Opt-Out Equals Sell-Out of "The Public Trust"

Could I impose upon you to edit down the random (2.00 / 5)

CAPS LOCKed words?  It makes it very difficult to read the diary.

Thanks!

Hey Tancredo ~ I can spell "vote" and I can spell "bigot," too.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 18:46:43 PM CDT

Second that. (2.00 / 4)

It's like trying to read to a drum beating.

---

by: GMFORD @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 19:18:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ditto (2.00 / 2)

Reaching for the Panadol as we speak...

---

by: Shaun Appleby @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 19:21:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kind of spammy. (2.00 / 2)

Or is it just me?

Please ignore some inchoherent rambling and all typos (and other errors). My brain is on autopilot.

---

by: spacemanspiff @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 19:25:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

To a certain degree. (2.00 / 3)

But I think there are valid points contained therein.  I'm just having trouble with the fonts.  It doesn't help that my eyes are tired and I hate my progressive bi-focals.

Hey Tancredo ~ I can spell "vote" and I can spell "bigot," too.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 19:34:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A lot of valid points. I agree with most of them. (2.00 / 2)

But still seems like a post and run diary.

More of and ad than a diary if you ask me.

Hope the diarist engages in the comments and proves me wrong though.

Please ignore some inchoherent rambling and all typos (and other errors). My brain is on autopilot.

---

by: spacemanspiff @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 19:39:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

We'll see about post and run soon enough (2.00 / 5)

I'm more curious about motive. It reads to me like a promotion for the TANC effort. I took a look at their web site. It lists only two people who are involved with TANC. One of them used to work for Pfiser or do consulting work with them.

I'm more concerned with the flaws in the diary. For instance this -

"Social HMOs" are here, they're a reality and it won't cost more than mere fractions of the $900 billion Congress is looking to blow of OUR tax dollars to quickly broaden their services to the under-65 American populace.

A little research will show that this is fantasy. Growing the "Social HMOs" into a national program would be as expensive as any other public option method. This whole idea was considered and rejected at the beginning of the process. That doesn't make it bad, any more than single-payer is a bad idea because it wasn't included. But it is suspect.

Then there is this -

A government-run, OPT-OUT healthcare system is DOOMED TO FAIL, WASTE BILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS and is entirely a NON-STARTER, pure and simple.

Pure, unsubstantiated hyperbole.

and this -

Just like with the $789 billion (second) "economic stimulus package" (has anyone really seen much in the infrastructure/public works projects and jobs popping up to lift this economy?) and the unilateral, nearly $1 trillion "corporate welfare" TARP/TALF/CPP program before it, this new PORK-LADEN, ILL-CONCEIVED $900 billion "OPT-OUT" plan is Congress and the White House just thinking how it can TOSS TAX DOLLARS out the window and that it will FIX EVERYTHING.

This why the United States is the WORLD'S LEADING DEBTOR NATION at nearly $12 trillion in federal debt -- not counting other outside PRIVATE-SECTOR debt as well.  Can you really trust this "representative" bureaucracy to the DAY-TO-DAY management of a Universal Healthcare system?

Wrong. We are the world's leading debtor nation because we spend so much on our armed forces and wars. This whole screed right here could have been written by someone on the Right.

It's time for "elected" representatives to "MAN-UP" and stand up against "Corporate Interests" on this most critical of "Public Interest" pieces of legislation to ever pass through Congress.

True, but not going to happen anytime soon.

John

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 19:56:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Rachel's clip says the same thing and she makes a good case (2.00 / 2)

for why this could be so.

A government-run, OPT-OUT healthcare system is DOOMED TO FAIL, WASTE BILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS and is entirely a NON-STARTER, pure and simple.

Assuming that states opt-out and that it is limited to those who are currently uninsured.

Hey Tancredo ~ I can spell "vote" and I can spell "bigot," too.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 20:01:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Assuming states opt-out is just that (2.00 / 2)

an assumption. And it isn't limited to the uninsured. It is limited to those who are eligible to use the exchange. That would be anyone not covered by an employer plan.

John

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 20:17:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Then Rachel's providing misinformation as well. (2.00 / 2)

But, how many people are not covered by an employer plan but are insured?

I'd also like to see the conditions of an opt-out before I conclude it's a bad idea.  

Hey Tancredo ~ I can spell "vote" and I can spell "bigot," too.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 20:41:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Only 59% of people get their insurance through their employer. (2.00 / 3)

That's 59% of insured people, not 59% of the population. Government employees make up a large percentage of that group. That doesn't leave 41% who are eligible, tho. We'd have to factor in Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA into the mix.

The estimates from the CBO put the public plan at a possible 10-15 million members. That might not sound like much, only 5% of the population, but imagine the bargaining power of such a group.

John

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 21:21:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Next question. :) (2.00 / 1)

And, I'm going to sound really stupid asking this but...

If I understand your comment correctly, since I do have insurance through my employer I am actually ineligible for the public option twice, because I have employer-based insurance and I use the VA?

Hey Tancredo ~ I can spell "vote" and I can spell "bigot," too.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 22:00:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Correct. (2.00 / 3)

The big fear for most blue dogs and moderates is that the public plan will be an unfair competitor for private plans. That's why there are so many safeguards built into the public plan to protect the private plans. Things like paying higher rates than Medicare. Not allowing people to opt-out of their employer based plan to sign up with the public plan. Discouraging employers from dropping their insurance so they can dump the cost of health insurance. The one that doesn't make any sense to me is not allowing employers to offer the public plan through their workplace. Why couldn't they offer the public plan and supplemental plans for people to choose from? Any employer with fewer than 200 employees should be able to choose the public plan.

John

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 22:23:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I thought it was 35 million now (2.00 / 1)

---

by: DTOzone @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 23:40:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Do you need a "label" for me and TANC, John? (0.00 / 0)

John, I like your percentages on the uninsured numbers and I agree with the concept of Americans taking part in a Public-Option program.  

What I have a problem with, though, is that our "closed-door/closed-forum" Congress being wedded to same old concepts of spending up to half of that $900 billion plan to go to For-Profit/Big Health Insurance carriers to proliferate and control a supposed low-cost "Insurance Exchange."  If there is going to be an insurance exchange system, it should be proliferated/controlled by "nonprofit" carriers who can truly offer "Medicare-minimum"-type premiums and a "subsidized" Public-Option premium choices for low-income Americans.

Again, I'm NOT a Far Righter with an underlying agenda or affiliated with the healthcare industry in any way...I guess if you want to "label" me, you can say I'm a Progressive with "left-leanings," okay!  Or maybe you and some others will want to label me an "Anarchist" with "humanist-leanings"...frankly I don't care because I'm not wedded to tired ideological cliches and dogma.  

Just when do you think Americans can take a break from rancorous ideological divides that are tearing apart this country, and maybe even renew "The Spirit of Collectivism" so prevalent during the Great Depression/World War II, the Civil Rights Movement and the anti-Vietnam War protests?   Has this republic just descended into skepticism, defeatism, whining and finger-pointing -- eventually destined to go the way of another republic that fell in Rome about  two millennia ago?

Thanks for hearing my rants and I hope this explains to you my motivations as a Citizens Advocacy soldier (thought I throw in some military-style fervor there!).

Best,
Mike

---

by: TANC_M.A. Freeman @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 00:04:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, I don't need a label. (2.00 / 1)

But I do need to know if you are pushing a certain agenda before taking your post at face value. This is only common sense. Recently, there was a report going around that showed the current health care reform bills would raise the cost of health care significantly. The anti-reform critics immediately jumped on that report and began quoting it everywhere. Then we found out that the report was financed by the insurance industry and that it didn't include any of the savings in the plans. The report was flawed. The writers had an agenda.

The writing style in your post is very like what I see on a daily basis coming from the Right. If you are unfamiliar with the style then you should visit some right-wing sites like WorldNetDaily or FreeRepublic to get a feel for that writing style. Your use of that style doesn't make you a right-winger, but it does raise a caution flag, which is all that I implied.

Now for the meat of your argument.

What I have a problem with, though, is that our "closed-door/closed-forum" Congress being wedded to same old concepts of spending up to half of that $900 billion plan to go to For-Profit/Big Health Insurance carriers to proliferate and control a supposed low-cost "Insurance Exchange."  If there is going to be an insurance exchange system, it should be proliferated/controlled by "nonprofit" carriers who can truly offer "Medicare-minimum"-type premiums and a "subsidized" Public-Option premium choices for low-income Americans.

The exchange is nothing more than a way to allow people to compare different health insurance policies including both private and, hopefully, a public plan. It is intended to encourage more competition between the private plans, thus lowering costs. The public plan will create even more competition for private plans. No one has considered limiting the exchange to only non-profit plans. That seems to be what you are arguing for in the comment I quoted above.

Just when do you think Americans can take a break from rancorous ideological divides that are tearing apart this country, and maybe even renew "The Spirit of Collectivism" so prevalent during the Great Depression/World War II, the Civil Rights Movement and the anti-Vietnam War protests?   Has this republic just descended into skepticism, defeatism, whining and finger-pointing -- eventually destined to go the way of another republic that fell in Rome about  two millennia ago?

Huh? When have Americans ever taken a break from rancorous ideological divides? You must have studied different history books than the ones I've read.

John

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 11:15:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by the way, John, I'm not from the "Right"... (check out my Facebook/Twitter posts, if you want proof) (2.00 / 2)

...and I have never been registered to either of the major two parties or any other parties.  I have voted across party lines many times and most recently for Barack Obama and John Kerry and Al Gore in the two elections before him.   I always believed that George Bush Jr. was a "silver-platter putz" and that Dick Cheney is the most inherently "evil" Americans to ever have plagued this republic.

John, I've sometimes subscribed to the Groucho Marx joke, "I never want to join a club where they would accept me as a member."  Of course, that's a bit extreme but I always liked that joke.

What I can tell people in this thread is that I align myself with the ranks of Progressives out there and, especially, those would like to see forms of citizen empowerment and direct engagement become a fixture of this failing "representative" federal government.

Best to all of the Progressives on this thread who want to see more than just "change," but real serious "reform" of what ails the domestic socioeconomic fabric of this country!

---

by: TANC_M.A. Freeman @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 23:34:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

That's better... (2.00 / 2)

:~)

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 23:54:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

TANC is not connected with a healthcare firm -- and I don't care if anyone thinks this is advertisement (2.00 / 3)

Hi John Allen, Spacemanspiff and other posters:

I'm sorry for the delayed reply but I have been simultaneously posting/agitating on Facebook and Twitter tonight -- and I'm relative novice on MotleyMoose, so please indulge my apparent style errors as well??!!

TANC is a very small grassroots effort and it is just myself and my wife, Jaimie, at the top of this nascent "citizens' advocacy" group.

My wife used to work at Pfizer (with a "z") up until several years ago and, for legal reasons I cannot speak of (I think you can understand why), she no longer works there.  

If you read our position paper and look in one of the final pages, there is a research chart showing that Big Pharma has the largest profit margins in healthcare (and possibly for all of American industry), so, believe me, I am no defender of the pharmas and their highly-inflated pricing practices.  

I have never worked for pharma, so if you are going to question my motives here, I can tell you in no uncertain terms that I have any underlying interests or agendas served for pharmas (and any other healthcare interests out there!).

Now, John, how do you know that growing "Social HMOs is "would be as expensive as public option method?'  Where is your empirical evidence to prove this would be contrary?  

The fact is this "special classification" of the Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug program (MA-PD) has contracts to provide "enhanced" insurance/care services by simply shifting the "standard" Medicare deduction it takes from Seniors ($96.40 per month in 2009).  Typically, these are "Medicare-minimum" base rate premiums, with zero- to minimum-cost deductibles and co-pays, but there can be "add-on" monthly charges (at $50 or so a month) for "Special Needs" seniors.

As a long-time business journalist, who has studied a variety of business models both in the private and public/nonprofit sectors, I wrote this paper to seriously explore a proposed expansion of "Social HMOs" into the general under-65 marketplace -- where a "modeled" structure for these nonprofit "Health Insurance Organizations (what we coin as "HIOs" -- please forgive the all caps for this acronym for the "capped-challenged" in this thread) would then receive direct "Medicare-minimum"-style billing revenues from under-65 consumers who purchased these "enhanced" premiums.  

You should really read our 23-page position paper to see the case studies I've cited for most of the handful of "Social HMOs" thriving in this MA-PD program and how Seniors are benefiting from it -- before you so routinely dismiss it.  

For example, SCAN Health Plan serves over 110,000 seniors in Southern California and Phoenix, along with just announcing plans to launch premium services in Northern California.  Wikipedia estimated that SCAN bills Medicare for $1.3 billion in annual revenue, just about $10 more per-person/per-month than what the Medicare-minimum rate is set at ($96.40 per month).  I also suggest you go check out Medicare's online (www.medicare.gov) Medicare Advantage "insurance exchange" (state- and zip code-searchable) for direct coverage categories comparisons between SCAN and what For-Profit/Big Insurance comparably offer to seniors -- and you will see that SCAN offers many more categories of coverage (inpatient, outpatient, inhome, vision, hearing, dental, rehabilitative, etc., etc.) for much lower monthly pricing ($0 in most cases because it directly bills through Medicare) and at zero- to minimal-cost deductibles.   This is what humane, equitable and accessible health insurance should be all about -- and something that I think it is easily adaptable for under-65 Americans.

That is why I explore in detail detail how nonprofit HIOs can expeditiously become self-financing/self-sustaining insurance providers through a direct billing system with under-65 and over-65 American consumers -- and "price-lowering, market-correcting equalizers" versus the For-Profit/Big Health Insurance carriers artificially manipulating pricing due to their 64-year-old antitrust exemptions from our government.  

The paper also proposes a pair of "special corporate taxation" structures: 1) on Producers/Distributors of "Unhealthy/Addictive Consumable Products, such as tobacco, alcoholic beverages, fastfoods, sweetened/non-alcoholic beverages, candy/confectionary products, and packaged snack foods -- all being the biggest burdens on the American health system; and 2) a General Corporate Tax of 1% to 2% for all other corporations for the "startup" of these nonprofit "Social HMOs" for the general population and the offering of a Public Option for low- to no-income Americans who can't afford health insurance.  

For corporations, there will be a quick upside that offset the tax costs through extensive "group employee plan" savings they would more greatly realize through a cost-lowering "Medicare-minimum"-like pricing correction of the overall health insurance market -- this all has to do with introducing "new nonprofit competition" to the marketplace.  Once these nonprofit "Social HMOs" become self-sustaining/self-financing, independent operating structures (from premium revenues), there would be the plausible option of reducing and eliminating the "special overall corporate tax" structure in a rather expeditious manner (maybe within five years).  

TANC has also proposed a federal bond issue plan to help existing For-Profit/Big Health Insurance to potentially "de-list" from stock exchanges and untether from large institutional/hedge fund investors and individual shareholders in a federally-backed stock buyback program -- just please read our press release and/or position paper to see how this can be pulled off without placing any burdens on individual taxpayers.  This buyback plan is the best way to remove "obsessive profit motivations" from the health insurance industry -- Big Insurance can opt to do this or they can risk facing new price-lowering competition from nonprofit "Social HMOs" and losing any unfair advantages they previously held with their Antitrust Exemptions.

Now, you might contend what I say about an Opt-Out system being doomed to fail and a waste of money as being "pure, unsubstantiated hyperbole," but what happens when the government appropriates $900 billion (over 10 years) for their version of "National Healthcare" but then states just simply "opt-out" of participating and it starts happening en masse -- you're telling me the government and taxpayers won't be left "on the hook" for the cost of this program?

Also, the fact America is the "world's largest debtor nation" is not just about the cost of these two ongoing wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) -- this has to with more than a quarter-century-long pattern (back to the Reagan years) of rampant legislative deregulation, either striking down/sunsetting post-Depression Era banking/insurance industry regulations, all leading to the current banking, real estate, insurance and auto industries failures and the general meltdown of this economy.  Our federal government gave their corporate lobbyist contributors a red-carpet-ride to make America a "debtor-based society."  Sure, the costs of wars have hurt us, but there is this broader, long-standing pattern of Federal Malfeasance that has really hurt this economy (please view our "Federal Malfeasance by the Numbers" presentation at http://www.transamericanallian...

John, I hope I addressed all of your comments and concerns here -- as well of the other posters on this thread??!!  

I would just like to add a personal note here to say I'm a little bit disappointed by the somewhat prevailing cynicism/skepticism of our "nonprofit" healthcare proposals and the questioning of our underlying motivations and agendas -- though I understand appreciate it because of the lack of an "Ethical Rudder" this country is currently suffering from for awhile here.  

It is true, TANC is a citizens advocacy and direct democracy-based organization, where we're also advocating some form of a nonpartisan "Citizens' Oversight Assembly" to address our country's massive, systemic problems, but much of this is on the backburner for now as we focus on Healthcare Reform.  I'm just a regular guy who is a Hollywood media industry refugee who has been looking to ignite a nonpartisan Citizens Empowerment group -- that's basically it.

Thank you for your time.  I'm somewhat of novice on MotleyMoose, so please excuse any inconveniences I may have caused with my (I guess) excessive use of emphasized ALL-CAPS (whoops, there I go again!)

Cheers,

Michael A. Freeman
Email: michael.freeman@transamericanalliance.org

---

by: TANC_M.A. Freeman @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 23:26:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A more in-depth response (0.00 / 0)

I'm sorry for the delayed reply but I have been simultaneously posting/agitating on Facebook and Twitter tonight -- and I'm relative novice on MotleyMoose, so please indulge my apparent style errors as well??!!
TANC is a very small grassroots effort and it is just myself and my wife, Jaimie, at the top of this nascent "citizens' advocacy" group.

My wife used to work at Pfizer (with a "z") up until several years ago and, for legal reasons I cannot speak of (I think you can understand why), she no longer works there.  

If you read our position paper and look in one of the final pages, there is a research chart showing that Big Pharma has the largest profit margins in healthcare (and possibly for all of American industry), so, believe me, I am no defender of the pharmas and their highly-inflated pricing practices.  

I have never worked for pharma, so if you are going to question my motives here, I can tell you in no uncertain terms that I have any underlying interests or agendas served for pharmas (and any other healthcare interests out there!).

Fair enough. That's the kind of thing we I wanted to know. Until you posted comments in this thread, we had no way of knowing if you were serious or only interested in posting a hit-and-run diary as a way of promoting your site. If you have been blogging for any length of time you should be familiar with the phrase "hit-and-run diary".

Now, let's get back to the topic.

Now, John, how do you know that growing "Social HMOs is "would be as expensive as public option method?'  Where is your empirical evidence to prove this would be contrary?

The same place your empirical evidence is for this statement.

A government-run, OPT-OUT healthcare system is DOOMED TO FAIL, WASTE BILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS and is entirely a NON-STARTER, pure and simple.

The CBO obviously disagrees with you on this. Care to elaborate?

As for the the "social HMOs", I'm not perfectly clear on what role  you intend them to take. Are you saying that we can just scale up these programs and turn them into a national plan or are you suggesting they will operate on a state-by-state basis?

My skepticism is based on the current viability of those plans. The one you mention SCAN, has been around for more than 30 years and has only managed to attract a little over 100,000 members in a state as large as California. This does not bode well for their scalability.

You should really read our 23-page position paper to see the case studies I've cited for most of the handful of "Social HMOs" thriving in this MA-PD program and how Seniors are benefiting from it -- before you so routinely dismiss it.

I will if I can find the time for it.

The paper also proposes a pair of "special corporate taxation" structures: 1) on Producers/Distributors of "Unhealthy/Addictive Consumable Products, such as tobacco, alcoholic beverages, fastfoods, sweetened/non-alcoholic beverages, candy/confectionary products, and packaged snack foods -- all being the biggest burdens on the American health system...

This is a good idea of how to fund health care reform. Several items in your list have been proposed already. The recent expansion of sCHIP was financed in part by an increase in tobacco taxes. While taxes like these are regressive, they do have positive effects and should be considered.

Now, you might contend what I say about an Opt-Out system being doomed to fail and a waste of money as being "pure, unsubstantiated hyperbole," but what happens when the government appropriates $900 billion (over 10 years) for their version of "National Healthcare" but then states just simply "opt-out" of participating and it starts happening en masse -- you're telling me the government and taxpayers won't be left "on the hook" for the cost of this program?

Do you have anything to back up the claim that enough states might opt-out of the public plan to the extent that the plan will be crippled or is that speculation on your part? States might decide to secede from the Union. States might decide to start their own space program. "Might" isn't "will". Not by a long shot.

Also, the fact America is the "world's largest debtor nation" is not just about the cost of these two ongoing wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) -- this has to with more than a quarter-century-long pattern (back to the Reagan years) of rampant legislative deregulation, either striking down/sunsetting post-Depression Era banking/insurance industry regulations, all leading to the current banking, real estate, insurance and auto industries failures and the general meltdown of this economy.

I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. I'm well aware of the history of this country over the last quarter-century. The cost of our military, wars, and veteran obligations make up the bulk of our debt. This country would be in a lot better fiscal shape if it wasn't for that debt.

Thank you for your time.  I'm somewhat of novice on MotleyMoose, so please excuse any inconveniences I may have caused with my (I guess) excessive use of emphasized ALL-CAPS (whoops, there I go again!)

I didn't need a label for you in the beginning. All I wanted to know was where you were coming from on this subject. As I mentioned in the beginning of this comment, it pays to know whether someone has an agenda.

Your responses have suggested one label, tho. And, that is "touchy".

John

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 12:13:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm "touchy" and you originally termed my use of all-caps in making me a "Far Righter?!" (2.00 / 3)

John--  I appreciate all of your detailed, well thought-out responses to some sections of my responses and passages from my op-ed piece.

I really do think you've got a great wheelhouse of knowledge on Healthcare Reform and the socioeconomic issues plaguing this country right now, but I guess I was a little taken aback by some rapid-fire assumptions on my political leanings and our organization's underlying motivations -- and mostly because I used all-caps making me a "shouting" Far Righter according to you and the ambiguous editorial "stylebook" guidelines of Motley Moose.  I guess I was a mix of amused, perplexed, flummoxed and mystified about how my print formatting and written words made me some kind of Gordon Gecko/Dick Cheney-loving Far Righter??!!

Everything I've written in my studies of this little-known, 25-year-old, tiny sub-classification of the Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MA-PD) program with nonprofit "Social HMOs" is to illustrate how these autonomously operating "enhanced" health insurance/care service "models" could make it a "stellar" template/blueprint for nonprofit-based "Health Insurance Organizations" (what we coin as HIOs) -- which can be set up to generate direct billing revenues from the "Medicare-minimum" base rate premiums they would collect from both under-65 and over-65 consumers.  

This is all about "thinking outside-the-box" with a new "nonprofit, localized/regionalized" structure for HIOs to operate independently of Medicare/federal funding as "self-financing/self-sustaining" entities -- minus the excessive executive salaries, bloated administrative overhead, punitive actions taken against consumers like "denials" and "cancellations of policies for people with "preexisting conditions" and artificially-high price fixing that all comes from For-Profit/Private-Sector "Big Health Insurance" carriers working under a 64-year-old Antitrust-Exempt status.  All I know is that the long-standing current structure of "For-Profit/Have or Have-Not Healthcare" is so dysfunctional (especially in handling billings/claims) and capricious (in "minimizing risks" with pervasive system of "denials" and "revocations") in its actions directed against American citizens.

Now, if you are saying SCAN is not successful, you are again sadly misinformed and dismissive.  As a nonprofit "Social HMO," SCAN is still reliant on Medicare (MA-PD) contractual billings to stay at a certain operating level, but it you look into their recent announcements, they have announced they will be offering premium coverage in Northern California and also recently added the Phoenix, Arizona market.  Again, this is "not" a for-profit company where they can simply "buy" up other companies and "consolidate" other insurance carriers to grow their subscribership in rapid spurts, which is the norm and standard operating procedure for Big Health Insurance corporations.  

SCAN is probably the most exemplary of the Social HMOs because if you look at the level of their coverage areas and the fact they provide "worldwide coverage" for any member traveling overseas -- they offer an unbeatable menu of services at Medicare-minimum/bargain prices.  I would again suggest you visit SCAN's website (http://www.scanhealthplan.com) and you can also look at the comparative Medicare Advantage database (http://www.medicare.gov) to see how SCAN and the other Social HMOs stack up against the For-Profit carriers when it comes to coverage areas, add-on costs, and deductibles and co-pays -- and you'll see that Social HMOs typically offer "much more, for much less." This Medicare Advantage database, which also features AARP-sponsored "For-Profit/Big Health Insurance carriers" offering so-called "lower-cost" Senior premiums (at least comparatively lower than the massive "price-gouging" they do in the under-65 marketplace), this fundamentally operates as an "Insurance Exchange" for Senior Citizens.  

Also, I asked where you back your statement and if you have empirical evidence that a Social HMO structure "would be more expensive than Public-Option."  You made that statement and I didn't!  So, if you're throwing it back in my face, again, I did not make that declarative statement, you did.  So the burden of proof is on you there.

On your contention that the Congressional Budget Office would suggest an "Opt-Out" plan would be less expensive and not a waste of taxpayer money, do you know if they have most recently factored in this "new" proposal from Reid and Baucus --since it presents a whole new specter of a yet unknown number of states that would simply "opt-out" of a Public Option/Universal Healthcare program?   Also, since I have not been able to submit this "nonprofit" plan (and I haven't heard of any others yet) for broadened out application/adaptation for both under-65 and over-65 Americans, do you think the CBO has the "presence of forethought" to factor what a "nonprofit-based" health insurance system will either save or additionally cost taxpayers -- I think not.

Again, what TANC is proposing is the potential for a "fundamental alteration" of the health insurance system to a "nonprofit organizational model," but one that also incorporates the potential for HIOs/Social HMOs to derive its revenue from "direct billings" to consumers on "Medicare-minimum" rate premiums to become self-financing/self-sustaining entities.  If I'm not mistaken, this has "never" (boy, did I want put that word in caps but I might be accused of being a Far Right "shouter" here) been attempted in America's For-Profit Health Insurance/laissez faire system.  

Again, this is about essentially trying to transition out of a "largely unethical, profit-obsessive" business model for healthcare to an "ethics-based nonprofit organizational model" -- and that's why this Byzantine "Opt-Out/Opt-In/Trigger/50-State" hybrid set of half-measures (or "quarter-measures?") still fail to fundamentally address the spiraling/artificially-high, out-of-control costs of healthcare.   There are just too many holes in this whole "Opt-Out" rat's maze, giving states options to "drop-out" and not seriously rectify how those state's residents will still be left to buy artificially high-priced premiums from For-Profit Insurers.  

Frankly, I don't really put much weight, either, in how the CBO estimates savings and costs, because how many countless times have we later seen that the federal government under-estimate costs of a program and then go way over-budget.  I know that a non-profit conversion of healthcare, which is a very daunting challenge when you consider how our "elected representatives" are so reliant on campaign contributions and beholden to Big Heathcare lobbyists/contributors, will be the only way our country can correct and mitigate the massive amount of "criminality" involved in the For-Profit/Big Health Insurance's government-endorsed Antitrust-Exempt status.

The other thing I'm really stoked about with the "nonprofit" HIO/Social HMO proposal is the possibility of creating "thousands" of new insurance administrator jobs -- especially with the opportunity to allow former or current For-Profit/Big Insurance executives and administrators the chance to pursue much more personally/professionally-rewarding opportunities to serve in the "public well-being."  Call me an idealist or fool (or both!), but I sincerely believe that the alternative to a "profit-obsessive society" lies in a ethics-/equality-based "nonprofit" healthcare system.

One other thing, I'm not going to "parse" words with you on the meaning of my usage for the word "might" (which you recited at least three times), because I was just trying to be polite in loosely suggesting you "might" be totally wrong about dismissing the fact states "Opting-Out" of a Public Option won't come as financial hit to this proposed $900 billion pork-barrel program.  I'm all for budgeting money to go for a Public Option and other concrete forms of healthcare reform (such as the startup of "nonprofit" Health Insurance Organizations), but there are way too many "outs" and future "triggers" to leave this whole federally-funded mandate in serious question.

I'm sorry, but I just don't trust the same elected "representatives" who had been given carte blanche to fatten up two "economic stimulus packages" and "corporate welfare"-based TARP/TALF/CPP programs -- in addition to disastrous passage of the Gramm-Bliley-Leach Act loosening up he banking/real estate/insurance industries over 10 years ago (repealing portions of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act) and setting course for this now year-old-plus economic meltdown.

By the way, I never said you "just fell off a turnip truck," I was simply pointing out again that some of your blanket statements about wars creating the bulk of these federal deficits is somewhat "dismissive" and again doesn't factor-in other acts of federal legislative malfeasance that has taken place over the last quarter-century.  I do agree, though, that the "trillion-dollar-plus" expenditures on both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have and will continue to have a "drag-down" effect with the federal budget deficit and economic condition in this country.   And I never laid out blanket assumptions and stereotypes that you were a Far Righter and that you had some kind of underlying agenda -- which I guess some people preferred to aim in my direction.

Okay, I'm going back to my other political agitation work -- thanks for your time and active debate and exchange of issues...believe it or not, I've really enjoyed this lively exchange with you!

Best,

Mike

---

by: TANC_M.A. Freeman @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 20:41:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

As Have We All... (2.00 / 2)

I'm assuming.  And the formatting problems were perhaps overstated in respect of the content.  

Consider the Moose as a classic, bohemian, politically oriented café with good coffee, poetry readings, a couple of people over in the corner playing chess and where the rules of engagement are understated and often ignored but stress the joyful aesthetics of engagement as much as the political vitality of the argument.  We all love a good stoush but we have grown to love each other as well in the process.  Welcome.  Your well considered responses to various posters in this diary are all the credentials you need to be a respected and viable member of this community.

---

by: Shaun Appleby @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 20:49:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I thought I'd made this clear. (2.00 / 1)

Someone commented on the stylistic use of caps in your diary. I said it was a common thing on the Right. I did not say that you were automatically a wingnut based solely on your writing style. Nor did I say that in the other comment. I said, "I am curious about motive." You've since explained your motivations. That's all I wanted. You took way too much offense to my comments. Perhaps it was partly from a feeling of being ganged up on. We weren't sure you would be back and we I wasn't sure you'd be back. Now that you are we can discuss your diary.

BTW, I'll stick with "touchy".

I'll reply to the important stuff in another comment.


John

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 23:13:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This may be a great idea, (2.00 / 1)

but isn't it a little late in the game to be discussing it?

I guess that doesn't matter, since this is the debate du jour.

Starting near the end of your comment, I agree wholeheartedly about Glass-Steagall.

I stand by my claim that the bulk of our national debt is due to wars, cost of armed forces, and obligations to veterans. According to Wikipedia, "Interest on debt incurred in past wars - $59.5-$237.1 billion - Between 23% and 91% of total interest" So the lowest estimates put it at 23% and the highest at 91%. I may well be right.

Now to jump back to the beginning.

...this little-known, 25-year-old, tiny sub-classification of the Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MA-PD) program...

That's one of my concerns. Exactly how do these tiny, in comparison, organizations take over a national health plan?

Second question, and feel perfectly free to point me to a page in your white paper for the answer, why would these be better programs than a system based on Medicare? Medicare E, as someone coined it. We've got a working model in place. The only difference would be in the financing.

These organizations may have been very good at what they do, but they are still "tiny" as you put it. As I pointed out, SCAN has been around for 33 years. They have 110,000 customers. They service only part of California. Are they supposed to open up operations in other states or will there be a bunch of SCANs around the country? If it is the latter,  what makes this any better than co-ops?

If you have multiple organizations, limited geographically, then you have a smaller customer base. Smaller enrollments mean less bargaining power. A single national plan would have huge bargaining power.

Also, I asked where you back your statement and if you have empirical evidence that a Social HMO structure "would be more expensive than Public-Option."

You have a habit of putting words in my mouth. Please stop misquoting me.

Growing the "Social HMOs" into a national program would be as expensive as any other public option method.

Whatever administrative program is put into place will have to build a network and enroll members. The easiest and by far cheapest method is to piggy-back a national system on the Medicare network.

This next one is rather easy.

...do you think the CBO has the "presence of forethought" to factor what a "nonprofit-based" health insurance system will either save or additionally cost taxpayers -- I think not.

Why, yes I do. A non-profit national plan is what is commonly known as "the public option".

I'm lost on this next one.

Again, what TANC is proposing is the potential for a "fundamental alteration" of the health insurance system to a "nonprofit organizational model," but one that also incorporates the potential for HIOs/Social HMOs to derive its revenue from "direct billings" to consumers on "Medicare-minimum" rate premiums to become self-financing/self-sustaining entities.  If I'm not mistaken, this has "never" (boy, did I want put that word in caps but I might be accused of being a Far Right "shouter" here) been attempted in America's For-Profit Health Insurance/laissez faire system.

We've had non-profits for a long time now. If these are so great, why haven't they come to dominate the marketplace? They've been around for more than 30 years and are still a tiny part of the market. Why? What's stopping them from doing it right now?

Again, this is about essentially trying to transition out of a "largely unethical, profit-obsessive" business model for healthcare to an "ethics-based nonprofit organizational model" -- and that's why this Byzantine "Opt-Out/Opt-In/Trigger/50-State" hybrid set of half-measures (or "quarter-measures?") still fail to fundamentally address the spiraling/artificially-high, out-of-control costs of healthcare.   There are just too many holes in this whole "Opt-Out" rat's maze, giving states options to "drop-out" and not seriously rectify how those state's residents will still be left to buy artificially high-priced premiums from For-Profit Insurers

I especially like the first sentence here. How in the world are we supposed to get support for your suggestion if we are having trouble getting what has been proposed so far?  You are talking about "fundamental alteration" of the status quo. That's exactly what opponents of health care reform fear most.

John

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 00:51:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

John, you got some good questions which I'll try to address, but some answers may have wait until this weekend! (2.00 / 1)

Hi John:

You had some really good questions posed here, but may have to re-address more of these tomorrow or this weekend.

First off, all I'm doing right now is asking our government representatives to "think" on a "broader macro basis" when it comes to adapting this somewhat small but "working" model of nonprofit "Social HMOs" for expansion as a direct, independent health insurance/care services system that would sell and bill these "Medicare-minimum" base rate premiums on a state-by-state basis.  

I know, as a long-time business journalist, I have had this concept in my head for awhile and I will again just try explain simply that "autonomous," independently-run and managed nonprofit organizations can provide a very effective and deep breadth of services.   I don't know if I can communicate on a simpler basis than that (and I'm not trying be facetious here, please believe me).  

If I were to give another analogous example, I would point to something like those nonprofit "consumer credit counseling services" that have popped in cities and states around the country, which work in conjunction with county, state and federal bankruptcy courts, but are self-financing/self-sustaining through direct, coordinated billings with consumers who filed bankruptcy.  There are also some For-Profit counseling services working in the same space as well.  (I know this through some reporting I had done in the past regarding personal bankruptcy laws and changes in banking laws involving changes in consumer responsibility provisions -- its always slanted in the creditor's favor, right?!)

Anyway, I hope you and other posters get a picture of what I'm talking about regarding "organizational/business models" that illustrate how "direct-revenue" participation can create these self-financing/self-standing nonprofit "Social HMO" structures -- of course on a broadened-out, taxation-financed basis for STARTUP of operations.   I'm just of the firm belief that if the government is going to appropriate "hundreds of billions of dollars," it would be more wisely spent initially financing the startup of independent nonprofit health insurance organizations that stand-up over time (and release government from getting involved in consumer service arenas) -- rather dumping this into a pool for For-Profit/Big Health Insurance conglomerates to control in an "Insurance Exchange" system.

Bylaws for these nonprofit "Social HMOs" would also affix certain review and audit structures and maybe some kind direct reporting structure to federal and state government agencies (like HHS and Medicaid/Medicare).   I truly believe that if we employ a true "out-of-the-box" thinking approach to the creation of this national/state/municipal structuring for nonprofit healthcare, it can be run on "ethics-based" principles and independent management structure that would be more efficient and less burdensome if "central" government authorities tried running it themselves.  

Considered a pilot program at the time, the Social HMO structure came about from Congress enacting the Federal Budget Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 and was later expanded slightly under Ominbus Budget Act of 1991.  It is one of those rare times when the federal government moved to create a nonprofit program to "unburden" Medicare from certain "enhanced" coverage service needs (such as in-home nursing care) for "Special Needs" seniors, etc.  It really was just one of those times when the stars were aligned right for this beautiful partnership between government and nonprofit-sector institutions.

What I'm getting at is a "Nonprofit Organizational/Government-Endorsed" Social HMO venture system -- free of the overwhelming profit motivations; Wall Street investor/shareholder pressures and conflicting agendas; a more efficient and market-realistic executive/administrator compensation system (minus stock options and fat bonuses, of course); a marketplace "equalizer" for price-lower/price-correcting health insurance premium rates from new nonprofit competition in each market; the creation of thousands of new professionally/personally rewarding nonprofit administrator careers; and a great engine for social change when it comes to instilling the virtues of a nonprofit organizational/business ethic in America.

When I said it has "never" been done in the health insurance market, what I'm surmising here is something on a potential "national/state-by-state" scale -- unless you know of other nonprofit health insurance providers out there?  I could be very wrong on this, maybe?  I'll have to do some research on this, and get back to you.

Of course, much of the formation of the American hospital and family clinic system originated from variety of Christian/Judeo and other denominations starting nonprofit-based care, going back to the early 19th and 20th centuries in colonized America.   I think I recall seeing a figure that 68% of the hospitals in America are nonprofit "religious-based" hospitals and government-funded public and university care facilities.  So, definitely this is something I also took into consideration when it comes to how this has been slowly but steadily adopted in certain corners of Senior and under-65 healthcare (on an isolated basis).

Okay, you've again said SCAN is in some "parts" of California but when it is now growing to cover both Southern and Northern California, so I would think that is the "bulk" of the state.   And I guarantee the number is going to again grow considerably beyond the current 110,000 senior members soon.  They also got a license to sell health insurance in Phoenix and I've heard other cities/towns of Maricopa county as well.  

The reason why you haven't seen these nonprofit "Social HMOs" for Seniors springing up all over the place is because they need to reach seniors in large metropolitan centers to secure MA-PD contracts to directly bill Medicare for their premium services (which Medicare takes out of typical senior deductions from the Medicaid fund to pay for their "Medicare Standard" premiums). The nonprofit institutions also need substantial startup funding, and the health insurance industry has largely been a private-sector created system at its inception -- it's just that the greed levels have grown considerably over the last quarter-century (I'm thinking since the Reagan years!).

I hope I answered a good portion of your questions and concerns, but something tells me you'll try to find more holes to poke (okay, that's a joke!).    And I've to get you to tell this Moose newbie how you are able to use those "pull-quotes" from my prior responses!

Have a good weekend if we don't communicate before that.

Your "Touchy" Friend,
Mike  

---

by: TANC_M.A. Freeman @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 23:19:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good reply. (2.00 / 1)

Still have some questions, but they'll have to wait. Time for bed.

John

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 00:40:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Welcome to the Moose! (2.00 / 1)

Don't mind being wrong on this one.

Hope you post some more and engage with fellow Moose!


Please ignore some inchoherent rambling and all typos (and other errors). My brain is on autopilot.

---

by: spacemanspiff @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 20:04:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure he's wrong on this one.. (2.00 / 1)

Need to know more about it. This could be a good idea, but the timing is lousy. There's no way anyone is going to change the proposed legislation this much at this step in the procedure.

John

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 20:10:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think Spacey meant... (2.00 / 3)

He doesn't mind being wrong about this being a hit and run diary

Moose Juice; debate without hate

---

by: Brit @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 20:50:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, I get it. (2.00 / 1)

Duh.

John

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 23:14:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Spacemanspiff, you're cool in my book! (2.00 / 3)

I know I can be a long-winded blowhard at times (and I'll try to keep me responses shorter, I promise!), but I'm a Motley Moose newbie who is just totally overwhelmed by this huge "social network" universe (FB, Twitter, Blogspot, WordPress, dozens of online political sites, etc.) that I'm a little brain-dead at times!

Thanks for the welcome and I do look forward to engaging fellow "Moosers," if I can get over my apparent "lameness" when it comes to knowing all of the style/etiquette points here yet (I'll try to learn!).  I kind of feel like the Joey Buttafuoco of Motley Moose!

Best,

Mike

---

by: TANC_M.A. Freeman @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 21:07:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Joey Buttafuoco! (2.00 / 1)

Mullet Moose

p.s. NEVER keep your responses short. We love long-winded blowhards here.

Please ignore some inchoherent rambling and all typos (and other errors). My brain is on autopilot.

---

by: spacemanspiff @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 21:12:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And I love that Joey B. picture and that cool mullet 'do! Also glad to hear you Moosers love Blowhards like me! (2.00 / 2)

---

by: TANC_M.A. Freeman @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 23:22:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Love is an understatement. Moose = Blowhards ( longwinded of course) (2.00 / 2)

Diaries are great but where we (as in you and me as Moose) really enjoy ourselves is in the comments.

You might have noticed in your debate with John.

The Moose saying goes ... "Our comments are better than most diaries on

other sites."

We love to make each other think and judging by the content of your work

I think we'll enjoy having you here more than you will ever know.

Please stop by more often and jump in whenever you feel like it!

This is a community blog (experiment) where we are all equally important

where we don't care if you logged on yesterday or a year ago.

A moose is a moose is a moose.

Make yourself at home and have fun!

Please ignore some inchoherent rambling and all typos (and other errors). My brain is on autopilot.

---

by: spacemanspiff @ Fri Oct 30, 2009 at 17:16:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Progressive Bifocals? (2.00 / 4)

Now that's commitment to the cause.  Are they rose-coloured too?

---

by: Shaun Appleby @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 20:25:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Some would say they are in too many cases. (2.00 / 3)

But this is one time I hate anythinig to do with "progressive."  Trying to find that spot where things are clear isn't always easy.  And, trying to read and watch tv.  Yuck.  (I'm farsighted, too, which apparently leaves me ineligible for contacts.  Ever try plucking your eyebrows while far-sighted, wearing progressive bi-focals?  If it wasn't for my vanity I wouldn't.)

Hey Tancredo ~ I can spell "vote" and I can spell "bigot," too.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 20:44:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Was Just Kidding... (2.00 / 2)

No offence intended.  I am struggling to pass my DMV eye exam these days and each time I do I celebrate my freedom from the tyranny of spectacles.  My night vision really sucks these days at high speed, it's a bad combination.

---

by: Shaun Appleby @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 20:54:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Certainly no offense taken. (2.00 / 3)

One of my more annoying traits is seeing the good in folks that other folks can't.

My advise when you do get shackled to the spectacles - get contacts and don't EVER let anyone talk you into bi-focals, progressive or otherwise.

Hey Tancredo ~ I can spell "vote" and I can spell "bigot," too.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 21:54:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Can't say as I have. (2.00 / 5)

Ever try plucking your eyebrows while far-sighted, wearing progressive bi-focals?  If it wasn't for my vanity I wouldn't.)

Never had a bikini wax either, although that might be a little too much information.

John

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 21:10:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Would Have Thought... (2.00 / 6)

You were more likely a candidate for the 'crack, sack and back' procedure.  It's a gender thing.

---

by: Shaun Appleby @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 21:30:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Let me just let you, (2.00 / 6)

being a woman is haaaaard.  Factor in "the curse" and it's a wonder we let y'all in the house sometimes.

Hey Tancredo ~ I can spell "vote" and I can spell "bigot," too.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 22:01:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"MAN-UP" (2.00 / 3)

"YES": It SEEMS "off" somehow??  IT is INTERESTING in its OWN "way", I suppose. Post-AND-run probably!

Ricki learned to braid gimp at Jesus Camp.

---

by: fogiv @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 21:36:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, that only goes so far, (2.00 / 4)

since anyone with a (very) little savvy could find the name, address and phone number of the person in Thousand Oaks, CA who posted this.  

Editors have done their work, I'm sure the poster will learn his/her lesson.

Right, JK?

;~)

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 22:32:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sterling editorial work (2.00 / 3)

And since it wasn't a hit and run, worth all the effort. Thanks Chris

Moose Juice; debate without hate

---

by: Brit @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 03:24:42 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The use of caps like that (2.00 / 2)

is very common in Right-wing writing.

John

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." - Sinclair Lewis

---

by: John Allen @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 19:40:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

And Thinking... (2.00 / 3)

I've noticed.

---

by: Shaun Appleby @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 20:26:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

wow (2.00 / 4)

if you stare at this diary long enough, you can see the shape of a sailboat, just like those pictures they used to sell at the mall.

Ricki learned to braid gimp at Jesus Camp.

---

by: fogiv @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 21:41:21 PM CDT

OK, I'm going to fix the formatting of this diary, for this user, once. (2.00 / 6)

and I am going to be emailing you about it as well.

I'm glad you have strong and well-researched opinions, but we do not yell to make our points around here.

Speak.  Do not shout.

If you do this again, I or one of the other moderators are extremely likely to delete or edit your diary down as we see fit.  And after hacking out half of the ALL CAPS shouting and getting more than a little pissed off for having to do it, next time I may edit it into something very interesting, indeed.

Welcome to the Moose.  Join the conversation, make yourself at home.

But don't be a dink.

"Conway, whom experience had taught that rudeness was by no means a guarantee of good faith, was even less inclined to regard a well-turned phrase as a proof of insincerity."  James Hilton, Lost Horizon

---

by: chrisblask @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 21:54:38 PM CDT

LOL (2.00 / 5)

But don't be a dink.

But we managed to get in bikini waxes and eyebrow plucking.  Are either covered by healthcare, by the way?

Hey Tancredo ~ I can spell "vote" and I can spell "bigot," too.

---

by: HappyinVT @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 22:03:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Can we get that quote in the Moose Rules section please? (2.00 / 3)

Please ignore some inchoherent rambling and all typos (and other errors). My brain is on autopilot.

---

by: spacemanspiff @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 22:12:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The homepage... (2.00 / 3)

...is in the same gravel-in-your-eye style.  Hurts my face.

Ricki learned to braid gimp at Jesus Camp.

---

by: fogiv @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 22:08:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Like Gravel in your eye indeed. (2.00 / 3)

Please ignore some inchoherent rambling and all typos (and other errors). My brain is on autopilot.

---

by: spacemanspiff @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 22:16:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I can't believe you passed this opportunity... (2.00 / 2)

...so I'll take it:

Now that's some Gravel in your eye!

Ricki learned to braid gimp at Jesus Camp.

---

by: fogiv @ Tue Oct 27, 2009 at 22:19:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Weak sauce.... (2.00 / 3)

HERE's where the real Gravel magic's at:

"And now here is my secret, a very simple secret;
it is only with the heart that one can see rightly,
what is essential is invisible to the eye."
~Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

---

by: Kysen @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 02:12:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Blast you! I got nothin' (2.00 / 2)

Ricki learned to braid gimp at Jesus Camp.

---

by: fogiv @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 10:18:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh...it's on (2.00 / 1)

"And now here is my secret, a very simple secret;
it is only with the heart that one can see rightly,
what is essential is invisible to the eye."
~Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

---

by: Kysen @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 16:35:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I have two sides: one happy, one anger. (2.00 / 1)

Ricki learned to braid gimp at Jesus Camp.

---

by: fogiv @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 18:15:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

All the way thru.... (2.00 / 1)

ya gots to watch all the way thru....

What the effing crap?
That angel guy just felt me up!

Be wary grasshopper..I honed my ear-bleeding skillz on MyDD during the Primaries.  ;)

"And now here is my secret, a very simple secret;
it is only with the heart that one can see rightly,
what is essential is invisible to the eye."
~Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

---

by: Kysen @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 19:11:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bring it. (2.00 / 1)

This should make ears and eyes bleed.

Straight from the Heart from Lehrthing on Vimeo.

Ricki learned to braid gimp at Jesus Camp.

---

by: fogiv @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 23:39:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I will never bring you any kind of sorrow.... (2.00 / 1)

"And now here is my secret, a very simple secret;
it is only with the heart that one can see rightly,
what is essential is invisible to the eye."
~Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

---

by: Kysen @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 23:49:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why must I cry? (2.00 / 1)

Ricki learned to braid gimp at Jesus Camp.

---

by: fogiv @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 00:09:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

wiping tears from eyes......lol (2.00 / 1)

Must have something happy....and PINK

I have a feeling an Open Thread might be going up soon, since we are running out of space here (and pretty much hijackin' TANC's diary), perhaps we should continue our duel there.  ;)

"And now here is my secret, a very simple secret;
it is only with the heart that one can see rightly,
what is essential is invisible to the eye."
~Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

---

by: Kysen @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 00:24:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Heh. See you there. (2.00 / 1)

Sorry TANC.  Good luck with that whole "fourth branch of government" thing.

Ricki learned to braid gimp at Jesus Camp.

---

by: fogiv @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 00:26:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Maybe you should email and ask me to "edit" this myself first, Chris? (0.00 / 0)

Chris -- My apologies, again, that I am not familiar with the "Stylebook" rules of Motley Moose, but I find it bit disturbing that you can go into my post and edit it without my prior consent.  

Maybe you work for Motley Moose (I don't know?), but I think since you can see my profile to my phone number or email, you would have the courtesy of asking me first if I should edit this first.  You'll have to excuse my somewhat knee-jerk response here, but I find it disconcerting that just anyone could edit and possibly, routinely change the editorial context of my written blog as well??!!!

Again, my sincere apologies to the caps-sensitive posting on this thread.  Maybe I should keep my focus on Facebook, Twitter, Blogspot and other social network portals?  And it is somewhat disheartening to read that this subject of caps-usage was the bulk of some superficial comments on these posts.

Sorry for the big inconvenience, but I guess I should be thanking you for "editing" my article, Chris?!

Best,

Mike

P.S.  I guess the fact that the Editors of Motley Moose consider the use of all-caps as "shouting," they should also just "ban" the use of exclamation marks, italics, bold fonting, quotation marks and anything that could be "subjectively" deemed potentially offensive.  Again, I only used all-caps on certain words because other social network sites don't feature writing spaces where you can use other types of special formatting.  This is one of the strangest "Editorial Guidelines" I have ever seen on an online space, but now I know and I'm forewarned.  Wow, and John Allen thinks my use of all-caps makes me a Far Righter -- this just only feeds to the hyper-paranoia that comes from the talking heads on Faux News.  I'm just blown away by the assumptions posters and editors have on this site.

---

by: TANC_M.A. Freeman @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 00:25:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Fair Enough (2.00 / 4)

But all things considered I think Chris did you a favour as far as getting your message to a receptive audience.  I would have thought your 'thank you' was appropriate under the circumstances.  We are all on the same page here, so to speak, as far as mutual respect is concerned.

---

by: Shaun Appleby @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 02:17:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hey there Mike, (2.00 / 5)

I'm sorry if Chris's editing offended you -- I assure you that was not at all his intent. I think he just wanted to make your post more "readable" to the community because he saw merit in it. Sometimes it's difficult to read something when it's written in all caps, and he wanted to make sure people made the effort to read your diary because he thought you had some good points.

I don't spend a lot of time on facebook/twitter/myspace, but I've spent years reading the blogs, and I have always found that the use of caps is pretty much universally known as "shouting" -- usually the caps come out when someone is either angry or being intentionally disruptive. This was clearly not the case with your diary, but when people came in to read it, some of them may have made assumptions about you or the content of your post based on their past experiences. All people have to go on in life is what they know, and for most of us, seeing something in all caps is a "red flag" of sorts -- it generally means someone is very angry or very intent on causing trouble. I apologize for any confusion -- I don't think any of us intended offense, even if some of the comments struck you as superficial. I promise, we are not a superficial bunch as a rule, and if you stick around and get to know us, you will find that we are willing to discuss most issues in great depth.

And not "just anyone" can come in and edit your diary like Chris did -- only Motley Moose Editors and Administrators have that ability, so your work cannot be changed at will by anybody who feels like messing with it. Don't worry, Mike, the editors of Motley Moose will not alter the integrity or content of your work unless it specifically breaks posting guidelines. If one of the admins/editors chooses to "promote" (front page) your diary, an image will be added above the "break" if one is not already present. If you are uncomfortable with us exercising our discretion in that way, however, please just let us know up front, and we won't FP your diaries unless you have already provided an image.

As a rule, we do not believe in "banning" things that are subjectively offensive -- exclamation points, italics, bold, and even caps are all fine when used in moderation.

We are a pretty laid back bunch here. I assure you, there's not much of a learning curve, and you are already well on your way. I encourage you to stay -- I think you will very much enjoy the discourse on the site. Please continue to post your work, and engage in other diaries as well. We are very interested in your input and feedback.  

"I now am bold to say to the swift changing hours,
Pass, pass upon your way, for I grow never old,
Fleet to the dark abysm with all your fading flowers,
One rose that none may pluck, within my heart I hold. "

---

by: sricki @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 02:40:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

well, thanks to recent visits... (2.00 / 1)

to MyDD.

I promise, we are not a superficial bunch as a rule, and if you stick around and get to know us, you will find that we are willing to discuss most issues in great depth.

I've developed a bit of a hair trigger.

Ricki learned to braid gimp at Jesus Camp.

---

by: fogiv @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 10:24:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Please accept my sincere thanks, Sricki and Chris -- I'm feeling like the Sanjaya of MM!! (2.00 / 3)

Hi Srikci:

Thank you so much- again - for explaining some of the nuances about the style "forms" of the Moose.  I guess I could chalk up some of my overreaction to Chris' editing the words from all- to small-caps because I really was unaware of the style conventions and that all-caps can be taken as shouting.

I know you might find this amusing, but I have been posting for so long on Facebook that I have been mentally-programmed to writing some words in all-caps because their text windows don't allow for the formatting of bold or italic words for "emphasis."   So, I guess that explains my caps-obsessive behavior.  

But, on flip-side of things now, I hate to admit that I've started becoming "caps-phobic" on this site as I'm typing in anything.  I'm even afraid of using the bold and italics buttons just below this text window.  I just find now that I'm a bit overly fearful most everytime I think of giving  world "emphasis" and I'll just do it with quotation marks (which probably makes my copy look "quote-heavy."  Maybe it's just my own knee-jerks fears of being summarily labeled a Far Right "shouter."

I can definitely tell from how Moose is set up that you are guys are definitely a "laid-back" bunch, but I still got this underlying feeling that some posters here were quick to assume I'm some kind of Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck surrogate.  Okay, I'm probably a "touchy" here (as John Allen suggested), so I'll really try to follow the style conventions here -- albeit a little self-consciously paranoid about ever using all-caps again.  You'll have to excuse me, but even as a long-time journalist, this is kind of a new experience for me!

Thanks again for the guidance and I'll go back to your linked "posting guidelines" to make sure I stay on the same page here with everyone else!

Best,

Mike

---

by: TANC_M.A. Freeman @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 21:54:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hey Mike (2.00 / 4)

Welcome to the Moose. Yes, Chris is a front page editor here.

Thanks for your contribution - and for returning for a discussion.

Just to explain the 'editing'

FP editors never change the meaning of the piece. Nine times out of ten editing is just 'reformatting' - as in any journal or newspaper. We add pictures to make the diary more visually arresting, fix typos, and sometimes realign text or remove some unwanted HTML code. Occasionally they will make cuts (and mark a snip) and even more rarely, delete diary because it is spam or breaks one our advertised guidelines

It is never editing in terms of political content. Hopefully, you'll see that played out above.


Moose Juice; debate without hate

---

by: Brit @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 03:32:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks, Brit for also explaining "formatting" changes and policy, too! (1.33 / 3)

Hi Brit:

Can you also please pass my thanks to Chris, because the edit does look very clean.  I'll work on my all-caps-phobia...I'm trying here!

Hey, one other quick question here: Is there a way for me to set personal profile settings/options to "block" some posters from embedding things like music videos and other "way-off-topic" postings that have nothing to do with the original blog subject (in this case, Healthcare Reform).

Thanks again for guidance and assistance!

Best,

Mike

---

by: TANC_M.A. Freeman @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 22:11:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well I'm glad you saw... (2.00 / 2)

He only wanted to make you look good.

As for other Moosers going off on music videos. That's also part of the Moose style, as it's built up over the months. Since they're not activated unless you click, they're easy to skip over if you want to follow the flow of an argument without a 'thread hijack'.

But the truth is TANC, though we all author our individual diaries, the Moose is a collective space, and no one can control the comment section. Often they're the best part of the diary anyway, and I personally enjoy the back and forth flow.

It must seem odd, especially since we seem quite prescriptive about diary formatting, that there's this more chaotic laissez faire approach to the comments. But what can I say. That's how this shaggy four legged beast has evolved over the last year. If you want to affect its future evolution, stick around...

Moose Juice; debate without hate

---

by: Brit @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 06:22:35 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thank you for the advice and run of the Moose-land, so to speak! (2.00 / 2)

Hi Brit:

Well, I guess I don't mind the streaming music videos, but if someone embeds Neil Sedaka or Barry Manilow, I'm going to have pointed words for them.

I think I'm slowly getting accustomed with the Moose, but like you said of this "shaggy, four-legged beast," I'm just as "gangly and awkward" as my horned friend!   Again, I'm sorry if people thought I may have been touchy or prickly, but the Moose is really a very different user/poster experience than I've come across compared to other social networks (i.e.. Facebook and Twitter).

I gotta say, though, you guys really have "user-friendly, user-generated-input" space -- I love the style/formatting for inserting photos and embeds for videos!  

But, I think it's still going to take time for me to get over my all-caps-phobia and I still find myself second-guessing my typing with other formatting options.  It's kind of one of those mental hurdles I'll have to get over like when Facebook recently introduced this delayed "News Feed" service, which seems to have thrown our Friend Postings into some kind of blackhole-like disruption of the space and time continuum (robbed that Star Trek, I think?)!

I guess everyone complicated, robust "social network" interface has its occasional "burps" and "spurts"??!!

Best,
Mike

---

by: TANC_M.A. Freeman @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 23:35:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

At this point I generaly say "how bout them Tigers". nt (2.00 / 5)

---

by: creamer @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 11:46:41 AM CDT

lol [n/t] (2.00 / 2)

Ricki learned to braid gimp at Jesus Camp.

---

by: fogiv @ Wed Oct 28, 2009 at 13:39:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]