Pelosi wins....How does that make you feel luxury NYC RE: sellers

The Swiss approach insures everyone while eliminating the headaches and costs of health care for companies sensitive to global competition.

"People in Switzerland realize what these costs do to American business, and they don't want to add to the anti-competitive burden of Swiss businesses in the global economy," Gutzwiller said.

"Also, people do not want employers to get so much into their private life and lifestyle."

The Swiss think the quality of their medical care is among the best in the world. They spend more of their national income on health care, at 11.5 percent, than anyone except Americans, who spend 16 percent.

why don't you move there immediately? see you.

This has no chance of getting through the Senate in its current form, thankfully. I hope this bill dies and then someone can lead a charge to reform healthcare the right way, by changing it from employer based to individual based, opening competition nationwide, and medical malpractice reform

From what I hear moderate and right wing Democrats are running scared, and behind the scenes are worried about re-election. In New Jersey, the Democrats are analyzing district by district assessing the impact of last week's Governor race.

This is just a shoot from the hip reaction but the Rich people who support this are just trying to ease their omniscience so they can sleep at night. It's the economy that pays for initiatives like health care. You don't cook the goose for dinner because then you don't get any eggs tomorrow.

you hear? from where, you gasbag?

Topper and AR are wrong, Europe does not have a lower infant mortality rate. The US includes very premature births with high mortality rates that Europe excludes.

The US has one of the best health care systems for newborns, as measured by the fact that a low birth weight infant has a higher chance of survival in the US than anywhere else.

I agree with nyalman, this tax increase will cause more small business owners who are subject to the tax to do exactly what he said, which is throw in the towel and say the hell with it and retire to a lower tax state.

As with his, my business cannot be sold and will be shut down with loss of employment. I have been increasing my allocation to NY tax-exempt bonds in anticipation of tax increases. A long-term muni yielding 5% is equivalent to over 10% to a highly taxed NYer.

This tax increase will not yield anywhere near the revenues they predict, as behaviors will change (eg my buying munis).

columbiacounty up to his old tricks by acting like an overbearing asshold again

I dont understand why people compare Canada. The country is less populated and pretty much everything is subsidized. Three well-off provinces give money to other provinces. This provides no initiatives for these provinces to actually make them selves better.

I am from Canada and I used praise it until I got older and my parents got older. My father passed away waiting for treatment.

Good doctors move out of the country or go in to none essential practice. There are private hospitals popping up everywhere in Canada. Cleveland Clinic opened an office in Toronto as a bridge to US 'best-money-can-buy' system. This health care for all system work best as a preventative measure but if you are sick, good luck getting anything done. Low quality doctors and long wait time.

modern, you're incorrect. noisy data. spin, spin, spin.

one of the MOST efficient use of health care dollars is prenatal care. with good prenatal care, you have far fewer early birth issues, and more importantly, as i'm sure you know, low birth weight issues.

america sucks at prenatal care. really, truly, absolutely.

Fellow Canadian. It's the same deal here w.r.t. to wealthier states. You can look up which states contribute more to the federal tax coffers than they get back in federal $.

Being a squeaky wheel and living in the right geographic location and the right age (they don't tend to scrimp on children) helps immensely in Canada. But at least there's a safety net - once you're in the "system", you will be taken care of. The trick is to get diagnosed and signed up for treatment to start with.

Once the U.S. goes to a publicly funded system, I'm not sure where Canadian doctors will go to make more $.

I know my fair share of Canadians who've had "mystery" lumps and bumps that turn out to be cancer, but alas, never get seen in time to be treated. You have to really work the system by calling in every favor, and be available for any appt to get that first (correct) diagnosis and treatment. Once you've had at least your first treatment, the protocols aren't that different.

50%+ marginal tax rates make me cringe, but didnt you forget that state and city are a deduction vs. federal? And Steve has a good point...the tax system is less progressive than you think, given the roll off of social security and medicaid at around $100k or whatever it is.

Also, they are not driving folks out of NYC by doing this...they are driving prices down. You assume low taxes, like low interest rates, are a great thing... They also contribute to an upward spiral in asset prices. Net net, neither low taxes nor low interest rates do as much for you as they think. I am not sure what even makes 50% tax rates on seven figure incomes so intrinsically 'too much'...or even un-American. The problem is people have equated post Reagan America with America, as a rhetorical tool to fight liberals. Its basically bullshit. We're coming off a 25 year drift to the right.

What drove asset prices up was Fed easy credit/money policies. It's not driven by tax rates. But I suppose one could argue(as I have) interest rate tax deduction had an effect.

Interest rate deduction was a bad idea. Its a one time transfer to asset owners. When its all said and done, the average tax rate of a seven figure income is less than you think. I am including mortgage deduction in that statement.

I can argue that 5% tax increase on the top of all the finance incomes in Manhattan can actually have an impact on value. Basically everything Reagan started and Bush continued drove taxes down on incomes and cap gains...some of it was lost in the wash because it just put more money in the system to chase assets. I did not say its 'driven by'.

still struggling with the idea of owning a viable business that cannot be sold. if it's generating an income for the owner and there is more than the owner employed, how can the business (which on one level is an aggregation of satisfied customers)not be salable?

I know this is a hot-button issue with people on both sides, but remember, the bill that finally passes (if at all) will likely be quite different from the bill the house passed. By the time everyone else gets their hands on it there will be many changes. Some good and some bad (for everyone).

waverly is absolutely correct. the senate version will be quite different, and then they'll have to hammer out their differences.

CC - "still struggling with the idea of owning a viable business that cannot be sold. if it's generating an income for the owner and there is more than the owner employed, how can the business (which on one level is an aggregation of satisfied customers)not be salable?"

My uncle has a hugely successful law practice. But he has one paralegal and one part time secretary. When he retires it's over. Huge client list. Huge track record of successful cases, but he's the reason it works. Take him out of the equation and it's gone. Likewise, any other business where the success relies on the abilities of one guy when that guy is gone what's left to buy?

why not bring in a junior partner in anticipation of eventual retirement? both my attorney and accountant have successfully pulled it off. clients are inclined to give the new person a chance particularly if introduced slowly over time. i also know a dentist who did this.

CC is correct. That law practice does not make meaningful money for anyone but your uncle. Your uncle is the only thing to sell. There is a reason law firms are not public...you cant pay everyone and on top generate a reasonable return on equity for shareholders. This is actually most of the reasons why public investment banks had trouble as well. The only way public investment banks managed to make a return for shareholders is by taking on excessive leverage.

On health care, are we perhaps wrongly assuming that there is not massive indirect, real dollar cost to the uninsured that as a society we would mitigate the incremental cost of universal coverage?

nyc10023

I hear you. My experience has been very poor with Canadian system. It was constant passing the buck with various doctors and waiting. Most doctors in Canada are pron to give up easily rather than trying to cure someone or just pass on to another doctor so they dont have to make the call.

Korea has dual system and becoming the fastest growing health care providing in the world. There are special packages for foreigners who would like to get medical service done quickly and less than half the cost.

BTW, good to hear from other Canadians on this board.

Buyingnow: I gather you are a first or second-generation Canadian? Canadians who haven't traveled and lived abroad are very myopic about how great their system is.

I am indeed. I have lived in US and UK (aside from being in Canada most of my life). I have yet to experience the health care system in Asia. My immediate experience has been comparison between US and Canada.

The health care debate seems to boil down to whether or not you think the number of uninsured is enough of an embarrassment/sin to be willing to accept a sloppy solution and try to improve it over time. Its ironic to me that the right, who pull the religion card every chance they get, are firmly on the side opposing the sloppy solution...

If I were a dem facing reelection, I'd be scared as crap. Leave aside whether this thing is actually good or not (personally, I don't like that it doesn't control costs, but thats beside the point. Factor on the political fallout.

If it passes, its gonna be VERY expensive... and take a while. There will be long-term positives, but there will clearly be glitches. Some housewife somewhere will get a papercut on a form. Republicans will pounce on these, and play up the "big government, see we told you" and scare some folks. It already seems to be working (Corzine, VA).

This is a tough one for dems. For many, they have to be very strong. And, unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the thing to be strong for anymore.

Newly elected Democrats or those in Republican districts are in a bind. They're afraid of their electorate as well as Pelosi, Reid & Obama who clearly made threats of witholding support come next election

Reelection? This is way bigger than reelection - yes, it's a "sloppy" solution, but it gets things rolling in a way we haven't seen in a long time, and that in itself is especially valuable. If the "political fallout" is the biggest reason to be concerned about it, then that's a pretty massive victory.

Reelection? This is way bigger than reelection - yes, it's a "sloppy" solution, but it gets things rolling in a way we haven't seen in a long time, and that in itself is especially valuable. If the "political fallout" is the biggest reason to be concerned about it, then that's a pretty massive victory.

Not sure I agree with that portrayal bjw. This was largely pushed by the left wing of the Democratic party and the left wing controls the leadership.

Why accept a sloppy solution that could very well make things much worse?

I'm not sure how you could make things worse than a system which is clearly blazing a trail towards utter failure within the next 10 or so years.

because there is no other viable alternative. all democratically based solutions are sloppy by design. and the idea that this is pushed by the left is another delusion.

By having the government control it, blowing even bigger holes in our deficit and raising costs even more than they are now.

This really gets at the heart of the party divide...which is as I see it this.

GOP: America works. Its the best system on earth. Especially if I am born upper middle class or better with some innate intelligence.

Dems: No, it actually sucks for the bottom 20 percent (if not more than 20%)...embarrassingly so. Lets throw money at it. Your money.

We have the same lousy cost structure as before, and now more people will be covered. Not sure how anyone thinks that fiscally that is an improvement.

1. the gov't doesn't control it.
2. taxes will be raised to pay for it.
3. there is no reason to believe that costs will go up; the question is whether they will go down.

and, by the way, the wars in iraq and afghanistan have and will cost us many multiples of health care. which would you rather have?

The point was to make things worse for the majority and better for the minority. This wasn't about efficeincy which would've made things better overall.

Columbia County, old friend old pal.

Riddle me this... Why do you all you righties assume that the uninsured are free to society right now and all this is incremental cost?

you are sickening. do you really believe that the goal was to make things worse for the majority? your revolting endless negativity is useless.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/04/uninsured.epidemic.obama/

time is rather of the essence here. and, again, this is not the final plan.

rhino: because if they thought otherwise and opened their minds a bit, who knows where it would end?

1. the public option equates to government controlling a huge portion of the health care system.
2. taxes being raised will increase costs for everyone who pays taxes, and will not be enough to cover the costs.
3. there is no reason to believe the costs will go down. The reasons for high costs are not being addressed at all with this plan.

Your question about iraq and afghanistan sets up a false choice. I would rather have neither. Even if we didn't have these wars, I wouldn't want this plan, because it is a bad plan.

just some of the stuff the Republicans will start to latch onto...

>> House bill bad for NY's child health coverage
Reform legislation would ax NY state plan offering cheap coverage by 2013 and move coverage to more expensive insurance exchanges.
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20091109/FREE/911099991/1049

Its funny that all the righties are only marginally above average intelligence..Just stupid enough to believe all their good fortune is their own doing..and so painfully brainwashed into thinking that anything that came before Reagan is unAmerican. I liked Reagan too...as a fourth grader. Isnt it obvious by now that trickle down doesnt work? Or did we even forget that was the original premise of exaulting the top 15%?

Personally, I will pay more out of pocket if some kind of public scheme goes through. Taxes go up, my benefits go down, the costs of those benefits go up. But the current system is untenable, folks. Sure, I'd like to have more disposable income - who wouldn't? And I think that we've reached some kind of critical mass here as to whether action is needed, as hastily and badly constructed the current bill is.

If America falls prey to equating public health care reform to Nazis and rationing HC to death panels, then I don't know what to say...

aboutready, right on. To me, this is so far beyond politics (Dems and GOP have had decades to address this properly, but of course, we've procrastinated and are now stuck writing the last 95 pages of our 100-page term paper due this week). A lot of people also seem to miss that the uninsured are incredibly costly to the rest of us.

BJW I just said that...

and...but for the grace of god..anyone of us could be the next uninsured.

What? No the hardworking Reps on this post would never let that happen. Its only the poor and lazy who let that happen.

Sorry Rhino, I missed it!

> Isnt it obvious by now that trickle down doesnt work?

Not to those who actually studied economics.

Here are the D/R stats...

Not HS Grad College Grad & Post-grad
% of Democrats 32% 15%
% of Independents 22% 18%
% of Republicans 19% 23%

I love that the fine religious right folk are focusing on dollar costs, ignoring social costs, and then spending a trillion bucks to bomb the shit out of Iran. Y'all suck.

Trickle down works? Dude you are a fucking moron. I studied economics..at two different ivy league schools.

Yep. I would be even more incensed about this if we didn't (due to "luck") have 2 backup countries to move to with universal HC insurance. I can't for the life of me see why people aren't focusing on getting the best bill through, and are focusing on whether the gov't should be involved.

I've also lived in places with close-to-free-market HC systems (very little private coverage, you just pay your doctor/hospital directly & smattering of charity hospitals) - which must have been the case in many pre-WWII Western countries. This works to some extent, because on average, you don't pay very much but it is just crazy to think we can have that kind of system today when medical technology has made possible cures/treatments that are not affordable to the average person unless you have some kind of insurance pool. There WILL be rationing, but on the whole, people will be healthier.

"1. the public option equates to government controlling a huge portion of the health care system."

So what? The problem is you're completely assuming that's a horrible thing. They already run Medicare and Medicaid, which are far from perfect, but not nearly the mess some would have you believe they are.

Funny how Dem liberals all think the answer to everything is to tax, spend a lot and have more government control. And when someone objects, just call them stupid, selfish and uncaring. That is a good way to run this country into the ground.

. taxes will be raised to pay for it.
increasing taxes reduces economic growth, the gao didn't address this
there is no reason to believe that costs will go up; the question is whether they will go down
assumes the gov't will not introduce inefficiencies. Postal service is very inefficent. Obama
pointed ot the post office as an example of a terribly run institution.

Medicare and Medicaid are a mess. Did you see 60 Minutes a few weeks ago? Did you see how much money is stolen from taxpayers due to the fraud in these programs?

Funny how Dem liberals all think the answer to everything is to tax, spend a lot and have more government control. And when someone objects, just call them stupid, selfish and uncaring. That is a good way to run this country into the ground.

sure, they are rich already and don't work

Oh, there is ALWAYS horrendous waste, inefficiency in any gov't-provided service. You just have to ask yourself if the private, FM model benefits the average person more or less.

I think it is unfair, that due to an accident of birth/luck/whatever, that I should be entitled to HC in 2 countries without having paid much (maybe 30k taxes total) into the system.

so...we've just come off of 8 years of not taxing but spending like drunken fools. your point?

"Trickle down works? Dude you are a fucking moron. I studied economics..at two different ivy league schools."

At one of the lesser ones, I guess...

so...we've just come off of 8 years of not taxing but spending like drunken fools. your point?

that's like baking a cake with half the ingredients and then complaining when it doesn't taste right.
It was supposed to be less taxes less spending.

Again, country wants to make health care a right, no issue. But this solution stinks.

supposed to? according to whom? not only were no efforts made to cut spending, but the assholes went out and started two wars and created a huge new giveaway for medicare without a second thought about how to pay for any of it. and...what did most people get out of this? fucked is the answer, you slimy bastard.

Of course, LICC, but are you aware of how much money is handed to insurers running Medicare Advantage - essentially corporate welfare - for no discernible improvement whatsoever? No system is perfect, but let's not pretend like private insurers are these wonderfully run, extremely efficient, benevolent entities. That's ridiculous.

One source of Medicaid/Medicare fraud include people who say they're entitled to it when they're not. This will go away with UHC. Another source is fraudulent billing. I say, bring on the snitch lines, and automatic revocation of your medical license if found guilty - and suspension of billing privileges while under investigation.

I'll give you another "greater good" example. If the gov't gave me what it spent on education for my child, I could take that $ and educate my child better than she/he is currently educated. I bet you could say the same for a lot of other kids in the same position (2 college-educated parents, intact family, etc.) but as a society we don't take that chance because the average child probably wouldn't be better educated.

And, not surprisingly... Obama's economic team of supply-siders..
http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/26/obama-economic-team-oped-cx_kah_1126hassett.html

Of course, Democrats will like it better when they don't have to think of it as a Republican idea.

"I love that the fine religious right folk are focusing on .."

Dems calling everyone that doesn't agree with "the religious right". Thats like Republicans calling all democrats welfare cheats and communists.

Not really helpful to honest debate.

I can't believe you guys fall into your own traps, think before you type!

Rhino86

Trickle down works? Dude you are a fucking moron. I studied economics..at two different ivy league schools.

ivy league? perfect

Dems: No, it actually sucks for the bottom 20 percent (if not more than 20%)...embarrassingly so. Lets throw money at it. Your money.

you didn't really type that did you? educated?

Rhino86

I love that the fine religious right folk are focusing on dollar costs, ignoring social costs, and then spending a trillion bucks to bomb the shit out of Iran. Y'all suck.

Well, you taught me something here, I never knew we spent a trillion dollars to bomb "IRAN"??

If one has to resort to profanity to make a point, maybe you dont' have one.

The U.S. "started" the war in Afghanistan? Please don't tell me you actually meant that.

bjw, you keep pushing the two wrongs make a right argument. Just because the system needs fixing doesn't mean the answer is tax, spend and government control, and that if you are against this plan you are against health care reform.

The argument seems to be that republicans wasted money, so now it's the Democrats turn. It's apparent to more than a few, that the Democrats are trying to push through everything they can now, becuase they've been unable to since Carter and assume they'll lose the opportunit in 2010.

Hey, what did LBJ say when he signed the Civil Rights Act - "we have lost the South for a generation"...

no...rs....

the argument is that the republicans threw money away to no good except for a very few at the very top.

and yes like it or not we started the war in afghanistan. and managed to bungle it as much as iraq.

"bjw, you keep pushing the two wrongs make a right argument. Just because the system needs fixing doesn't mean the answer is tax, spend and government control, and that if you are against this plan you are against health care reform."

LICC, I didn't really say either (apologies if you feel they're implied). What is your solution then? It seems that you're perfectly content to leave things as they are. I'm not of the two-wrongs-make-a-right mindset; I was merely poking holes in the standard arguments you were using to oppose this (too much government, the current system is not really that bad, etc.)

> I never knew we spent a trillion dollars to bomb "IRAN"??

LOL.

Well, secret wars cost more. Invisible solider potion is very expensive.

"The argument seems to be that republicans wasted money, so now it's the Democrats turn. It's apparent to more than a few, that the Democrats are trying to push through everything they can now, becuase they've been unable to since Carter and assume they'll lose the opportunit in 2010."

Simplistic... but probably accurate. Every moron in washington is either feeding at the pork fountain, or waiting for their turn.

Just to be clear cc, after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, you believe we should not have responded with military action in Afghanistan? I really want to gauge how much of an extremist you are.

When someone has to say that their argument is smarter than yours because they went to an ivy league school, you can be sure their argument is pretty dumb.

of course we should have responded, you turd. we should have found and killed osama and his merry band and moved on. oops--we fucked that up royally, didn't we? wonder why? do you remember?

"When someone has to say that their argument is smarter than yours because they went to an ivy league school, you can be sure their argument is pretty dumb."

Fairly true... of course, it doesn't say much for the folks who couldn't get in to those schools...

Military and terrorism fighting strategy from cc. This is getting good. So we should have sent in hit squads to kill Osama and his henchman, and left Afghanistan with the Taliban. And that would have taken care of everything.
Is that your position?

and by the way, perhaps you may want to refresh yourself with some actual information.

The "Powell Doctrine" is a journalist-created term, named after General Colin Powell in the run-up to the 1990-1991 Gulf War. It is based in large part on the Weinberger Doctrine, devised by Caspar Weinberger, former Secretary of Defense and Powell's former boss.
The Powell Doctrine states that a list of questions all have to be answered affirmatively before military action is taken by the United States:
Is a vital national security interest threatened?
Do we have a clear attainable objective?
Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
Is the action supported by the American people?
Do we have genuine broad international support?[1]

I understand. Because I misspoke and said Iran instead of Iraq that reaganomics worked, the poor and middle haven't been falling behind for 25 years, and the American health care system is better off as it is. That was helpful.

cc, I'm glad you are posting this idiotic position of yours here so everyone can see it.

Cc is an idiot yet you are upside down on your mortgage.

the argument is that the republicans threw money away to no good except for a very few at the very top.

and yes like it or not we started the war in afghanistan. and managed to bungle it as much as iraq.

that's what i get out of the logic two wrongs = a right...

Yep, when someone needs to say idiot, fucktard, moron to support every argument you know there is no argument.

Two wrongs doesnt equal a right? No one on the side of reform has conceded that this health care plan is a wrong! Bottom line, we trust our guy. You trusted your guy when he lied and lead us into the quagmire that is Iraq on a falsehood. Lets leave Afghanistan out of it for a minute, because at least that had a premise. Iraq did not. Then W declared it a W six years and counting too soon. History will tell whether or not Obama is leading us into a healthcare quagmire...But something tells me you would find fault with anything new because the system (of healthcare and everything else for that matter) works great for the top 15%. However, the election reveals that many of us also in the top 15% think we dont do near enough for the unfortunate.

Again, Reaganomics doesnt get to have worked, just because I am calling you a fucking moron for thinking it worked. The data is clear. The poor and middle have fallen behind despite the advances of the very wealthy...and de-regulation did not work...Even Greenspan admitted that...Moron.

how about them yankees?

> No one on the side of reform has conceded that this health care plan is a wrong!

Yet another false statement. Plenty have, particularly around the public option.

> Bottom line, we trust our guy. You trusted your guy when he lied and lead us into the quagmire that
> is Iraq on a falsehood.

I think you're hitting the mistake right there. Trusting the guy because you voted for him is a recipe for disaster. You need to be INFORMED, and not just swallow what your party gives you.

Thats how the worst things happen, on both sides.

the yankees don't have health insurance? that is news.

This is a republic, not a democracy. There is no way around trusting your leaders judgement. However, it is also my judgement that health care needs to get change rolling. No one HERE has conceded that this plan is a wrong...so for purposes of this dicussion, RS's comment fell flat.

"Again, Reaganomics doesnt get to have worked, just because I am calling you a fucking moron for thinking it worked. The data is clear. The poor and middle have fallen behind despite the advances of the very wealthy...and de-regulation did not work...Even Greenspan admitted that...Moron. "

Ah, I got it... you took one economics class at a second-tier ivy. It all makes sense now..

Confusing deregulation with supply-side economics... WOW, there are 5th graders who wouldn't make that mistake.

And you seemed to have missed the point... Obama's team is fulled with supply-siders!

what the magical data you have that the actual people who study economics don't?