents a huge income redistribution scheme from the taxpayers as a whole, to the already rich, many say, "The largest transfer of wealth in history". Ultimately, the result will be an ugly situation which most Americans will have to emigrate, stripped of their equity. Lacking the technical education they would need to work, they will be unemployed, with ubiquitous machines (also here) eventually doing almost all the scriptable jobs. (except where young, attractive humans are used for sentimental reasons, at increased cost, jobs such as waiters in expensive restaurants, customer facing jobs such as deceptionists, and prostitution.)

If America remains relatively safe, many citizens, perhaps most, may eventually no longer be able to afford to live here. Like the European indentured servants who involuntarily populated America, they will represent a unwelcome liability to their home country. (But there is no longer a frontier to send them to. If somehow, they manage to stay, their care may eventually be contracted out, "offshored".)

There's more...

Looking at the Near Future of Technology and Human Work

Take a look at just a few URLs showing a variety of current robotic technologies (the comments are also illuminating)

Fulfillment Robots at work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWsMdN7HM uA

Picking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHuDvVa7m kw

Self Repair:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyzVtTiax 80

Army Science Conference 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i2OrZX0U vg

Hacking the Human Vision System
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltLWUEMTi zM

Vernor Vinge on Preparing for the Singularity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHqNl44JW D8

There's more...

Lets face it, even if we see a recovery in the GNP, that won't necessarily translate into more jobs in the USA, just higher CEO salaries. But people still have to eat.

Right now, the rich have a great way of keeping their children looking busy with paid internships.

Desperate parents pay several thousand dollars and a firm will find their child an unpaid job at a major corporation for a few years after college so they can appear to have experience. As long as Mom and Dad are there to write checks, cosign leases, all is well.

But what about the millions of Americans who don't have a Mom and Dad who can insulate them from the workplace?

We need wome way of finding them jobs so that they can get work experience just as of they had a real job like people used to get.

Or, we will have a whole generation that can't afford to marry. We could end up with crime, or we could eventually have civil unrest.

Thats where national service programs come in.

Service programs got a bad rap* (see below) during China's Cultural Revolution when Mao Zedong sent an entire generation "down" to the rice paddies to shovel manure"learn about rural life" for ten years because he didn't have any jobs for them. (Many analysts feel that this prevented a second real revolution in China, because people 20-30 are the ones who always start revolutions.)

Well, now we are in a similar situation. The entry level jobs that in the 20th century would have gone to young people are now internships and the well to do's families pay to ensure that their children can "learn" them.

This is simply not feasible for many people. Many young people need to earn an income, somehow. Their parents can't afford to support them.

So how about a national service program of some sort. Perhaps one for the oldsters too, the 50 year olds who may have lots of skills and bills to pay but who have been laid off because they aren't stylish enough or "look tired". This is only going to get worse.

What about community organizing?

(*)"Send-Down Movement Links

There's more...