# Uninsured people who oppose healthcare reform **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 11, 2009, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-people-who-oppose-healthcare-reform/520855 "2009-12-11T13:37:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-people-who-oppose-healthcare-reform/520855/121 "2009-12-14T00:11:40Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I’m perfectly happy. I just don’t have a lot of patience for fools and people who parrot outright lies through ignorance. > > So don’t feel sorry for me, just stand up and learn something. Every claim you’ve made in this thread has been wrong. Doesn’t that sink in as something you really should change? How’s your semester going? You ready for finals? I never knew as much as you seem to think you do except when I was a sophomore in college. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-people-who-oppose-healthcare-reform/520855/122 "2009-12-14T01:02:23Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > How’s your semester going? You ready for finals? > > I never knew as much as you seem to think you do except when I was a sophomore in college. I notice you can’t manage to address the many things you’ve gotten wrong in this thread, instead you attack. I’m not the issue here. It’s your adherence to lies even when shown that you are factually wrong. You attack because you’re too cowardly to face the reality that you’ve been lied to. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 7:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-people-who-oppose-healthcare-reform/520855/123 "2009-12-14T07:17:36Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > No question I didn’t dive into the source on those financial numbers like you did. All I did was see that it was pulled from CBO data. That was good enough for me. It doesn’t matter to me if the author was an AF officer or Poly Sci prof. Ok, but let’s not miss the point. This Poly Sci prof _didn’t provide any substantiation_ AFAIK. There is no paper. There is no memo. There is no specific sourcing. There is only a chart. Now I haven’t looked at the CBO report. But often there are multiple estimates that are made. Tying your complaint to cost numbers that begin 10 years out is inherently problematic and _beg_ for attention. I’m not blaming you for linking to the blog post though. I’m blaming Reason magazine for publishing it without sufficient due diligence. That chart reeks of hackery. This sort of stuff reinforces my impression that Reason magazine is made up of a bunch of ideologues. (In contrast, I disagree a lot with Cato --and I frankly believe that they put out a lot of nonsense. But I have also read some gems in the dross at that think tank. There’s a streak of _curiosity_ at Cato that is absent in certain other conservative institutions.) > [@Mr Smashy](#): > > The point I’ve tried to make many times in this thread is that the fraud/waste/abuse savings always seem to get offered up to fund almost every big federal program… and they rarely materialize. Well, Reagan talked about balancing the budget on the backs of waste/fraud/abuse but that was generally understood at the time to be politicing. But [“Bending the cost curve”](http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/11/the-biggest-entitlement-spending-cut-in-history--and-deficit-hawks-are-running-away-from-it----health-care-reforms-grand-b.html) is a little different than that. For one thing there is a lot of specificity-- not just general assurances. A Independent Medicare Advisory Board is established and given some teeth - their recommendations can’t be filibustered. The goals set are tough --6% nominal growth. Frankly, I can’t see how they can hit that, so expect a lot of angst, handwringing and melodramatic rolling of the eyes (oh _Washington_ why are you forever thus?) moving forward. Changes in payment rates are instituted – and again given specificity across hundreds of pages. Experiments are instituted. And there are further pushes on evidence based practice, IIRC. As Gruber claimed, they are trying pretty much everything. > [@](#): > > The point is, this bill will cost a ton of money. Whether it’s $900b over the next 10 years, or $1.8t over the 10 yr period starting 3-4 years from now, we don’t have it. Well, actually we do. And put the figures in context: [they cost less than the Bush tax cuts](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/24/paul-krugman/bush-tax-cuts-health-care-probably/). And they are joined with efforts to get economy-wide health care costs under control. In other words, they are the most serious attempt at addressing entitlement spending in over 20 years. True deficit hawks should love this bill. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-people-who-oppose-healthcare-reform/520855/124 "2009-12-14T13:30:59Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I must say I’m somewhat curious as to how Obama is shafting the little people by offering them health insurance. Sigh. He’s not offering them health insurance. He’s offering them the joy of paying for someone else’s health insurance. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-people-who-oppose-healthcare-reform/520855/125 "2009-12-14T14:06:27Z")
**M4M** , great post. **Lobo** , _I’m_ the one who attacks? Riiiggghhhht. Anyway, good luck with finals, I hope you can get a ride home for winter break, and there’s a hackeysack tourney in the quad. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-people-who-oppose-healthcare-reform/520855/126 "2009-12-14T14:22:14Z")
**M4M** , now that I’ve read through your links… a question: Does the senate bill include repeal of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts? If so, is raising taxes in the latter part of a recession a good idea to fund this? Won’t this hamper our efforts to get out? How about the effect on unemployment (ie, less investment dollars out there means unemployment must rise higher than it otherwise would be)? Your link about Krugman’s claim was interesting. I liked that you linked to a factcheck site and not to the direct claims that so many true believers here would do. The factcheck site acknowledges that tax cuts are about 25% self paying due to the economic stimulus effect. Does a tax increase work the other way, ie damage by an extra 25%? Finally, is tort reform also included? If not, how can anyone say with a straight face that the current court-system lottery we have for claims is the best way to go? How can anyone be happy that the Democratic party is evidently bought and paid for by the trial lawyers? PS I agree with you, I like the idea of an indy Medicare cost-cutting commission. Of course there’s still the unfortunate truth of my post upthread, that Medicare only pays 80% of the healthcare delivered. If it’s cut even more… how will hospitals and rural docs survive? And if people opt into Medicare at lower ages, doesn’t that make the problem even worse? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-people-who-oppose-healthcare-reform/520855/127 "2009-12-14T14:29:43Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > For one thing there is a lot of specificity-- not just general assurances. A Independent Medicare Advisory Board is established and given some teeth - their recommendations can’t be filibustered. The less-than-reassuring words in the above are “advisory” and “recommendations”. If Congress has the will to enact painful cuts in Medicare spending, why don’t they do it now? What difference will it make that some commission tells them to do it? It seems to be implying that we can be quite sure that Congress spends the money now, they will make cuts in Medicare spending later. Off the top of my head, I cannot recall any instance where Congress cut Medicare spending. Not one. The CBO head says - > [@](#): > > …some observers argue that CBO’s estimates are unrealistic because Congress will not allow the Medicare spending cuts in the proposals to take effect. My response was that CBO estimates the effects of proposals as written and does not forecast future legislation, but that the agency does try to provide information about the consequences of implementing proposals. Our cost estimate for the Senate proposal and our cost estimate for the House bill said that inflation-adjusted Medicare spending per beneficiary would slow sharply under those proposals. For example, growth in such spending under the Senate proposal would drop from about 4 percent per year for the past two decades to roughly 2 percent per year for the next two decades; whether such a reduction could be achieved through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care is unclear. In addition, relaxing previously enacted constraints on Medicare spending can add significantly to long-run budget deficits, as we wrote in answer to a question about the effects of combining the House bill with a change in the so-called Sustainable Growth Rate mechanism for Medicare physician payments. The CBO projections, IOW, are based on promises of future cuts. This is the sort of financial sleight of hand that we always get - spending now, cuts later. Somehow or other, later never comes. > [@](#): > > The goals set are tough --6% nominal growth. Frankly, I can’t see how they can hit that, so expect a lot of angst, handwringing and melodramatic rolling of the eyes (oh _Washington_ why are you forever thus?) moving forward. Me either, and therefore along with the angst and hand-wringing I expect an increase in the deficit - exactly what the Advisory Committee and Obamacare was supposed to prevent. If Congress were going to do the things they say they are going to do in the future, they would do them already. They don’t. And they aren’t going to. > [@](#): > > And put the figures in context: [they cost less than the Bush tax cuts](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/24/paul-krugman/bush-tax-cuts-health-care-probably/). This is a tu quoque, obviously - libs were having fits over how dreadfully costly the Bush tax cuts were. Now you want to argue that this is a good idea because it only costs $1 trillion? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-people-who-oppose-healthcare-reform/520855/128 "2009-12-14T14:42:39Z")
OK, **M4M** , one more for you: Please read today’s excellent piece by Samuelson in the WaPo. He outlines most of the fiscal reasons I’m against this ‘reform’ bill. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/13/AR2009121302450.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/13/AR2009121302450.html) Here’s the money shot: > [@](#): > > In 2009, national health spending will total an estimated $2.5 trillion, or 17.7 percent of gross domestic product. By 2019, it’s projected to rise to $4.67 trillion under present policies, or 22.1 percent of GDP. With CAP’s “savings,” it rises a little less sharply to $4.49 trillion, or 21.3 percent of GDP, according to Harvard economist David Cutler, the study’s co-author, who provided these figures. Similarly, family health insurance premiums rise from 19 percent of median family income in 2009 to 25 percent in 2019 under present policies and 23 percent with CAP’s “savings.” The point is simple: Even with highly optimistic assumptions, health spending remains out of control. It absorbs more of government, business and family budgets. Higher health spending would put pressure on future budget deficits, already projected to total about $9 trillion over the next decade. If new taxes and Medicare “savings” are real, they could be used exclusively to pay down deficits, not finance new spending. Also mentioned is Congress’ history of blocking the Sustainable Growth Rate reductions to Medicare in the past. You say the BRAC-like commission may fix that problem; perhaps it will, perhaps not. But the track record isn’t good, and I don’t usually trust politicians when they promise to do the easy stuff now but swear they’ll do the hard stuff down the road. I notice that **Sho** made pretty much the same point as our posts crossed in the ether. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-people-who-oppose-healthcare-reform/520855/129 "2009-12-14T14:52:52Z")
Why do you assume that what is currently being proposed can only be done _instead_ of cost control? There’s no inherent reason why tort reform and pay caps and the like cannot be implemented alongside the currently proposed reforms. In any case, if national health care spending doubles in the next 10 years, either the government will be bankrupt, or the rest of us will. Why is the former scenario so much more troubling for you than the latter? ---
**Author:** ![otternell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ecc23a/32.png) [@otternell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/otternell)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-people-who-oppose-healthcare-reform/520855/130 "2009-12-14T15:09:30Z")
> [@elbows](#): > > Pull your head out of your ass and **quit hogging all the stupid**! Just loved this line! ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-people-who-oppose-healthcare-reform/520855/131 "2009-12-14T16:12:57Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Why do you assume that what is currently being proposed can only be done _instead_ of cost control? There’s no inherent reason why tort reform and pay caps and the like cannot be implemented alongside the currently proposed reforms. > > In any case, if national health care spending doubles in the next 10 years, either the government will be bankrupt, or the rest of us will. Why is the former scenario so much more troubling for you than the latter? Assuming you were directing those comments at me: - I agree there’s no reason why they cannot be done simultaneously. But they’re not being proposed that way. Tort reform: how about a gummint panel that reviews claims objectively and provides legit compensation to those that get screwed, instead of relying on a very inefficient court system? How about a federal cap on malpractice that doesn’t discourage the high-risk side of healthcare (try to find an OB GYN in Florida, for example). I’d love to see something like what DHS did with the SAFETY act (for those of you not hip on Gov contracting, that is a law that immunizes to a certain extent companies that make good faith efforts to help with Homeland security) - anyone spending beyond their means is troubling. Me, you, the government. The problem is when the government does it, you don’t have to pay the piper until several years down the road, at which time it catches up with the next generation. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-people-who-oppose-healthcare-reform/520855/132 "2009-12-14T16:29:43Z")
You can’t put a federal cap on malpractice suits; that’s the states’ job. A gummint panel that reviews claims objectively and provides legit compensation to those that get screwed is called a _court._ ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-people-who-oppose-healthcare-reform/520855/133 "2009-12-14T16:43:52Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > A gummint panel that reviews claims objectively and provides legit compensation to those that get screwed is called a _court._ that this point is missed among many people that dislike the current legal system and venture to propose new and better ways of adjudicating disputes is a constant source of amusement for me. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-people-who-oppose-healthcare-reform/520855/134 "2009-12-14T17:20:45Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > A gummint panel that reviews claims objectively and provides legit compensation to those that get screwed is called a _court._ And if they are doing their job properly, they are applying the law, which is set by legislators. That’s the purpose of tort reform, which restructures the law. So if some law were passed such that there was a hard upper limit of $250K on pain and suffering claims, or that neither plaintiff nor plaintiff’s attorneys were entitled to receive any portion of punitive damages, the court would ensure that the compensation involved would be legitimate - i.e., did not violate those laws. So it would be preferable to continue to use courts even after tort reform. IMO. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-people-who-oppose-healthcare-reform/520855/135 "2009-12-14T17:28:24Z")
Right - I have no problem with setting limits on damages. I was responding to \*\*Mr Smashy’\*\*s two specific points. That said, the total cost of medical malpractice suits and defensive medicine is 11% or less of the total cost of health care spending, according to the DHHS, so even eliminating malpractice claims entirely wouldn’t take care of the cost issues under our current system. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-people-who-oppose-healthcare-reform/520855/136 "2009-12-14T17:31:08Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > **M4M** , great post. > > **Lobo** , _I’m_ the one who attacks? Riiiggghhhht. Anyway, good luck with finals, I hope you can get a ride home for winter break, and there’s a hackeysack tourney in the quad. I would still like to note that every claim you’ve made has been proven wrong and you aren’t honest enough to admit it. Your claims are based on lies and misinformation and when you’ve been shown that you revert to attacks. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-people-who-oppose-healthcare-reform/520855/137 "2009-12-14T17:35:04Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > Assuming you were directing those comments at me: > > - I agree there’s no reason why they cannot be done simultaneously. But they’re not being proposed that way. Tort reform: how about a gummint panel that reviews claims objectively and provides legit compensation to those that get screwed, instead of relying on a very inefficient court system? How about a federal cap on malpractice that doesn’t discourage the high-risk side of healthcare (try to find an OB GYN in Florida, for example). I’d love to see something like what DHS did with the SAFETY act (for those of you not hip on Gov contracting, that is a law that immunizes to a certain extent companies that make good faith efforts to help with Homeland security) > > - anyone spending beyond their means is troubling. Me, you, the government. The problem is when the government does it, you don’t have to pay the piper until several years down the road, at which time it catches up with the next generation. HCR will save money. It is paid for. Again, HCR will save money. It is paid for. Agian, HCR will save money. It is paid for. You can decide you don’t like the cuts and taxes that will fund it, but you can’t keep hashing up a lie you really really like. Also, tort reform is worth doing, but it will save 1% or so off of HC costs. It isn’t a panacea, it’s a small bit that can help. To focus on tort reform is a distraction. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-people-who-oppose-healthcare-reform/520855/138 "2009-12-14T17:39:34Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Right - I have no problem with setting limits on damages. I was responding to \*\*Mr Smashy’\*\*s two specific points. That said, the total cost of medical malpractice suits and defensive medicine is 11% or less of the total cost of health care spending, according to the DHHS, so even eliminating malpractice claims entirely wouldn’t take care of the cost issues under our current system. But 11% is over 100 billion dollars! ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-people-who-oppose-healthcare-reform/520855/139 "2009-12-14T17:40:05Z")
Incidentally, here are some obstetricians/gynecologists in Florida, since you asked: [http://maps.google.com/maps?rls=com.microsoft:en-us&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=ob+gyn+orlando&fb=1&gl=us&hq=ob+gyn&hnear=orlando&view=text&ei=THgmS8e\_IIyhlAeqzeT2CQ&sa=X&oi=local\_group&ct=more-results&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQtQMwAA](http://maps.google.com/maps?rls=com.microsoft:en-us&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=ob+gyn+orlando&fb=1&gl=us&hq=ob+gyn&hnear=orlando&view=text&ei=THgmS8e_IIyhlAeqzeT2CQ&sa=X&oi=local_group&ct=more-results&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQtQMwAA) > [@](#): > > But 11% is over 100 billion dollars! Yes, and? Let’s pretend we could knock it down to 5%. That’s a 60 billion dollar saving, which would be nice, but is still a drop in our current bucket, let alone our 10-year bucket (per your own quote). As **Lobohan** says, tort reform is a worthwhile aim, but is not going to solve the healthcare crisis. ETA: That 11% figure came from the Bush Administration’s DHHS, incidentally. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2009, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-people-who-oppose-healthcare-reform/520855/140 "2009-12-14T17:42:43Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > You can’t put a federal cap on malpractice suits; that’s the states’ job. > > A gummint panel that reviews claims objectively and provides legit compensation to those that get screwed is called a _court._ So you really don’t see a difference between a panel of technocrats dispassionately examining incidents and awarding damages based on standards, vs emotional appeals to juries that sometimes award nothing and sometimes award unbelievably outsized damages? Oh yeah plus the full-employment act for Trial Lawyers/Ambulance Chasers, along with the motivations for frivolous suits, that the second path ensures? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-people-who-oppose-healthcare-reform/520855.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/uninsured-people-who-oppose-healthcare-reform/520855.md?page=8)