On Sep 13, 10:13*am, "US Army Veteran" > wrote:
> Lie One: No one will be compelled to buy coverage.
>
> During the campaign, Obama insisted that he would not resort to an
> individual mandate to achieve universal coverage. In fact, he repeatedly
> ripped Hillary Clinton's plan for proposing one. "To force people to buy
> coverage," he insisted, "you've got to have a very harsh penalty." What will
> this penalty be, he demanded? "Are you going to garnish their wages?" he
> asked Hillary in one debate.
>
> Yet now, Obama is behaving as if he said never a hostile word about the
> mandate. Earlier this month, in a letter to Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and
> Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., he blithely declared that he was all for "making every
> American responsible for having health insurance coverage, and making
> employers share in the cost."
>
> But just like Hillary, he is refusing to say precisely what he will do to
> those who want to forgo insurance. There is a name for such a health care
> approach: It is called TonySopranoCare.
>
> Lie Two: No new taxes on employer benefits.
>
> Obama took his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, to the mat for suggesting
> that it might be better to remove the existing health care tax break that
> individuals get on their employer-sponsored coverage, but return the vast
> bulk--if not all--of the resulting revenues in the form of health care tax
> credits. This would theoretically have made coverage both more affordable
> and portable for everyone. Obama, however, would have none of it, portraying
> this idea simply as the removal of a tax break. "For the first time in
> history, he wants to tax your health benefits," he thundered. "Apparently,
> Sen. McCain doesn't think it's enough that your health premiums have
> doubled. He thinks you should have to pay taxes on them too."
>
> Yet now Obama is signaling his willingness to go along with a far worse
> scheme to tax employer-sponsored benefits to fund the $1.6 trillion or so it
> will cost to provide universal coverage. Contrary to Obama's allegations,
> McCain's plan did not ultimately entail a net tax increase because he
> intended to return to individuals whatever money was raised by scrapping the
> tax deduction. Not so with Obama. He apparently told Sen. Baucus that he
> would consider the senator's plan for rolling back the tax exclusion that
> expensive, Cadillac-style employer-sponsored plans enjoy, in order to pay
> for universal coverage. But, unlike McCain, he has said nothing about
> putting offsetting deductions or credits in the hands of individuals.
>
> In other words, Obama might well end up doing what McCain never set out to
> do: Impose a net tax increase on health benefits for the first time in
> history.
>
> Lie Three: Government can control rising health care costs better than the
> private sector.
>
> Ignoring the reality that Medicare--the government-funded program for the
> elderly--has put the country on the path to fiscal ruin, Obama wants to
> model a government insurance plan--the so-called "public option"--after
> Medicare in order to control the country's rising health care costs. Why?
> Because, he repeatedly claims, Medicare has far lower administrative costs
> and overhead than private plans--to wit, 3% for Medicare compared to 10% to
> 20% for private plans. Hence, he says, subjecting private plans to
> competition against an entity delivering such superior efficiency will
> release health care dollars for universal coverage.
>
> But lower administrative costs do not necessarily mean greater efficiency..
> Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office analysis last year chastised
> Medicare's lax attitude on this front. "The traditional fee-for-service
> Medicare program does relatively little to manage benefits, which tends to
> reduce its administrative costs but may raise its overall spending relative
> to a more tightly managed approach," it noted on page 93.
>
> In short, extending the Medicare model will further ruin--not improve--even
> the functioning aspects of private plans.
>
> Lie Four: A public plan won't be a Trojan horse for a single-payer monopoly.
>
> Obama has repeatedly claimed that forcing private plans to compete with a
> public plan will simply "keep them honest" and give patients more
> options--not lead to a full-blown, Canadian-style, single-payer monopoly. As
> I argued in my previous column, this is wishful thinking given that
> government programs such as Medicare have a history of controlling costs by
> underpaying providers, who make up the losses by charging private plans
> more. Any public plan modeled after Medicare will greatly increase this
> forced subsidy, eventually driving private plans out of business, even if
> that weren't Obama's intention.
>
> But, as it turns out, it very much is his intention. Before he decided to
> run for office--and even during the initial days of his campaign--Obama
> repeatedly said that he was in favor of a single-payer system. What's more,
> University of California, Berkeley Professor Jacob Hacker, who is a key
> influence on the Obama administration, is on tape explicitly boasting that a
> public plan is a means for creating a single-payer system. "It's not a
> Trojan horse," he quips, "it's just right there."
>
> But even if Obama wanted to, it is simply impossible to design a public plan
> that could compete with private insurers on a level playing field and
> without "feeding off the public trough" as Obama claims.
>
> At the very least, such a plan would always carry an implicit government
> guarantee that, should it go bust, no one in the plan would lose coverage..
> This guarantee would artificially lower the plan's capital reserve
> requirements, giving it an unfair edge over private plans. What's more, it
> is simply not plausible to expect that the plan wouldn't receive any
> start-up subsidies or use the government's muscle to negotiate lower rates
> with providers. If it eschewed all these things, there would be no reason
> for it to exist--because it would be just like any other private plan.
>
> Lie Five: Patients don't have to fear rationing.
>
> Obama has been insisting, including during his ABC Town Hall event last
> week, that the rationing patients would face under a government-run system
> wouldn't be any more draconian than what they currently confront under
> private plans. This is complete nonsense.
>
> The left has been trying to address fears of rationing by trotting out an
> old and tired trope, namely, that rationing is an inescapable fact of life
> because every system rations whether by price or fiat. But there is a big
> difference between the two. If I can't afford caviar and champagne every
> night, any rationing involved is metaphoric, not real. Genuine rationing
> occurs when someone else controls access--how much of a particular good I
> can consume.
>
> By that token, Obama's stimulus bill has set in motion rationing on a scale
> unimaginable in the land of the free. Indeed, the bill commits over $1
> billion to conduct comparative effectiveness research that will evaluate the
> relative merits of various treatments. That in itself wouldn't be so
> objectionable--if it weren't for the fact that a board will then "direct
> financing" toward approved, standardized treatments. In short, doctors will
> find it much harder to prescribe newer or non-standard treatments not yet
> deemed effective by health care bureaucrats. This is exactly along the lines
> of the British system, where breast cancer patients were denied Herceptin, a
> new miracle drug, until enraged women fought back. Even the much-vilified
> managed care plans would appear to be a paragon of generosity in comparison
> with this.
>
> Obama has repeatedly asked for honesty in the health

America needs a total rebuild. Support nothing seeping from the
cesspool Washington,DC.

tt

http://www.wvwnews.net/ Western Voices

On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 10:18:18 -0700, martin wrote:

> On Sep 13, 10:13Â*am, "US Army Veteran" > wrote:
>> Lie One: No one will be compelled to buy coverage.
>>
>> During the campaign, Obama insisted that he would not resort to an
>> individual mandate to achieve universal coverage. In fact, he
>> repeatedly ripped Hillary Clinton's plan for proposing one. "To force
>> people to buy coverage," he insisted, "you've got to have a very harsh
>> penalty." What will this penalty be, he demanded? "Are you going to
>> garnish their wages?" he asked Hillary in one debate.
>>
>> Yet now, Obama is behaving as if he said never a hostile word about the
>> mandate. Earlier this month, in a letter to Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont.,
>> and Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., he blithely declared that he was all for
>> "making every American responsible for having health insurance
>> coverage, and making employers share in the cost."
>>
>> But just like Hillary, he is refusing to say precisely what he will do
>> to those who want to forgo insurance. There is a name for such a health
>> care approach: It is called TonySopranoCare.
>>
>> Lie Two: No new taxes on employer benefits.
>>
>> Obama took his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, to the mat for
>> suggesting that it might be better to remove the existing health care
>> tax break that individuals get on their employer-sponsored coverage,
>> but return the vast bulk--if not all--of the resulting revenues in the
>> form of health care tax credits. This would theoretically have made
>> coverage both more affordable and portable for everyone. Obama,
>> however, would have none of it, portraying this idea simply as the
>> removal of a tax break. "For the first time in history, he wants to tax
>> your health benefits," he thundered. "Apparently, Sen. McCain doesn't
>> think it's enough that your health premiums have doubled. He thinks you
>> should have to pay taxes on them too."
>>
>> Yet now Obama is signaling his willingness to go along with a far worse
>> scheme to tax employer-sponsored benefits to fund the $1.6 trillion or
>> so it will cost to provide universal coverage. Contrary to Obama's
>> allegations, McCain's plan did not ultimately entail a net tax increase
>> because he intended to return to individuals whatever money was raised
>> by scrapping the tax deduction. Not so with Obama. He apparently told
>> Sen. Baucus that he would consider the senator's plan for rolling back
>> the tax exclusion that expensive, Cadillac-style employer-sponsored
>> plans enjoy, in order to pay for universal coverage. But, unlike
>> McCain, he has said nothing about putting offsetting deductions or
>> credits in the hands of individuals.
>>
>> In other words, Obama might well end up doing what McCain never set out
>> to do: Impose a net tax increase on health benefits for the first time
>> in history.
>>
>> Lie Three: Government can control rising health care costs better than
>> the private sector.
>>
>> Ignoring the reality that Medicare--the government-funded program for
>> the elderly--has put the country on the path to fiscal ruin, Obama
>> wants to model a government insurance plan--the so-called "public
>> option"--after Medicare in order to control the country's rising health
>> care costs. Why? Because, he repeatedly claims, Medicare has far lower
>> administrative costs and overhead than private plans--to wit, 3% for
>> Medicare compared to 10% to 20% for private plans. Hence, he says,
>> subjecting private plans to competition against an entity delivering
>> such superior efficiency will release health care dollars for universal
>> coverage.
>>
>> But lower administrative costs do not necessarily mean greater
>> efficiency. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office analysis last year
>> chastised Medicare's lax attitude on this front. "The traditional
>> fee-for-service Medicare program does relatively little to manage
>> benefits, which tends to reduce its administrative costs but may raise
>> its overall spending relative to a more tightly managed approach," it
>> noted on page 93.
>>
>> In short, extending the Medicare model will further ruin--not
>> improve--even the functioning aspects of private plans.

So much for Forbes.

This particular lie really trumps all the rest. The previous two points
are Obama simply willing to compromise in order to get a rational plan
onto the books. But this one is an outright lie from Forbes. Obama has
actually articulated a plan to cut some waste from the Medicare system
and has been attacked for it. Yet this Forbes article now complains that
medicare needs to focus on costs as opposed to efficient administration.
The duplicity is very obvious here. It amounts to the fact that Forbes
is interested in defeating Obama as a person/Democrat and/or any reforms
at all. And that is their real objective.

>> Lie Four: A public plan won't be a Trojan horse for a single-payer
>> monopoly.
>>
>> Obama has repeatedly claimed that forcing private plans to compete with
>> a public plan will simply "keep them honest" and give patients more
>> options--not lead to a full-blown, Canadian-style, single-payer
>> monopoly. As I argued in my previous column, this is wishful thinking
>> given that government programs such as Medicare have a history of
>> controlling costs by underpaying providers, who make up the losses by
>> charging private plans more. Any public plan modeled after Medicare
>> will greatly increase this forced subsidy, eventually driving private
>> plans out of business, even if that weren't Obama's intention.

THIS CHARGE NOT NECESSARILY TRUE OR EVEN CLOSE TO BEING TRUE. ASSIGNING
INTENTIONS TO INDIVIDUALS IS PRETTY HARD TO DO. IT ISN'T POSSIBLE EVEN
BASED ON PAST ACTIONS AND STATEMENTS BECAUSE PEOPLE CHANGE AS THEY MOVE
THROUGH LIFE AND GAIN NEW EXPERIENCE.

>> But, as it turns out, it very much is his intention. Before he decided
>> to run for office--and even during the initial days of his
>> campaign--Obama repeatedly said that he was in favor of a single-payer
>> system. What's more, University of California, Berkeley Professor Jacob
>> Hacker, who is a key influence on the Obama administration, is on tape
>> explicitly boasting that a public plan is a means for creating a
>> single-payer system. "It's not a Trojan horse," he quips, "it's just
>> right there."

BUT THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY WHAT WOULD BE DONE WITH THE DIFFERENTIAL
BETWEEN PRIVATE SECTOR COSTS AND PUBLIC SECTOR COSTS. THE DIFFERENTIAL
IS CAUSED BY THE MONOPOSONY POWER OF GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING BOTH MEDICARE
AND THIS NEW SECTOR OF THE MARKET IN REGARD TO PROVIDER FEES. FORBES HAS
STATED THAT THIS WILL SHIFT COSTS TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR. I CAN SEE NO
REASON FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO _ALLOW_ THAT, BUT I'LL GO ALONG FOR SAKE
OF ARGUMENT IMAGINE THAT THE COSTS PASS TO PRIVATE SECTOR PREMIUMS THUS
PUTTING THE PRIVATE SECTOR AT A DISADVANTAGE.

THE PUBLIC OPTION MAY ADJUST ITS RATES UPWARD AND USE THE "PROFIT" (THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT IT PAYS PROVIDERS AND THE AMOUNT IT GETS FROM
JACKED UP PREMIUMS FOR THE SAKE OF RESCUING THE PRIVATE BLOOD SUCKERS) TO
SUBSIDIZE HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS AT THE BOTTOM AND/OR TO SUBSIDIZE
MEDICARE. IN THAT WAY THE "PRIVATE" SECTOR REMAINS IN THE LOOP TO OFFER
MORE AND BETTER BENEFITS TO THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD THEM. I'm not really
sure what these more and better benefits might be, but then, I don't
really give a damn. The point is that it is entirely possible to ALLOW
the private blood sucking thieves to survive. It ain't a priority with
me but it certainly seems to be a priority for Forbes.

>> But even if Obama wanted to, it is simply impossible to design a public
>> plan that could compete with private insurers on a level playing field
>> and without "feeding off the public trough" as Obama claims.

HOGWASH. THE PUBLIC PLAN HAS TO CRIPPLE ITSELF TO ALLOW THE PRIVATE
INSURANCE SECTOR TO EXIST. IT IS AMAZING HOW LIARS CAN PLAY BOTH ENDS
FROM THE MIDDLE. FAR FROM "FEEDING OFF THE PUBLIC TROUGH", THE PUBLIC
OFFERING WILL HAVE TO CHARGE MORE FOR ITS INSURANCE OR THE PRIVATE SECTOR
WON'T BE ABLE TO COMPETE. WE SHOULD BE TAKING ABOUT HOW BEST TO USE THE
ADDITIONAL REVENUE THAT WILL BE GENERATED INSIDE THE PLAN TO BEST ADDRESS
OTHER PRIORITIES.

>> At the very least, such a plan would always carry an implicit
>> government guarantee that, should it go bust, no one in the plan would
>> lose coverage. This guarantee would artificially lower the plan's
>> capital reserve requirements, giving it an unfair edge over private
>> plans. What's more, it is simply not plausible to expect that the plan
>> wouldn't receive any start-up subsidies or use the government's muscle
>> to negotiate lower rates with providers. If it eschewed all these
>> things, there would be no reason for it to exist--because it would be
>> just like any other private plan.

AND ALL OF THIS IS A MARVELOUS ILLUSTRATION OF THE BENEFITS OF ALLOWING
THE PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO FAIL DUE TO ITS OWN LIMITATIONS.
GOVERNMENT DOES A BETTER JOB OF SOCIAL INSURANCE THAN THE PRIVATE SECTOR
AND WE HAVE JUST SEEN A LOT OF WHY THAT IS SO.

>> Lie Five: Patients don't have to fear rationing.
>>
>> Obama has been insisting, including during his ABC Town Hall event last
>> week, that the rationing patients would face under a government-run
>> system wouldn't be any more draconian than what they currently confront
>> under private plans. This is complete nonsense.

NOPE.

>> The left has been trying to address fears of rationing by trotting out
>> an old and tired trope, namely, that rationing is an inescapable fact
>> of life because every system rations whether by price or fiat. But
>> there is a big difference between the two. If I can't afford caviar and
>> champagne every night, any rationing involved is metaphoric, not real.
>> Genuine rationing occurs when someone else controls access--how much of
>> a particular good I can consume.

YET ANOTHER LIE BY FALSE ANALOGY. CAVIAR IS NOT A LIVER TRANSPLANT. YOU
CAN DAMNED WELL EAT BEANS AND CORNBREAD BUT WITHOUT THE LIVER TRANSPLANT
YOU DIE.

>> By that token, Obama's stimulus bill has set in motion rationing on a
>> scale unimaginable in the land of the free. Indeed, the bill commits
>> over $1 billion to conduct comparative effectiveness research that will
>> evaluate the relative merits of various treatments. That in itself
>> wouldn't be so objectionable--if it weren't for the fact that a board
>> will then "direct financing" toward approved, standardized treatments.
>> In short, doctors will find it much harder to prescribe newer or
>> non-standard treatments not yet deemed effective by health care
>> bureaucrats. This is exactly along the lines of the British system,
>> where breast cancer patients were denied Herceptin, a new miracle drug,
>> until enraged women fought back. Even the much-vilified managed care
>> plans would appear to be a paragon of generosity in comparison with
>> this.
>>
>> Obama has repeatedly asked for honesty in the health

AND TRUTH IS WHAT IS NEEDED. THIS ARTICLE FROM FORBES IS AN ILLUSTRATION
OF LIES THAT ARE COMING FROM THE RIGHTARDED. WHEN OBAMA TRIES TO
COMPROMISE IT IS SEEN AS A LIE AND PROMOTING THAT VIEW IS ALL THAT
MATTERS TO THE RIGHTARDED. THIS HAS BECOME A BEAT OBAMA FEST AS OPPOSED
TO A HEALTH INSURANCE DEBATE.


> America needs a total rebuild. Support nothing seeping from the cesspool
> Washington,DC.
>
> tt
>
> http://www.wvwnews.net/ Western Voices





--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

> AND ALL OF THIS IS A MARVELOUS ILLUSTRATION OF THE BENEFITS OF ALLOWING
> THE PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO FAIL DUE TO ITS OWN LIMITATIONS. *
> GOVERNMENT DOES A BETTER JOB OF SOCIAL INSURANCE THAN THE PRIVATE SECTOR
> AND WE HAVE JUST SEEN A LOT OF WHY THAT IS SO.
>

Ok. Let's try this. Why does the gov't do a better job? They can
print money?

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:18:47 -0700, Sure,Not wrote:

>> AND ALL OF THIS IS A MARVELOUS ILLUSTRATION OF THE BENEFITS OF ALLOWING
>> THE PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO FAIL DUE TO ITS OWN LIMITATIONS.
>> GOVERNMENT DOES A BETTER JOB OF SOCIAL INSURANCE THAN THE PRIVATE
>> SECTOR AND WE HAVE JUST SEEN A LOT OF WHY THAT IS SO.
>>
>>
> Ok. Let's try this. Why does the gov't do a better job? They can
> print money?

1. Government carries a much bigger hammer than all the different
insurance companies when it comes to controlling prices. The decision for
government is not one of maximizing profits. It is one of making certain
that there is adequate overall incentive in medical services to insure
competence and quantity. At present we have the most bloated and
expensive health care system on this planet and _NO_ _WAY_ to control
costs. When Medicare attempts to control costs, the providers shift the
prices to the insurance companies who must compete with one another and
who must pay whatever rate the providers might want. For some unknown
reason this is supposed to be a black mark against Medicare. It is
actually a black mark against the "free market" health insurance
companies. They CANNOT CONTAIN COSTS.

2. Government does not need to make a profit and does not actually need a
"pool of money" to protect itself from fluctuations in claims. If such
fluctuations arise then government can borrow less expensively than
private industry. Do not confuse this with typical government debt. It
can be an initial pool that is paid down over time in a totally off
budget system. The SS and Medicare trust funds tell us that such
mechanisms don't work. They are repeatedly used as pools of money to
hide deficits. It would be better to operate the social insurance
systems in a BORROWED pool that is TRANSPARENT and the cost of which is
paid by dedicated taxes (i.e. FICA and Medicare taxes), and paid in
premiums. The idea of government INVESTING from an accumulated pool is
stupid. It creates all kinds of political crap about how to AB-USE the
funds. Health care costs what it costs and will cost in the future.
Trying to "save up a bunch of money" is stupid. No matter what you do
the healthy will be paying for those who are not healthy. That is how
INSURANCE works no matter who runs it.

3. Government does not need to advertise and sell its policies and to pay
a board of directors, a CEO , a bunch of VP's and executives, and then
pay bonuses to people who figure out how to screw the policy holders out
of their benefits. The Social Security Administration and Medicare
Administrators maintain very good on line facilities and phone access
lines that provide for "customer" interface, and they do it quite well at
a low cost.

4. Medicare also processes claims from providers more efficiently than
does the private insurance sector.

INSURANCE is a totally different ball of wax than is a car company or a
construction firm or a legal services outfit. It is also a different
ball of wax than a mutual fund or an investment house. You do not need
the insurance company to do the investing for you. The money you save by
not _GIVING_ it to them to "invest" can be placed in your own 401K and
invested in that way instead of them making the decisions in their own
best interest. The function of an insurance system is to offer the
lowest cost EFFECTIVE insurance as possible. And there is no reason for
profit motives to exist in such a system. Every aspect of insurance on a
scale as large as the population of the USA is pure statistics.
Statisticians do not cost a lot of money nor do the statistics change so
quickly that it takes an army of them to keep up. It is a VERY
PEDESTRIAN AFFAIR when done properly.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

On Sep 14, 2:51�pm, Michael Coburn > wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:18:47 -0700, Sure,Not wrote:
> >> AND ALL OF THIS IS A MARVELOUS ILLUSTRATION OF THE BENEFITS OF ALLOWING
> >> THE PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO FAIL DUE TO ITS OWN LIMITATIONS.
> >> GOVERNMENT DOES A BETTER JOB OF SOCIAL INSURANCE THAN THE PRIVATE
> >> SECTOR AND WE HAVE JUST SEEN A LOT OF WHY THAT IS SO.
>
> > Ok. �Let's try this. �Why does the gov't do a better job? �They can
> > print money?
>
> 1. Government carries a much bigger hammer than all the different
> insurance companies when it comes to controlling prices. The decision for
> government is not one of maximizing profits. �It is one of making certain
> that there is adequate overall incentive in medical services to insure
> competence and quantity. �At present we have the most bloated and
> expensive health care system on this planet and _NO_ _WAY_ to control
> costs. �When Medicare attempts to control costs, the providers shift the
> prices to the insurance companies who must compete with one another and
> who must pay whatever rate the providers might want. �For some unknown
> reason this is supposed to be a black mark against Medicare. It is
> actually a black mark against the "free market" health insurance
> companies. �They CANNOT CONTAIN COSTS.
>
> 2. Government does not need to make a profit and does not actually need a
> "pool of money" to protect itself from fluctuations in claims. If such
> fluctuations arise then government can borrow less expensively than
> private industry. �Do not confuse this with typical government debt. �It
> can be an initial pool that is paid down over time in a totally off
> budget system. �The SS and Medicare trust funds tell us that such
> mechanisms don't work. �They are repeatedly used as pools of money to
> hide deficits. �It would be better to operate the social insurance
> systems in a BORROWED pool that is TRANSPARENT and the cost of which is
> paid by dedicated taxes (i.e. FICA and Medicare taxes), and paid in
> premiums. �The idea of government INVESTING from an accumulated pool is
> stupid. It creates all kinds of political crap about how to AB-USE the
> funds. �Health care costs what it costs and will cost in the future. �
> Trying to "save up a bunch of money" is stupid. �No matter what you do
> the healthy will be paying for those who are not healthy. �That is how
> INSURANCE works no matter who runs it.
>
> 3. Government does not need to advertise and sell its policies and to pay
> a board of directors, a CEO , a bunch of VP's and �executives, and then
> pay bonuses to people who figure out how to screw the policy holders out
> of their benefits. �The Social Security Administration and Medicare
> Administrators maintain very good on line facilities and phone access
> lines that provide for "customer" interface, and they do it quite well at
> a low cost.
>
> 4. Medicare also processes claims from providers more efficiently than
> does the private insurance sector.


Then why is Medicare going broke?


http://www.newsweek.com/id/199167
"That the programs will ultimately go bankrupt is clear from the
trustees' reports. On pages 201 and 202 of the Medicare report, you
will find the conclusive arithmetic: over the next 75 years, Social
Security and Medicare will cost an estimated $103.2 trillion, while
dedicated taxes and premiums will total only $57.4 trillion. The gap
is $45.8 trillion. (All figures are expressed in "present value," a
fancy term for "today's dollars.")"

Lawyerkill wrote:
> On Sep 14, 2:51�pm, Michael Coburn > wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:18:47 -0700, Sure,Not wrote:
>>>> AND ALL OF THIS IS A MARVELOUS ILLUSTRATION OF THE BENEFITS OF ALLOWING
>>>> THE PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO FAIL DUE TO ITS OWN LIMITATIONS.
>>>> GOVERNMENT DOES A BETTER JOB OF SOCIAL INSURANCE THAN THE PRIVATE
>>>> SECTOR AND WE HAVE JUST SEEN A LOT OF WHY THAT IS SO.
>>> Ok. �Let's try this. �Why does the gov't do a better job? �They can
>>> print money?
>> 1. Government carries a much bigger hammer than all the different
>> insurance companies when it comes to controlling prices. The decision for
>> government is not one of maximizing profits. �It is one of making certain
>> that there is adequate overall incentive in medical services to insure
>> competence and quantity. �At present we have the most bloated and
>> expensive health care system on this planet and _NO_ _WAY_ to control
>> costs. �When Medicare attempts to control costs, the providers shift the
>> prices to the insurance companies who must compete with one another and
>> who must pay whatever rate the providers might want. �For some unknown
>> reason this is supposed to be a black mark against Medicare. It is
>> actually a black mark against the "free market" health insurance
>> companies. �They CANNOT CONTAIN COSTS.
>>
>> 2. Government does not need to make a profit and does not actually need a
>> "pool of money" to protect itself from fluctuations in claims. If such
>> fluctuations arise then government can borrow less expensively than
>> private industry. �Do not confuse this with typical government debt. �It
>> can be an initial pool that is paid down over time in a totally off
>> budget system. �The SS and Medicare trust funds tell us that such
>> mechanisms don't work. �They are repeatedly used as pools of money to
>> hide deficits. �It would be better to operate the social insurance
>> systems in a BORROWED pool that is TRANSPARENT and the cost of which is
>> paid by dedicated taxes (i.e. FICA and Medicare taxes), and paid in
>> premiums. �The idea of government INVESTING from an accumulated pool is
>> stupid. It creates all kinds of political crap about how to AB-USE the
>> funds. �Health care costs what it costs and will cost in the future. �
>> Trying to "save up a bunch of money" is stupid. �No matter what you do
>> the healthy will be paying for those who are not healthy. �That is how
>> INSURANCE works no matter who runs it.
>>
>> 3. Government does not need to advertise and sell its policies and to pay
>> a board of directors, a CEO , a bunch of VP's and �executives, and then
>> pay bonuses to people who figure out how to screw the policy holders out
>> of their benefits. �The Social Security Administration and Medicare
>> Administrators maintain very good on line facilities and phone access
>> lines that provide for "customer" interface, and they do it quite well at
>> a low cost.
>>
>> 4. Medicare also processes claims from providers more efficiently than
>> does the private insurance sector.
>
>
> Then why is Medicare going broke?

Coburn's incorrect, but you figured that out for yourself. :-)

Here's the data:

1) Medicare has lower administrative costs when they are calculated as a
% of total health care costs managed. Medicare is at 3%, the private
insurers are at 12%.

2) That seems more efficient, but you're comparing apples and oranges.
Medicare is a seniors health care program, while private insurers cover
those not on Medicare. Put another way, Medicare covers people who need
a lot more heath care (or are sicker, with more deadly diseases) than do
private insurers, whose members are, on average, far healthier.

3) That means that the average claim size that Medicare handles is much
larger than that of the private insurers. It takes just as much admin
time to handle a $50,000 bill than it does a $50 bill.

4) Further, Medicare just processes whatever they are given mindlessly,
while the private insurers spend time contesting and investigating
claims to eliminate fraud and lower costs. That balloons admin costs but
results in lowered health care costs. You don't see that fact
illustrated in a pure admin/cost comparision.

4) If you look at administrative costs on a PER PERSON basis rather than
a percent-of-claims basis, Medicare's admin costs were 24.8% higher than
the private insurers.

Charts are he

http://timerealclearpolitics.files.w...dmincosts1.gif

(Coburn can be expected to shriek when he sees the 'Heritage' logo, but
a dislike for a particular organization is not a refutation.)

Medicare's an adminstrative nightmare from an efficiency standpoint.
Anyone who tells you that they are more efficient are either uninformed
or lying.

JG

>
>
> http://www.newsweek.com/id/199167
> "That the programs will ultimately go bankrupt is clear from the
> trustees' reports. On pages 201 and 202 of the Medicare report, you
> will find the conclusive arithmetic: over the next 75 years, Social
> Security and Medicare will cost an estimated $103.2 trillion, while
> dedicated taxes and premiums will total only $57.4 trillion. The gap
> is $45.8 trillion. (All figures are expressed in "present value," a
> fancy term for "today's dollars.")"
>
>
>

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:13:33 -0700, Lawyerkill wrote:

> On Sep 14, 2:51�pm, Michael Coburn > wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:18:47 -0700, Sure,Not wrote:
>> >> AND ALL OF THIS IS A MARVELOUS ILLUSTRATION OF THE BENEFITS OF
>> >> ALLOWING THE PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO FAIL DUE TO ITS OWN
>> >> LIMITATIONS. GOVERNMENT DOES A BETTER JOB OF SOCIAL INSURANCE THAN
>> >> THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND WE HAVE JUST SEEN A LOT OF WHY THAT IS SO.
>>
>> > Ok. �Let's try this. �Why does the gov't do a better job? �They can
>> > print money?
>>
>> 1. Government carries a much bigger hammer than all the different
>> insurance companies when it comes to controlling prices. The decision
>> for government is not one of maximizing profits. �It is one of making
>> certain that there is adequate overall incentive in medical services to
>> insure competence and quantity. �At present we have the most bloated
>> and expensive health care system on this planet and _NO_ _WAY_ to
>> control costs. �When Medicare attempts to control costs, the providers
>> shift the prices to the insurance companies who must compete with one
>> another and who must pay whatever rate the providers might want. �For
>> some unknown reason this is supposed to be a black mark against
>> Medicare. It is actually a black mark against the "free market" health
>> insurance companies. �They CANNOT CONTAIN COSTS.
>>
>> 2. Government does not need to make a profit and does not actually need
>> a "pool of money" to protect itself from fluctuations in claims. If
>> such fluctuations arise then government can borrow less expensively
>> than private industry. �Do not confuse this with typical government
>> debt. �It can be an initial pool that is paid down over time in a
>> totally off budget system. �The SS and Medicare trust funds tell us
>> that such mechanisms don't work. �They are repeatedly used as pools of
>> money to hide deficits. �It would be better to operate the social
>> insurance systems in a BORROWED pool that is TRANSPARENT and the cost
>> of which is paid by dedicated taxes (i.e. FICA and Medicare taxes), and
>> paid in premiums. �The idea of government INVESTING from an accumulated
>> pool is stupid. It creates all kinds of political crap about how to
>> AB-USE the funds. �Health care costs what it costs and will cost in the
>> future. � Trying to "save up a bunch of money" is stupid. �No matter
>> what you do the healthy will be paying for those who are not healthy.
>> �That is how INSURANCE works no matter who runs it.
>>
>> 3. Government does not need to advertise and sell its policies and to
>> pay a board of directors, a CEO , a bunch of VP's and �executives, and
>> then pay bonuses to people who figure out how to screw the policy
>> holders out of their benefits. �The Social Security Administration and
>> Medicare Administrators maintain very good on line facilities and phone
>> access lines that provide for "customer" interface, and they do it
>> quite well at a low cost.
>>
>> 4. Medicare also processes claims from providers more efficiently than
>> does the private insurance sector.
>
>
> Then why is Medicare going broke?
>
>
> http://www.newsweek.com/id/199167
> "That the programs will ultimately go bankrupt is clear from the
> trustees' reports. On pages 201 and 202 of the Medicare report, you will
> find the conclusive arithmetic: over the next 75 years, Social Security
> and Medicare will cost an estimated $103.2 trillion, while dedicated
> taxes and premiums will total only $57.4 trillion. The gap is $45.8
> trillion. (All figures are expressed in "present value," a fancy term
> for "today's dollars.")"

Let us understand that Medicare "B" and "D" are the primary shortfalls
but that the article is perpetrating a lie of sorts in insinuating that
these were to be supported by the Medicare tax. BOTH Medicare "B and "D"
were passed as general revenue supported programs. Those programs WERE
NOT defined to be funded by the Medicare tax.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/medicare4.htm

In his lust to **** all over social insurance the author of this rag
fails to distinguish this fact. And as these programs were never
intended to be supported by the Medicare Tax then there are no "unfunded"
liabilities any more than defense is an "unfunded" liability. In essence,
based on the actual LEGISLATION that created these programs,THERE IS NO
GAP. The projected income form Medicare taxes and premiums is $57.4T
(his numbers), but there was never any intent for Medicare taxes to fund
parts "B" and "D" in any way. He has wrapped up the Medicare tax and the
paid in premiums in a toxic enchilada designed to be employed by
Republican pig prancers to sew their seeds of fear and distrust of
government. I have no numbers on How much of his toxic enchilada is
STOLEN Medicare taxes that are supposed to be placed in the Medicare
trust fund specifically for Medicare "A", and how much is paid in
premiums. But the article is nothing other than the continued assault by
Republicans on social insurance systems and government in general.

1. The drug program (Medicare "B") as done by the Republicans and George
butt sucker Bush is nothing other than big wet kiss for the drug
companies. They totally crippled the monopsony power of government in
controlling costs and just shoveled money into the pockets of their
supporters. And now they are here using this poison pill as they attempt
to take down the whole Medicare program.

2. Medi-gap is yet another hand out to the insurance companies that is
full of fraud and abuse and which is intended to be addressed in the
scope of current reform legislation. And when we cut the amount we will
pay for a hospital bed, the provider of the bad can suck on it or have an
empty bed. They may also find their pencil pushing butts in the slammer
for failure to abide by the laws. Seniors are the primary users and they
control that market. Cuts in that area are not cuts in benefits. They
are cuts in COST.

3. Medicare is made available to all people regardless of income level
and unlike Social Security, Medicare benefits are not tied to taxes paid
in. Even if the rich only worked for wages for 1.5 years in their entire
rich bitch lives, Medicare benefits are awarded in full. Yet the
Medicare tax is only assessed on _WAGE_ income. The Medicare tax should
be increased, made minimally progressive and levied on _ALL_ income
regardless of source. With that adjustment the Medicare "A" trust fund if
taken off budget like Social Security would swell pretty fast. At present
the money is raided to feed general revenues.

Medicare "B" and "D" are funded from general revenue BECAUSE they have
NOTHING TO DO WITH paid in wage taxes. NOTHING. And BECAUSE they are
open to all regardless if income or asset ownership. My own opinion is
that Medicare in its entirety should be OFF BUDGET and that a NEW
progressive Medicare tax should be used to fund the system in a totally
transparent and honest fashion.

The care of the elderly and the demographic problems do not exist because
Medicare is a federal program. The problems exist in ALL countries
whether or not government is involved. The prancing Republican pigs like
to leave the impression that government intervention is the cause of the
rise in costs. It isn't. And assuming that we are going to care for the
elderly, the best way that costs can be contained is through the
monopsony power of government.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

On Sep 14, 11:51*am, Michael Coburn > wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:18:47 -0700, Sure,Not wrote:
> >> AND ALL OF THIS IS A MARVELOUS ILLUSTRATION OF THE BENEFITS OF ALLOWING
> >> THE PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO FAIL DUE TO ITS OWN LIMITATIONS.
> >> GOVERNMENT DOES A BETTER JOB OF SOCIAL INSURANCE THAN THE PRIVATE
> >> SECTOR AND WE HAVE JUST SEEN A LOT OF WHY THAT IS SO.
>
> > Ok. *Let's try this. *Why does the gov't do a better job? *They can
> > print money?
>
> 1. Government carries a much bigger hammer than all the different
> insurance companies when it comes to controlling prices.

The government writes laws that fix prices.


> 2. Government does not need to make a profit and does not actually need a
> "pool of money" to protect itself from fluctuations in claims.

The government never includes a cost of capital or opportunity cost in
their calculations of "overhead". That is deceptive because they
certainly incur those costs. Medicare Advantage is an example how the
government transfers risk for utilization. And yes, Medicare needs a
pool of money - that's where the 1.45% of your income goes if you are
still employed.

> 3. Government does not need to advertise and sell its policies and to pay
> a board of directors, a CEO , a bunch of VP's and *executives,

Yes, they do (see the website for starters) and yes they do have execs
- but many of the top employees salaries are paid by the DHHS, not
Medicare.

> pay bonuses to people who figure out how to screw the policy holders out
> of their benefits. *

Now that was way too funny!

>The Social Security Administration and Medicare
> Administrators maintain very good on line facilities and phone access
> lines that provide for "customer" interface, and they do it quite well at
> a low cost.
>
> 4. Medicare also processes claims from providers more efficiently than
> does the private insurance sector.

And this is just plain wrong. Medicare does not process claims at all
- it is outsourced to the Blues.

>*And there is no reason for
> profit motives to exist in such a system.

It's called "cost of capital" and in the absence of normal profits
(even "non-profits make normal profits) they don't survive in the long
term.

>Every aspect of insurance on a
> scale as large as the population of the USA is pure statistics. *
> Statisticians do not cost a lot of money nor do the statistics change so
> quickly that it takes an army of them to keep up. *It is a VERY
> PEDESTRIAN AFFAIR when done properly

You have provided an interesting insight regarding your naivete. It
is interesting to see the similarity between that and what is
happening in Washington on the Dems side of the aisle.

allan

Allan wrote:
> On Sep 14, 11:51 am, Michael Coburn > wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:18:47 -0700, Sure,Not wrote:
>>>> AND ALL OF THIS IS A MARVELOUS ILLUSTRATION OF THE BENEFITS OF ALLOWING
>>>> THE PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO FAIL DUE TO ITS OWN LIMITATIONS.
>>>> GOVERNMENT DOES A BETTER JOB OF SOCIAL INSURANCE THAN THE PRIVATE
>>>> SECTOR AND WE HAVE JUST SEEN A LOT OF WHY THAT IS SO.
>>> Ok. Let's try this. Why does the gov't do a better job? They can
>>> print money?
>> 1. Government carries a much bigger hammer than all the different
>> insurance companies when it comes to controlling prices.
>
> The government writes laws that fix prices.
>
>
>> 2. Government does not need to make a profit and does not actually need a
>> "pool of money" to protect itself from fluctuations in claims.
>
> The government never includes a cost of capital or opportunity cost in
> their calculations of "overhead". That is deceptive because they
> certainly incur those costs. Medicare Advantage is an example how the
> government transfers risk for utilization. And yes, Medicare needs a
> pool of money - that's where the 1.45% of your income goes if you are
> still employed.
>
>> 3. Government does not need to advertise and sell its policies and to pay
>> a board of directors, a CEO , a bunch of VP's and executives,
>
> Yes, they do (see the website for starters) and yes they do have execs
> - but many of the top employees salaries are paid by the DHHS, not
> Medicare.
>
>> pay bonuses to people who figure out how to screw the policy holders out
>> of their benefits.
>
> Now that was way too funny!
>
>> The Social Security Administration and Medicare
>> Administrators maintain very good on line facilities and phone access
>> lines that provide for "customer" interface, and they do it quite well at
>> a low cost.
>>
>> 4. Medicare also processes claims from providers more efficiently than
>> does the private insurance sector.
>
> And this is just plain wrong. Medicare does not process claims at all
> - it is outsourced to the Blues.
>
>> And there is no reason for
>> profit motives to exist in such a system.
>
> It's called "cost of capital" and in the absence of normal profits
> (even "non-profits make normal profits) they don't survive in the long
> term.
>
>> Every aspect of insurance on a
>> scale as large as the population of the USA is pure statistics.
>> Statisticians do not cost a lot of money nor do the statistics change so
>> quickly that it takes an army of them to keep up. It is a VERY
>> PEDESTRIAN AFFAIR when done properly
>
> You have provided an interesting insight regarding your naivete. It
> is interesting to see the similarity between that and what is
> happening in Washington on the Dems side of the aisle.
>
> allan

It's the level of "scholarship" that Coburn brings to every discussion.

JG

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 05:17:59 -0700, Allan wrote:

> On Sep 14, 11:51Â*am, Michael Coburn > wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 08:18:47 -0700, Sure,Not wrote:
>> >> AND ALL OF THIS IS A MARVELOUS ILLUSTRATION OF THE BENEFITS OF
>> >> ALLOWING THE PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO FAIL DUE TO ITS OWN
>> >> LIMITATIONS. GOVERNMENT DOES A BETTER JOB OF SOCIAL INSURANCE THAN
>> >> THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND WE HAVE JUST SEEN A LOT OF WHY THAT IS SO.
>>
>> > Ok. Â*Let's try this. Â*Why does the gov't do a better job? Â*They can
>> > print money?
>>
>> 1. Government carries a much bigger hammer than all the different
>> insurance companies when it comes to controlling prices.
>
> The government writes laws that fix prices.

That is an overstatement but essentially correct in this particular
case. Government has a fiduciary responsibility to the people who fund
government activities. And in that regard government health insurance
systems must prosecute fraud and waste while acknowledging and supporting
the need for profits and wages that inure to the benefit of providers.
It is these profits and wages that assure the continued provisioning of
services. Japan has a very serious problem with this in that they set
the price of _EVERYTHING_. NO one would suggest such a system in the USA.

>> 2. Government does not need to make a profit and does not actually need
>> a "pool of money" to protect itself from fluctuations in claims.
>
> The government never includes a cost of capital or opportunity cost in
> their calculations of "overhead". That is deceptive because they
> certainly incur those costs. Medicare Advantage is an example how the
> government transfers risk for utilization. And yes, Medicare needs a
> pool of money - that's where the 1.45% of your income goes if you are
> still employed.

Government is the _source_ of money since 1973. To imply that government
has to face "opportunity costs" in the same way as those who can't simply
create money is seriously delusional. Opportunity costs for government
have to do with judging what can be done without losing control of the
value of the dollar and what should be done to improve the general
welfare. The 3.9% medicare tax is the means by which Medicare "A" is
funded in an ongoing manner. It is a flow and not a stock. So the basic
point remains: Government does not need to "accumulate" money in an
account before government starts an insurance program nor does government
need to retain a pool of money in regard to such programs for any reason
other than accounting and transparency.

>> 3. Government does not need to advertise and sell its policies and to
>> pay a board of directors, a CEO , a bunch of VP's and Â*executives,
>
> Yes, they do (see the website for starters) and yes they do have execs -
> but many of the top employees salaries are paid by the DHHS, not
> Medicare.
>
>> pay bonuses to people who figure out how to screw the policy holders
>> out of their benefits.
>
> Now that was way too funny!

As I said: They do not have the marketing overhead that is usually
associated with a private insurance company. I forget to mention the
return to scale. The website serves a lot more customers than the number
served by the typical private insurance provider.

>>The Social Security Administration and Medicare
>> Administrators maintain very good on line facilities and phone access
>> lines that provide for "customer" interface, and they do it quite well
>> at a low cost.
>>
>> 4. Medicare also processes claims from providers more efficiently than
>> does the private insurance sector.
>
> And this is just plain wrong. Medicare does not process claims at all -
> it is outsourced to the Blues.

Irrelevant. The administrative costs PER CLAIM and PER DOLLAR are less
than the typical insurance company.

>>Â*And there is no reason for
>> profit motives to exist in such a system.
>
> It's called "cost of capital" and in the absence of normal profits (even
> "non-profits make normal profits) they don't survive in the long term.

As I said above: There is no "cost of capital" for a government
insurance operation. There is accountability and transparency and the
need for prosecuting waste and fraud. But there are no "capital costs".

>>Every aspect of insurance on a
>> scale as large as the population of the USA is pure statistics.
>> Statisticians do not cost a lot of money nor do the statistics change
>> so quickly that it takes an army of them to keep up. Â*It is a VERY
>> PEDESTRIAN AFFAIR when done properly
>
> You have provided an interesting insight regarding your naivete. It is
> interesting to see the similarity between that and what is happening in
> Washington on the Dems side of the aisle.
>
> allan

I have the feeling that "allan" works in the insurance "industry". More
importantly, "allan", does not understand the concept of fiat money and
the fact that government is not a business. It appears that the
"naivete" is not mine.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

On Sep 14, 11:18*am, "Sure,Not" > wrote:
> > AND ALL OF THIS IS A MARVELOUS ILLUSTRATION OF THE BENEFITS OF ALLOWING
> > THE PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO FAIL DUE TO ITS OWN LIMITATIONS. *
> > GOVERNMENT DOES A BETTER JOB OF SOCIAL INSURANCE THAN THE PRIVATE SECTOR
> > AND WE HAVE JUST SEEN A LOT OF WHY THAT IS SO.
>
> Ok. *Let's try this. *Why does the gov't do a better job? *They can
> print money?

Medicare doesn't work very well for the taxpayer. We been hearing
since Nixon was in office that they are going to correct the fraud and
waste, they didn't, and they won't now.



http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...are_fraud.html


Bill Novelli, CEO of AARP, told an audience at the Center for American
Progress back in July that, unless we act, “overpayments to Medicare
Advantage plans will total about $54 billion over five years.” This
week, the Government Accountability Office confirmed that this is not
just waste but possibly fraud. Private insurers pocket tens of
millions of dollars every year, if not a far higher amount, in
overpayments from the federal government that legally must be used to
improve coverage for enrollees.

In 2003, 220 private insurers participated in Medicare. The Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid audited 49 of the organizations and found
significant errors at 41 of them. But Medicare did not take action to
collect the $59 million in overpayments that could have helped to
increase benefits, lower co-payments, and lower premiums.

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 12:25:28 -0700, Lawyerkill wrote:

> On Sep 14, 11:18Â*am, "Sure,Not" > wrote:
>> > AND ALL OF THIS IS A MARVELOUS ILLUSTRATION OF THE BENEFITS OF
>> > ALLOWING THE PRIVATE INSURANCE INDUSTRY TO FAIL DUE TO ITS OWN
>> > LIMITATIONS. GOVERNMENT DOES A BETTER JOB OF SOCIAL INSURANCE THAN
>> > THE PRIVATE SECTOR AND WE HAVE JUST SEEN A LOT OF WHY THAT IS SO.
>>
>> Ok. Â*Let's try this. Â*Why does the gov't do a better job? Â*They can
>> print money?
>
> Medicare doesn't work very well for the taxpayer. We been hearing since
> Nixon was in office that they are going to correct the fraud and waste,
> they didn't, and they won't now.
>
>
>
> http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...are_fraud.html
>
>
> Bill Novelli, CEO of AARP, told an audience at the Center for American
> Progress back in July that, unless we act, €œoverpayments to Medicare
> Advantage plans will total about $54 billion over five years.€� This
> week, the Government Accountability Office confirmed that this is not
> just waste but possibly fraud. Private insurers pocket tens of millions
> of dollars every year, if not a far higher amount, in overpayments from
> the federal government that legally must be used to improve coverage for
> enrollees.
>
> In 2003, 220 private insurers participated in Medicare. The Centers for
> Medicare and Medicaid audited 49 of the organizations and found
> significant errors at 41 of them. But Medicare did not take action to
> collect the $59 million in overpayments that could have helped to
> increase benefits, lower co-payments, and lower premiums.

Yet we see this EXACT problem being addressed by the administration in
the reform package. And the Republican lying pigs have characterized it
as cuts to Grandma's health care.

Very cute and yet another lie from the Reich.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson