Comments on: Is Blanche Lincoln Against Taxpayer-Funded Insurance For Big Ag, Too?

By: OutWest

OutWest — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 05:05:51 +0000

Thanks for that clarification. Very helpful.

By: Pathfinder64

Pathfinder64 — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:31:19 +0000

With regard to politicians
” Kill em all and let God sort them out”

By: cirrusclouds

cirrusclouds — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:23:04 +0000

I am from Iowa and work for the USDA. To compare crop insurance and health insurance is silly. Unlike health insurance there are no private companies that insure crops for other than hail storms. No private company wants to deal with droughts, floods, wind storms, or early frost because these events are nearly impossible to make actuarially sound. That is why the government decided come up with crop insurance. It is not just for big Ag, but also used extensively by smaller farmers that are not financially strong enough to withstand a total wipe out. If you want to support health insurance, stick to the health insurance issues. Bringing crop insurance into the debate isn’t going to convince anyone that we need health insurance too.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:57:30 +0000

If a bill is passed in the House and Senate, there will be a House-Senate conference committee that will work out a “compromise” bill that will then be sent back to the House and Senate for final passage. (The initial Senate bill could be passed in the normal course or by invoking the reconciliation process; the latter process eliminates the filibuster.)

During the Conference committee work they aren’t allowed to put something into the final bill which wasn’t in at least one of the two original bills (House or Senate). Mostly they have to choose from one bill or the other and put the better (or both) in the final bill.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:54:53 +0000

the Farm Bank is a justifiable and important instrument for agriculture.

Diversionary Acreage is the official name; it’s landowners (not limited to farmers) being paid (and lucratively) for not growing a number of listed crops. The idea is stabilizing prices

It doesn’t sound like a ‘free market’ idea to me — must be a buncha Commies out there.

How can we possibly afford spending money on Commie programs like that when we’re $9Trillion in debt? I’ll bet it was them who spent us into debt in teh first place.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:47:01 +0000

As for Medicare -5% — many doctors and hospitals already lose money on Medicare patients, or barely break even. Doing something like Medicare -5 would probably run many providers out of business.

Two things:

1) These are patients/customers the doctors aren’t seeing now. So, that means we’re not cutting money they’re currently receiving.

2) It means more money going to doctors (if they do the work), just at a lower rate (Medicare+5%).

We’re pushing more money into the system overall to serve MORE people at hopefully lower rates/person with less dependence on high-cost ER service.

And, the PO is NOT gov’t-run. It will be run by professionals (insurance people) hired to administer it and they will be paid out of the premiums, not tax dollars.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:38:22 +0000

The total reform cost isn’t entirely for premiums. There are many other smaller initiatives in the bill.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:35:13 +0000

Those programs already exist, so attaching ‘them’ to the bill isn’t possible. But, we could certainly attach, via amendment, their funding. That would shake up some people.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:33:13 +0000

The taxpayer monies going into this are primarily the required insurance premiums they’ll have to buy and the tax dollars going through Medicaid to subsidize some people’s insurance.

The Public Option operates on it’s own premiums (with the exception that at the start the gov’t chips in some for it’s reserves to get it off the ground). I’m not sure if that money is to be recovered later. Does anybody here know?

So, they go after the PO, but it’s the Ag insurance which is subsidized. They go after ACORN, but it’s the MIC which is breaking the rules. Where does the hypocrisy and stupid lies end?

By: MarkH

MarkH — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:29:35 +0000

Is a pregnancy “doctored” before or after the baby eats? You can’t have proper health and life without both, so trying to say one has priority is irrelevant.

Sounds like Ms. Lincoln has some ‘splainin to do.