Comments on: GOP Sees ‘Win-Win’ as Stupak Splits Dems

By: Bill527

Bill527 — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 18:22:51 +0000

“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.” (Edward R. Murrow)

By: Bill527

Bill527 — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:22:51 +0000

“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.” (Edward R. Murrow)

By: Bill527

Bill527 — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:22:51 +0000

“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.” (Edward R. Murrow)

By: qofdisks

qofdisks — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:40:20 +0000

Short term gain for a few at the price of long term pain for everybody else. That is our economic system.
I can't think of a more evil cabal against the common good than the for profit health insurance industry teamed up with Wall Street financial looters.
The horror, the horror.

By: Gene Gadera

Gene Gadera — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:10:38 +0000

Yesterday the 60 Plus organization (see http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=60_P...) launched a $1.5 million ad campaign designed to frighten seniors about health care reform as part of an effort to target 15 House Dems in senior-heavy districts by claiming they support a dire threat to Medicare that would saddle seniors’ grandchildren with massive deficits - the ads are the handiwork of the same agency that created the infamous Willie Horton ads during the 1988 Bush-Dukakis presidential race. A representative example of the ads is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SN5NT5_O9Is&feat...

By: Nestor152

Nestor152 — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:37:51 +0000

In an analysis compiled in mid-October (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/16026457/goldman), Goldman Sachs concluded that the current legislative language in any of the five reform plans that were then under consideration would lower the overall value of insurance company stocks. The analysis — which included the stocks of AETNA, Cigna, UnitedHealth, WellPoint, and Humana — determined that doing nothing at all was clearly the best route for private health insurance companies. If there must be reform, however, the analysis stated that a “watered-down version of the Senate Finance Committee's bill” — which would require corrective “changes prior to major implementation” — would be second best. The analysis determined that under the Senate Finance Committee's bill, which lacks a public option, the private insurers would fair the best, with their earnings per share growing “an estimated five percent from 2010 through 2019.” When the bill passed the Senate Finance Committee in September, the stock prices of these five mega-insurers spiked as much as 3 percent in just a few hours. Legislation that resembles what was passed by the House last weekend is referred to as the “bear case” scenario in the analysis and would likely mean “earnings per share for the top five insurers would decline an estimated one percent from 2010 through 2019.” If the insurance industry successfully kills any legislation, Goldman declared that “earnings per share would grow an estimated ten percent from 2010 through 2019, and the value of the stock would rise an estimated 59 percent during that time period.” Goldman's analysis “calculates the probability of reform passing Congress at 75 percent.”

By: Vince Ramos

Vince Ramos — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:10:11 +0000

Meanwhile lost productivity due to sick workers attending work (due to the lack of paid sick leave) and infecting others costs the U.S. economy $180 billion annually. For employers, the cost averages $255 per employee per year and “exceeds the cost of absenteeism and medical and disability benefits.” The National Partnership for Women and Families actually found that “while a paid sick days policy would impose modest costs, the estimated business savings total $11.69 per week per worker from lower turnover, improved productivity and reduced spread of illness.”

By: Eddie

Eddie — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:46:42 +0000

“In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.” (Martin Luther King Jr.)

By: Bill527

Bill527 — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:09:40 +0000

In a sense the effects of this political sleight of hand doesn't matter because the economics of our present form of health care are unsustainable. Currently the US National Health Expenditure is $2,509.5 billion and unless the current system is reformed it will accelerate to $4,353.2 billion and consume 20.3% of our GDP by 2018. (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData...). So while in the short-term those who are intent on preserving the status quo (apart from women's rights that is) may succeed, in the end their failure to adapt to change will have devastating consequences to both their and the entire nation's long term interests.

By: Alberto Gonzales

Alberto Gonzales — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:56:35 +0000

"it ain't over till it's over" in the immortal words of Yogi Berra and there are other players in the game besides the insurance and health care industries.

Yesterday The Business Roundtable, which represents some of the largest employers in the United States, said it's continued support for Obama's healthcare overhaul hinges on whether it slows the soaring growth rate of healthcare costs, pointing out that "effective" healthcare reforms could save employers as much as $3,000 per worker by 2019. However as part of their report Eastman Kodak (EK.N) Company Chairman and CEO Antonio Perez also indicated that "...that reform done wrong ...could make a bad situation much worse, in which case Business Roundtable could not support the bill." http://www.reuters.com/article/gc07/idUSTRE5AB5...