It's a bit hard to assess where we are in the health care debate. On the one hand, the Democrats pushed through and passed a bill in the late hours of Saturday evening, clearing a hurdle that meaningful health care reform has never before cleared. On the other hand, the vote in the House perilously close, there were new complications introduced by the Stupak amendment, and the bad jobs numbers and arguably the outcomes of the elections last Tuesday Virginia and New Jersey last will give nervous lawmakers plenty to worry about.
One leading indicator of the prospects for health care reform so far has been the performance of the half-dozen or so publicly-traded health insurance company stocks. Favorable developments for health care reform have been met with decreases in the prices of these stocks, and unfavorable developments with improved valuations. So what's happened to these stocks since market close on Friday -- before the House passed its health care bill?
Well, not much. Actually, that's not true: they've gained an average of 1.8 percent so far, weighted for market capitalization. But the S&P 500 has gained 2.1 percent over the same day-and-a-half of trading, meaning that the performance of the health insurance stocks is right on par with the market. The news has not been good or bad so much as indifferent -- which feels, intuitively to me, like about the right assessment.
Interestingly, the markets had a much less ambiguous assessment of the elections, with health insurance stocks gaining an average of 3.7 percent over the course of the day on Wednesday while the S&P -- after a volatile session -- was basically unchanged:
I don't necessarily think that the stock market is particularly adept at forecasting political risk, but to the extent that you're looking for an objective assessment of the consequences of lats week's results for the Democratic agenda, this is a pretty decent one.
11.10.2009
Is the Prognosis For Health Care Getting Better or Worse? The Market Weighs In.
@ 2:36 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
146 comments
The telling point is that there are about a half dozen or so health insurance giants who control the industry in the same way that a handful of banks control banking.
That worked out real well in banking, didn't it?
Competition, my keister.
Also interesting to look at a market that's trading directly on the prospects of health reform. Intrade has a contract on the Public Option being signed into law by the end of the year trading at below 10%.
I'm hoping that that's a lot of money being thrown away, but it's a sobering figure. If anyone close to Reid thinks that he really does have the numbers to get a bill through the senate, they stand to make a fortune on Intrade if they want to.
The intrade number is distorted by the fact that an opt out provision will make the market close at zero, per the contract language.
Nate:
Stocks do not move up and down in lockstep. Over the past few months, the markets have been climbing out of the pit into which they fell between January and March when Obama was talking down the economy by warning about a second depression to sell his Porkulus Bill. In contrast, during that same period, health insurance stocks were going down when Obamacare bills set out how the government was going to take over the health insurance industry.
The health insurance stocks have recovered some of their losses when the Dems were drubbed in this year's general elections and the Blue Dogs were put on notice that there is a price to be paid for enacting socialism.
The passage of the House Obamcare bill did not affect the health insurance stocks, although it grants the HHS Secretary nears dictatorial control over what health insurance will cover and the amount of insurance premiums, because no one seriously thinks that adventure in socialism has an ice cube's chance in hell of being enacted.
The intrade number is distorted by the fact that an opt out provision will make the market close at zero, per the contract language.
Ah, thank you--that explains it. I should have dug deeper.
it grants the HHS Secretary nears dictatorial control over what health insurance will cover and the amount of insurance premiums
You are aware, are you not, that no one--not a single, solitary person--will be required, under the act, to purchase health insurance through the insurance exchanges. Nor will any insurance company be required to offer its insurance through the exchanges. If the insurance offered on the exchanges has dreadful coverage, or if the premiums are too low for the companies to make a profit, then the bill will have essentially zero effect on the market; companies will continue to offer the insurance they currently offer at the rates they currently charge and people will choose to buy non-exchange insurance.
Of course, that won't happen, because the insurance companies desperately want access to the large body of willing buyers that will, in fact, choose to purchase their insurance through the exchange.
A regulated market which no one is forced to participate in, but large numbers of people voluntarily choose to participate in because they find it profitable. Oh yes, that sure is some scary, scary socialism.
"because no one seriously thinks that adventure in socialism has an ice cube's chance in hell of being enacted."
Then why do you sound so worried?
Something will pass but it will suck. It will be a step in the right direction and eventually we will get real reform.
The public option would be great, my wife works for the govt. we have a family plan that costs us a little over $200 month.
This type of price could be available to everyone but the senate needs to take it's bribes. I assume they are profitable when they offer govt workers these prices.
Either way I have pretty inexpensive health insurance but feel like the rest of the country is screwed.
yoink said...
BD: [The House Obamacare Plan] grants the HHS Secretary nears dictatorial control over what health insurance will cover and the amount of insurance premiums
You are aware, are you not, that no one--not a single, solitary person--will be required, under the act, to purchase health insurance through the insurance exchanges. Nor will any insurance company be required to offer its insurance through the exchanges. If the insurance offered on the exchanges has dreadful coverage, or if the premiums are too low for the companies to make a profit, then the bill will have essentially zero effect on the market; companies will continue to offer the insurance they currently offer at the rates they currently charge and people will choose to buy non-exchange insurance.
You might want to actually read the bill:
• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.
• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.
On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.
• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.
• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.
• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.
This is what I call asymmetric socialism - where the government directs the economy through its police and tax powers rather de jure ownership of the means of production.
Holy crap Bart, did you take that right out of an email? I got a couple of those forwarded to me as well, you need to use some critical thinking skills, and maybe don't believe everything you read (like this horribly inaccurate summary). Or at least try to verify what you read.
Bart--do you actually think you're quoting the language of the bill?
Ha wow. I didn't think anyone listened to Betsy McCaughey anymore. How many times must one be proven wrong...
joel writes:
The public option would be great, my wife works for the govt. we have a family plan that costs us a little over $200 month.
This type of price could be available to everyone but the senate needs to take it's bribes. I assume they are profitable when they offer govt workers these prices.
There is no way on god's green earth that $200 per month covers the cost of your "family" plan. I assume that that is the amount your wife contributes directly as an individual supplement, the rest being paid by her employer.
$200 per month wouldn't cover even a healthy person's typical annual health costs. If an insurance company set its premiums that low, they could never hope to cover catastrophic cases.
OMG. I just read this bill is going to kill all Americans! Bart, quick, wonder twin powers activate - form of teabag!
What's your form BDP?
Nate:
Could you fix the link? Right now it just goes back to fivethirtyeight.com.
I hope there's something substantial at the other end of that link, because this looks like pretty weak tea to me. The health care reform bill is actually expanding the market for private health insurance companies. That's good for them. A strong public option would have hurt them; the current one probably won't impact them much.
My instinct is that the stock price might be inversely corelated how well certain provisions in the law are doing, but it's probably not a good indicator of the bill's chances as a whole.
Obama was talking down the economy by warning about a second depression to sell his Porkulus Bill. In contrast, during that same period, health insurance stocks were going down when Obamacare bills set out how the government was going to take over the health insurance industry.
Awww...just one 'Cap'n Tax' short of a Talking-Points Tri-Fecta. Better luck next time.
I'm seeing lots of ads for Bill White for senate on this site. I live in Texas. I'm curious whether others are getting these same ads, or whether readers of 538.com in other parts of the country are getting different regionally specific ads.
Sorry for the off topic post.
"Over the past few months, the markets have been climbing out of the pit into which they fell between January and March when Obama was talking down the economy by warning about a second depression to sell his Porkulus Bill."
BDP, how much does the Right Wing Propaganda Machine pay you for attempting to spread your lies on this site?
Yoink,
BDP's citing the WSJ piece. It is in general accurate. As for your claim
"You are aware, are you not, that no one--not a single, solitary person--will be required, under the act, to purchase health insurance through the insurance exchanges. Nor will any insurance company be required to offer its insurance through the exchanges."
That sent off warning bells.
From the Bill"
(c) Limitation on Individual Health Insurance Coverage-
(1) IN GENERAL- Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan."
I'd say you're flat out wrong here.
Delorian said...
I'm seeing lots of ads for Bill White for senate on this site. I live in Texas. I'm curious whether others are getting these same ads, or whether readers of 538.com in other parts of the country are getting different regionally specific ads.
I've seen them, too. It wouldn't be surprising if it's just regional to Texas, or maybe Texas and ajoining states OK, AK, LA, and NV.
I know the ads here can be set to some sort of geographical sceen. When I was in Canada and people were talking about SarahPAC ads I wasn't seeing them.
By the way, Bart ol' buddy, I went and had a look at the actual language of the bill to see why poor old Betsy was finding it so confusing. Could it be that there was some terribly difficult lawyer-speak in there that would befuddle her mind with crazy double-talk?
Well, no. She's just doing her usual job of barefaced lying.
Let me just take one example, the first you cite:
Sec 202. Does it require everyone to enroll in programs offered through the exchange? Let's see how it opens, shall we?
(a) Access to Coverage- I. Except as provided in subsection (i) and in accordance with this section, all individuals are eligible to obtain coverage through enrollment in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan offered through the Health Insurance Exchange unless such individuals are enrolled in another qualified health benefits plan or other acceptable coverage.
Oops, score zero for Betsy.
@Delorian
I'm not sure it's a regional thing. Here in Minnesota Pat Toomey's smarmy face is splashed over every page, unless the same adds are run in the NE and the MW.
@Delorian
On closer examination those are Google Ads. Google allows their customers to set geograhpical regions at a much finer grain than even state level. So it is very likely that only people in or near TX are seeing those Bill White ads.
Yoink,
It doesn't require people to BUY the insurance only via the Exchange.
Rather, it sets the only acceptable insurance as that that is sold via the Exchange, unless it's grandfathered in. For individual plans, as soon as it changes any benefit, deductable, or premium, it's not the "same" plan, and the grandfathering stops.
There is of course an exception for things like Medicare, Medicaid, ect.
Yoink:
My post was annotated with the exact section and pages of the House Obamacare bill for your review. I have never before read a more vague and expansive delegation of power to the executive bureaucracy in any statute. There are almost no statutory limits placed on HHS' direction of the health insurance industry.
@Jacob
Are you seeing the Bill White ads right now? They've been on heavy rotation for me for at least a week.
Toomy is a Club For Growth project. So they might be looking for wider coverage to draw $ support from out of state.
"• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement."
Admittedly it's pretty funny that despite the specification of a number of very substantial exceptions to that rule, the only exemption she mentions is one that isn't in the bill (apparently she doesn't know what a "nonresident alien" is, and assumes it has something to do with illegal immigrants).
But no, "read the bill" doesn't mean reading a piece like that (even leaving aside the question of whether she's a discredited shill). Try something more like this:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3962:
It's not useful to look at the movement of the stocks really. The volume has been fairly light and the orders sizes I've seen have been pretty small, so there's a lot of people momentum trading these stocks. Besides, if the market REALLY though the health care issue was dead you'd see a company like Wellpoint with an 18 multiple which would imply a price like 80 vs. 52.
yoink said...
Let me just take one example, the first you cite:
Sec 202. Does it require everyone to enroll in programs offered through the exchange? Let's see how it opens, shall we?
(a) Access to Coverage- I. Except as provided in subsection (i) and in accordance with this section, all individuals are eligible to obtain coverage through enrollment in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan offered through the Health Insurance Exchange unless such individuals are enrolled in another qualified health benefits plan or other acceptable coverage.
Oops, score zero for Betsy.
Keep on reading. From page 94 of the bill:
(c) LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange participating health benefits plan.
Quoting Bart:
[...]when the Dems were drubbed in this year's general elections
Since there haven't been any general elections this year, clearly the rest of the post(s) by Bart are pure rubbish.
And please, learn the meaning of the word "socialism" before throwing it around.
Valerio L:
There were three general elections in NY, NJ and VA. These were nor primaries.
Socialism is the government directing the economy to redistribute wealth from citizens who create it to citizens preferred by the government.
Quixote said...
"• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement."
Admittedly it's pretty funny that despite the specification of a number of very substantial exceptions to that rule, the only exemption she mentions is one that isn't in the bill (apparently she doesn't know what a "nonresident alien" is, and assumes it has something to do with illegal immigrants).
"Nonresident alien" has been defined by previous statute and does indeed apply primarily to illegal aliens:
Nonresident Aliens
If you are an alien (not a U.S. citizen), you are considered a nonresident alien unless you meet one of the two tests described next under Resident Aliens.
Resident Aliens
You are a resident alien of the United States for tax purposes if you meet either the green card test or the substantial presence test for calendar year 2008 (January 1–December 31). Even if you do not meet either of these tests, you may be able to choose to be treated as a U.S. resident for part of the year. See First-Year Choice under Dual-Status Aliens, later.
Green Card Test
You are a resident for tax purposes if you are a lawful permanent resident of the United States at any time during calendar year 2008. (However, see Dual-Status Aliens, later.) This is known as the “green card” test. You are a lawful permanent resident of the United States at any time if you have been given the privilege, according to the immigration laws, of residing permanently in the United States as an immigrant. You generally have this status if the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) (or its predecessor organization) has issued you an alien registration card, also known as a “green card.” You continue to have resident status under this test unless the status is taken away from you or is administratively or judicially determined to have been abandoned.
These posts show why practicing law without a license is illegal.
"Socialism is the government directing the economy to redistribute wealth from citizens who create it to citizens preferred by the government."
Absolutely wrong! Stop lying and flaunting your *profound* ignorance. Your credibility is now zero since you have no idea what you are talking about. You are regurgitating what someone told you to think or say simply because that is what you want to think or say. With no basis in fact.
Socialism is an organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. Educate yourself.
Are you going to admit you are wrong or just lie again? If the later, since when is lying acceptable moral behavior in your family? Someone really failed to educate you on the basics.
@Bart
As a former non-resident alien then resident alien and finally a US citizen let me tell you that your definition is daft to say the least
Bart, you don't have to have set foot on US soil ever to be a non-resident alien. It is an income tax thing.
even leaving aside the question of whether she's a discredited shill
She's a discredited shill.
BDP, you are the energizer bunny of misinformation ~ god love 'ya ...
take care, blessings
@BDP: "These posts show why practicing law without a license is illegal."
I couldn't agree more.
Meeting EITHER the green card test OR the substantial presence test, which you oh-so-conveniently omitted, qualifies one as a US resident for tax purposes.
"To meet the substantial presence test, you must have been physically present in the United States on at least 31 days during the current year, and 183 days during the 3 year period that includes the current year and the 2 years immediately before."
DEM_in_Virginia said...
@Bart As a former non-resident alien then resident alien and finally a US citizen let me tell you that your definition is daft to say the least
I linked to the IRS definition of non-resident alien. The House Obamacare bill is applying this definition in a revision of the tax code. Take it up with them.
dsalkovi said...
Socialism is an organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. Educate yourself.
Socialism has multiple definitions. The definition I provided you is the one I developed for my book that covers the variety of evolutions in socialism and is derived from Marx's instruction: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Government ownership of the means of production is one method of achieving this goal, but the most recent evolutions of socialism use the government's police and tax powers to achieve the same goal. There is no effective difference between the government nationalizing the health insurance industry and directing to create the insurance policies and premiums of the government's choice or using its police and tax power to do achieve the same exact outcome as does the House Obamacare bill.
By the way, Bart and Pat are right that private plans sold to individuals will have to be sold through the exchange. That accounts for something like 9% of the market, however (employer-based insurance and medicare/medicaid/VA etc. accounting for the rest of the insured, so my point stands. If the restrictions are too onerous or the insurance products too poor, there's simply no reason for insurers or the insured to participate in the exchange (other than that minor portion of the market who buy individual coverage).
As for Betsy the compulsive liar's version of what that section of the Bill will do, she's just straight out lying. She claims that those receiving insurance through their employer will be forced to participate in the exchange after a "grace period." That's simply false.
@Bart
These posts show why practicing law without a license is illegal.
They are also demonstrating why a law license is no guarantee of the holder not talking out of his ass.
"Non-resident alien" is a category that has nothing to do with illegial immigrants, AKA undocumented aliens other than one of the later might be one of the former. Because undocumented aliens may be resident aliens!
Bart DePalma said...
Socialism has multiple definitions. The definition I provided you is the one I developed for my book
~~~~~~~~~~
So, as always, it's your own personal winger, negative spin/opinion re: socialism as are all your posts re: Obama winning the presidential election.
As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said ~ Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts!
btw, when you your opinion pamphlet re: socialism be on the bookshelves ...
take care, blessings
Bart De Palma is a tarbaby.
His sole reason for existence is to keep people from understanding what is going on. He does this by throwing all sorts of ridiculous claims and assertions into these comment sections, and for everybody who responds to him he gets one Brownie Point which he can redeem when he gets to GOP Heaven after he dies.
He has a one-track mind, and when it is not occupied by flogging GOP talking points then it is completely empty.
The common usage of "illegal immigrants" does evoke resident aliens in this context (we all know perfectly well that the comment in that article wasn't playing on fear/hate of foreign students who overstay a visa for a few weeks). And needless to say, the overwhelming majority of the billions of people who are "nonresident aliens" for IRS purposes are not illegal immigrants to the USA. There is so little overlap between the two terms that the attempt to falsely equate them would tend to look like feigned ignorance even without any conveniently abbreviated quotes.
It's a small point, but I think fairly typical of the tactics and character that I've seen from the anti-reform faction.
Do any of you have jobs? Seriously. Do you volunteer?
It would behoove some of you to do something else (i.e. productive) other than get caught up in the same old (left vs. right) arguments day after day (after day after day after day).
Yoink, Yoink, Yoink...
You're still misguided.
Let's review your original point.
You were rebutting the phrase "It grants the HHS Secretary near dictatorial control over what health insurance will cover and the amount of insurance premiums"
Your general rebuttal followed that "If the insurance offered on the exchanges has dreadful coverage, or if the premiums are too low for the companies to make a profit, then the bill will have essentially zero effect on the market; companies will continue to offer the insurance they currently offer at the rates they currently charge and people will choose to buy non-exchange insurance"
Basically, what you're saying, is if the terms set by the HHS Sec are too poor, people will go to the non-exchange market for their own insurance.
We countered by saying that, well, the ENTIRE individual insurance market has to go through the Exchange, which you conceded, but then countered, "It's only 9%".
Unfortunatly, the HHS Sec and government friends define what's a "Qualified" health plan. Included, they're allowed to define to Employers what counts as "Qualified". Including Price, Benefits, ect. There's a 5 year grace period, but after that, they ALL must follow what Uncle Sam says.
In the Bill
"SEC. 201. REQUIREMENTS REFORMING HEALTH INSURANCE MARKETPLACE.
(a) Purpose- The purpose of this title is to establish standards to ensure that new health insurance coverage and employment-based health plans that are offered meet standards guaranteeing access to affordable coverage, essential benefits, and other consumer protections.
(1) GRACE PERIOD-
(A) IN GENERAL- The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 201, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 221.
(a) In General- The premium rate charged for a qualified health benefits plan that is health insurance coverage may not vary except as follows:
(1) LIMITED AGE VARIATION PERMITTED- By age (within such age categories as the Commissioner shall specify) so long as the ratio of the highest such premium to the lowest such premium does not exceed the ratio of 2 to 1.
(2) BY AREA- By premium rating area (as permitted by State insurance regulators or, in the case of Exchange-participating health benefits plans, as specified by the Commissioner in consultation with such regulators).
(3) BY FAMILY ENROLLMENT- By family enrollment (such as variations within categories and compositions of families) so long as the ratio of the premium for family enrollment (or enrollments) to the premium for individual enrollment is uniform, as specified under State law and consistent with rules of the Commissioner.
(b) Actuarial Value of Optional Service Coverage-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Commissioner shall estimate the basic per enrollee, per month cost, determined on an average actuarial basis, for including coverage under a basic plan of the services described in section 222(d)(4)(A)."
And since Uncle Sammy already controls those other Medical insurance companies you mentioned (VA, Medicare, Medicaid)
The Government WILL determine what you get, and how much you pay for it...
As for Betsy the compulsive liar's version of what that section of the Bill will do, she's just straight out lying. She claims that those receiving insurance through their employer will be forced to participate in the exchange after a "grace period."
I don't see anywhere where she says it must be purchased through the exchange. She simply says that an employer-based health insurance program must meet the requirements of a "qualified plan" by the end of the grace period, which seems rather clear to me (IANAL, of course):
202b:
for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 201, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 221.
Indeed, you guys seem to be taking issue with the wrong section here. The question was whether the HHS secretary has "near dictatorial control" over health plans. This is simply not the fact. McCaughey is being clearly misleading when she says that the HHS secretary will decide benefits.
The Health Benefits Advisory Committee, chaired by the Surgeon General, and partially appointed by the President and partially by the Comptroller General, is the sole body that can recommend a benefit standard for a qualified plan. The HHS secretary may ONLY decide whether or not to adopt a given recommended standard as a package.
Moreover, the HHS secretary MUST accept a benefit package from the committee before 18 months from the time the bill becomes law. As such, it is the HBAC that has "near dictatorial control" - they can literally enact any benefit standard they want (within the statute-defined limits) simply by proposing it and then refusing to propose any others.
The members of the HBAC have staggered 3-year terms, so by the end of any President's term he will have appointed all the President-appointed members. Further, by statute, the HBAC must at least reflect providers, patient representatives, employers (including small employers), labor, health insurance issuers, experts in health care financing and delivery, experts in oral health care, experts in racial and ethnic disparities, experts on health care needs and disparities of individuals with disabilities, representatives of relevant governmental agencies, and at least one practicing physician or other health professional and an expert in child and adolescent health and shall represent a balance among various sectors of the health care system so that no single sector unduly influences the recommendations of such Committee.
Whew! Quite a mouthful! :)
Persuter,
Mmm... Legislative language.
Point is a non-elected group of Government officials are gonna be deciding your benefits and premiums, and there's not jack you can do about it.
is the evil troll CHARLES = BDP sockpuppet ???
they seem to take turns infesting this site
BDP spews his own version of right-wing fiscal 'self-evident' CON truthiness ad nauseum
while CHARLES the hate-monger appears on other threads & lingers spewing his unchristian homophobic & xenophobic rants against all the unbelievers in his distorted version of righteous indignation
but imho methinks they are one & the same sad pathetic tag-team TROLL[S]
otoh, they sure do invest alot of effort here @ 538 even though they are constantly proven to be nothing more than illogical, irrational fear-mongers
DNFTTs as it encourages them to come back to spam more untruthiness
reasoned opposing viewpoints are welcome - but trolls are to be ignored or abused
Bart said
I linked to the IRS definition of non-resident alien. The House Obamacare bill is applying this definition in a revision of the tax code. Take it up with them.
--------
Oh man!
The IRS definition does not mean Non Resident Alien == Illegal Alien.
@Pat
"Point is a non-elected group of Government officials are gonna be deciding your benefits and premiums, and there's not jack you can do about it."
Currently Corporate fat cats decide my benefits and premiums and there is nothing I can do about it.
To call the stock market "objective" is a joke. We are talking about a market that based on nothing more then a mis-statement on CNBC will suddenly cause stock to tank. A market were a rumor without any proof is enough to drive up or down value.
The stock market is essentially informed gambling with about the same requirement of luck as going to a blackjack table.
DEMinVA:
You're wasting your time arguing with people like that. To them any immigrant, even one who is here legally is actually illegal. They may not say so but they really want to cut immigration to zero, partly to keep out subversive foreign ideas and mostly to keep out more dark-skinned people. Every now and then the mask slips off and they will slip up like the instance you noted and they will be caught thinking that all non-Americans are the same.
Dem in VA,
This is a common mistake / talking point.
If you're unhappy with your current benefits and premiums, you are free to change plans and/or providers. Many companies offer more than one choice as well, if you're locked in a company. Companies tend to be fairly receptive if you're unhappy with their plan. If they're unreceptive, you can reject the company's insurance and buy your own, or even leave the company.
In the extreme event that you're unhappy with EVERY private insurance plan on the market, you're free to pay for yourself, or start your own company.
Compare this to the government rule by decree....
@Pat,
You haven't actually been paying attention to the national debate for the past few months, have you?
PAT
what a crock you posted
FREE ??? to switch between monopolistic PROFIT insurance companies that do much more than dominate their markets ???
first, not all Drs & hospitals would cover you if/when one wants to 'switch' as you claim we can
second, insurance is truly NOT transportable in many instances [I should know as I have run up against this barrier]
third, you know that they ALL us the health database to discourage 'switching' companies by making virtually ANYTHING that has ocurred or even tested for excluded as a 'pre-existing condition' or they will accept the premiums until a claim is made years later then 'recind' coverage effective immediately [leaving one uninsured & uninsurable]
fourth, coverage caps
fifth, they are ALL currently in the mode to encourage their policyholder to drop to a higher deductible - in other words they are shifting more risk to the 'insureds'
sixth, rapid increases - mine went up another 20% this year alone despite no claims
BUT I am not 'free' to switch companies because many years ago I had cardiac tests performed as a precaution because of what turned out to be arythmia caused by work-related stress [nothing more]
IF/when I try to switch guess what ? any cardiac coverage is withdrawn even though I had no real problems [it was a precaution]
next, I also cannot switch [even though I tried to] because BC of CA says that my liver will now be considered a pre-existing condition due to Lyme Disease treatment years ago - despite the medical fact that I fully recovered [at no cost to them - in fact they tried to prevent my treatment].
I am 100% healthy - but considered an 'unacceptable risk' going forward because I had treatments and paid premiums for over 30 years to the same company [well, not quite as BC used to be non-profit & affordable for the self-insured]
what good is insurance if the PROFIT mongers can refuse to cover my future care in areas involving cardiac or the liver ? what else is there ???
so I am not FREE to switch companies or shop around - I am locked out OR required to remain with the same insurer that I know will try to recind me IF I EVER NEED MY INSURANCE
I continue to pray for health & pay outrageous premiums ONLY so that IF I ever need hospitalization, the hospital & Drs would allow me to be admitted [as opposed to dumped at the curb as an 'ininsured]
and my situation is by no mean unique - it in fact is common. I am trapped in a policy no-mans-land from which there is no escape at this time
YOU will also be there someday as well if the current 'FREE' monopolistic FOR MAX PROFIT insurance market is left to it's own unregulated devices !
in the meantime, quit trying to perpetuate the LIE that the market is free, fair, open & equitable - it is NOT !!!
the citizens of this country deserve the opportunity to OPT into a non-profit exchange or public program like MEDICARE for anyone who wants it - I would rather pay my taxes & premiums toward such a program that does not have a business plan based on dumping me at the curb as expendable once the high-profit years have been skimmed [that is exactly what the private insurers do now]
Mmm... Legislative language.
Point is a non-elected group of Government officials are gonna be deciding your benefits and premiums
If you're going to require people to buy insurance, you have to define what is acceptable minimum insurance. This is just like auto insurance - I can't drive in any state in the nation if I don't have liability insurance, regardless of how much of other types of auto insurance I have.
If you disagree with mandatory health insurance, then say so. But taking issue with obvious and necessary corollaries while ignoring the main point is ridiculous.
And your comment about "premiums" is completely incorrect - they have no decision-making power over premiums whatsoever. The insurance companies will set their premiums to whatever they believe the market will bear just as they do now.
(Also worth noting that most of the members of the HBAC are required NOT to be Federal officials or employees, and they are not paid a salary (they do get their travel expenses reimbursed).)
DEM_in_Virginia said...
The IRS definition does not mean Non Resident Alien == Illegal Alien.
It goes even deeper. Most undocumented aliens are resident aliens, not non-resident aliens.
It was a brutally decietful excuse to mention the big bugaboo of "illegal immigrants". :( And either Bart knows this or he's an attoney of the Lionel Hutz range of quality.
Mule Rider said...
Do any of you have jobs?
Waiting on The Man (DHS) to say I can get one. :P
Mule Rider said...
Do any of you have jobs? Seriously. Do you volunteer?
It would behoove some of you to do something else (i.e. productive) other than get caught up in the same old (left vs. right) arguments day after day (after day after day after day).
So says one of the most prolific posters on this site for several years running...
"Health Vote Pits Democrat vs. Democrat"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29385.html
It could not have worked out better had the GOP planned it . . .
PERSUTER
here in FL and perhaps in other states it apparently is not mandatory for all DRIVERS to purchase auto liability insurance.
they require all vehicle OWNERS to insure their vehicles, rather than require drivers per se to carry mandatory coverage.
so there are way too many drivers out & about on the road who drive vehicles owned & assumably insured by others
not sure why they do not require all licensed drivers to provide proof of coverage - it is only required for tag & title
so many of the higher risk drivers [or uninsurables] bypass the regulations by 'borrowing' insured vehicles owned on paper by a friend or relative
a bad model imho
FWIW
@Pat
I cannot do what you suggest. I have a 7 year old autistic child. My wife quit her job as an engineer at intel to work with her. If I tried to get my own insurance I would be jacked. In my company I have a choice of 3 insurance companies they all differ in small flavors but not much.
The problem with insurance companies is they are motivated not by providing required care but by what they can get away with. So they try to find ways to not cover therapies required by a small minority because it is too expensive. And the minority is too small to push back.
The insurance companies have tried to not cover speech therapy for my daughter because they felt she did not need it. A 7 year old who can only make one word sentences does not need therapy, right. This same company had a 6 billion dollar profit last year.
For me it is not a problem, we sold our home to cover my daughter's therapies. Not everybody is so lucky.
BDP wrote:
"Socialism is the government directing the economy to redistribute wealth from citizens who create it to citizens preferred by the government."
Well, that covers any government in the history of the world that has ever taxed, fined, or levied tariffs, doesn't it?
Any government 'directs the economy' on some scale.
Any government that has ever taxed, fined, or levied tariffs 'redistributes wealth', unless they taxed someone and gave the exact same amount back to them immediately.
So from the Sumerians onward through time, it's all been socialism, if we are to accept your definition. Heck, Reagan was a socialist, too. Under your definition, we would have to eliminate all taxation and forms of government revenue to avoid the terror of socialism.
It sounds a lot like Somalia.
DEM_in_Virginia (congrats on your new Governor BTW):
I believe that was one of Pat's suggestions: "In the extreme event that you're unhappy with EVERY private insurance plan on the market, you're free to pay for yourself . . ."
here in FL and perhaps in other states it apparently is not mandatory for all DRIVERS to purchase auto liability insurance.
they require all vehicle OWNERS to insure their vehicles, rather than require drivers per se to carry mandatory coverage.
Duly noted, but I don't really think that affects my point. You can't require people to buy insurance but not specify minimum insurance requirements.
BTW, Dwight, Pan, please DNFTT. Treat Mule like a naughty puppy. Reward him with attention when he makes non-trolling posts; punish him by withholding attention when he makes one of his insulting posts.
CHARLES = evil TROLL
I believe that was one of Pat's suggestions: "In the extreme event that you're unhappy with EVERY private insurance plan on the market, you're free to pay for yourself . . ."
Unless you are wealthy to the point that ANY amount of medical care is within your financial reach, this is not an actual option.
Who was it that said, "The Law prohibits both the rich and the poor alike from sleeping under bridges"?
That sounds like Pat's argument for "freedom". You're "free" to go bankrupt, "free" to become homeless, "free" to die or suffer if you can't pay for medical care.
And they think that saying stuff like that sounds so persuasive.
PERSUTER
I was not trying to criticize you, just noting how poorly the FL insurance requirements are set up..
they are, of course, designed in whole by the insurance lobbyists in Tallahassee
FL [NO FAULT] requires a vehicle owner [rather than licensed driver] to carry minimal 10K PIP + minimal PROPERTY damage liabilty [PDL] and it MUST be issued by a FL insurer !!!
such a poor model & many glaring defects
BUT no requirement for BODILY injury liability [BIL] coverage is mandated [only 'encouraged']
then trying to address some of their poorly modeled insurance design, the state requires basically only taxi drivers & any vehicle driver who has caused accidents in the past to carry
BIL
it is just a stoopid way to pretend to require even minimal coverage imho
but it is highly profitable for the INSURANCE companies
and they are not required to offer other coverages, so that further dump off that risk - or jack premiums through the roof literally
I hope real HCR in DC will do a better job, but costs can only be mantained in a real single-payer/opt out model where the max PROFIT motive is managed [like utilities should be vs ENRON scenarios that we are seeing]
Persuter,
It's not necessarily I disagree with the fact there need to be minimums. It's just I disagree with where those limits need to be set.I would go with a bare minimum, catestrophic coverage, set into law with set numbers. Not the "all inclusive" plan that seems to be included in the bill, that can vary in time.
This is closer to your auto insurance comparison, where the "Insurance" required is a bare minimum liability that most people recommend about tripling. Not to mention that liability doesn't cover damage to you or your car in the event of an accident. But if people want to, they can choose not to cover damage to their car. Whereas, in health care, I probably have to have acupucture coverage, whether I want to or not.
As for premiums, I suggest you look at the bill closer. The apparatus is there for financial checking, ect. What I imagine happening in the interests of "Affordable healthcare", is exactly what happens in Massachusetts now. The Health Insurance companies place a "bid" for a plan to place on the Exchange. The Commissioner looks at the bid (premium), decides if its low enough, if it's not low enough, it doesn't become an Exchange plan, and never gets sold, because it's not a "Qualified plan".
(addendem. The Massachusetts exchange is the "Connector")
Finally, 5 states don't require Auto Liability insurance.
DCM in FL,
I'm sorry you feel that way. Quite a rant there.
If we could address your personal situation though for a second. It seems like you want to switch insurance companies. I looked up the regs on pre-existing conditions in Florida.
If you're going to a new job that has health care, the pre-existing condition exclusion period is limited to 12-18 months. If you're perfectly healthy now, then shouldn't be a problem. It also only exists for conditions for which you sought treatment in the 6 months before enrolling.
If you go for an individual plan, the maximum length of any pre-existing exclusion period is 2 years in Florida. Again, shouldn't be a problem since you're healthy, and I'd be surprised if it was that long. Make sure it's not an "Exclusion" though.
If you're coming from a "group" plan, switching gets even easier.
Dem in VA,
Again, sorry. Hope your daughter gets better. But the motivations you imply here, apply equally to government bureaucrats. What many supporters of government health care seem to forget, is the government is just as willing to "deny care" for "non-essential care" as private insurance companies. Sometimes even more so, because, it's not like their customers can go anywhere else....
When the Rep[ublicans controlled the White House and both chambers of congress, they continually threatedned to use the "nuclear option". They would take away the right to fillibuster.Why won't the Democrats use the same threat? It only take 51 vote to eliminate that option. Why is it that the Republicans can play hardball better than the democrats? Screw the Republicans, take awy their fillibuster.
TFLive said...
To call the stock market "objective" is a joke. We are talking about a market that is based on nothing more then a mis-statement on CNBC will suddenly cause stock to tank. A market were a rumor without any proof is enough to drive up or down value.
The stock market is essentially informed gambling with about the same requirement of luck as going to a blackjack table.
~~~~~~~~~~
So true, the stock market is a crap shoot unless a conservative Rep has insider info. ;)
But then trying to get health care reform passed the past 40/50 years has also been a crap shoot as the party of No! has remained totally negative, like winger trolls at 538, as they are and always have been 100% obstructionists.
Again, why do Reps continue to love big corporations as the health insurance industry continues to screw over average Americans.
Yes Virginia, when are Reps gonna stop beating their wives, children and pets! :)
carry on
p.s. ok, Martha Stewart is a Dem and she had insider info, but what got her in trouble was lying to the feds lol.
... and the truth shall set you free!
and that's a good thing ...
I seem to remember the wingnuts here claiming that the stock market was a wonderfully wise indicator of the Administration's success, or lack of it.
Oh, well. Another wingnut narrative down the memory hole when it becomes untenable. They never really believed it; they just wanted to see if we would believe it. So it's not as if they were wrong.
But we are still supposed to take them seriously the next time they parrot the latest wingnut talking point.
2,266 Veterans Died In 2008 Because They Were Uninsured
According to a study released by the Harvard Medical School, 2,266 veterans under the age of 65 died last year as a result of not having health insurance. Researchers emphasize that "that figure is more than 14 times the number of deaths (155) suffered by U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2008, and more than twice as many as have died (911 as of Oct. 31) since the war began in 2001."
The 1.46 million working-age veterans that did not have health insurance last year all experienced reduced access to care as a consequence, leading to "six preventable deaths a day."
Like other uninsured Americans, most uninsured vets are working people -- too poor to afford private coverage but not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid or means-tested VA care," said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a professor at Harvard Medical School. [...]
Dr. David Himmelstein, the co-author of the report and associate professor of medicine at Harvard, commented, "On this Veterans Day we should not only honor the nearly 500 soldiers who have died this year in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the more than 2,200 veterans who were killed by our broken health insurance system. That's six preventable deaths a day."
The study's authors warn that the health care legislation "would do virtually nothing for the uninsured until 2013" and would "leave at least 17 million uninsured over the long run when reform kicks in," leaving many veterans still without care.
~~~~~~~~~~
Again, why do Republicans hate America and Americans, especially the veterans who help preserve their freedom 24/7, so they er the party of No! can continue to be obstructions re: health care reform!
oh the irony ...
" When the Rep[ublicans controlled the White House and both chambers of congress, they continually threatedned to use the "nuclear option". They would take away the right to fillibuster.Why won't the Democrats use the same threat? It only take 51 vote to eliminate that option. Why is it that the Republicans can play hardball better than the democrats? Screw the Republicans, take awy their fillibuster."
I suspect many moderate Democrats would oppose that vote. The existence of the filibuster gives them a great deal of sway in the house (similarly, the gang of 14 would have quashed any similar attempt back when the GOP ran things).
As for why the Dems stink at hardball (at least the congressional ones), I think it has to do with party unity. In 1994 the GOP won the house with a clear platform and a clear leader. Since then, a pattern of strong centralized leadership emerged (though it has waned since 2005).
The same cannot be said of the Democrats over the same time-frame. Indeed, the super-majority won in 2008 (including many victories in conservative districts) amplified the problem of disunity in the Democratic party. Pelosi/Reid are too busy herding cats to play hardball. This is similar to the historical problems the Dems had with "southern Democrats" - a majority in the house is not necessarily a policy majority.
It's not necessarily I disagree with the fact there need to be minimums. It's just I disagree with where those limits need to be set.I would go with a bare minimum, catestrophic coverage, set into law with set numbers. Not the "all inclusive" plan that seems to be included in the bill, that can vary in time.
Then I don't see the relevance of your "un-elected Government officials" comment, since the "all-inclusive" statutory requirements for minimum benefit standards was written by elected legislators. Quite frankly, I would like a committee of medical professionals to decide covered procedures rather than Congress or the insurance company actuaries.
Can you be more specific about what the difference between your "bare minimum, catastrophic coverage" plan and the minimum qualifying requirements in the bill is?
it doesn't become an Exchange plan, and never gets sold, because it's not a "Qualified plan".
Qualified plans are not necessarily Exchange plans. You appear to be making assertions about this bill based on a completely different Massachusetts law. Only individual buyers are required to go through the Exchange - an employer may offer any qualified health benefits plan.
Whereas, in health care, I probably have to have acupucture coverage, whether I want to or not.
You can't simply denounce the bill based on what you imagine is in it.
"Socialism is the government directing the economy to redistribute wealth from citizens who create it to citizens preferred by the government."
Like hell it is. Maybe in the fuzzy-minded world of GOP talking points, but that's not socialism any more than "the government makes laws in accordance with the will of the majority" is an acceptable definition of democracy.
shiloh,
Your post @10:47 was probably the best post I've read so far regarding why HCR is so important, and why Republicans hate America.
Thank you, and always think of our veterans that allow such discussions to be possible.
In short
"I don't see the relevence...."
The public has a degree of control over politicians. They are rather further removed from a board appointed by officials appointed by politicans.
Then that board decides what MUST be covered. For example, acupucture is a valid medical procedure. Does that mean any insurance offered MUST cover it? Odds are the board would say so. I mean, they're medical officials, it's a valid medical procedure. Several states already mandate acupucture MUST be covered by any insurance policy.
Of course, anytime you add another procedure that MUST be covered, costs go up for everyone. Regardless if that procedure is a necessity or not.
"Can you be more specific about minimum catestrophic coverage"
I'll just throw out a rough idea. Basically for the guy who only wants/needs/could afford the insurance in case of an emergency.
Catastrophic health insurance is setup to cover major health problems and normally has high deductibles and low monthly premiums.
With a catastrophic coverage health plan, you will normally have to pay out of pocket for doctor office visits and prescription drugs, but major expenses are covered. These types of expenses may include hospital stays, surgery, intensive care, lab tests and X-Rays. You will rarely find
No Primary care physician care via insurance, no specialists (w/o hospital) via insurance, $1500 Deductable, Hospital only care.
"it doesn't become an exchange plan"
Regulation directly of premiums via bidding onto the Exchange only occurs with individual insurance, you're correct. With Employer insurance, the Employers are required to pay a set percentage as premiums, effectively keeping the price down.
"You can't simply denounce a bill based on what you imagine"...
California already mandates acupuncture be covered. It's estimated to account for 1% to 3% of premiums here.
BDP:
"Socialism is the government directing the economy to redistribute wealth from citizens who create it to citizens preferred by the government."
By your definition, the United States federal government, as well as every State government in the country, and probably every tax-collecting government in the world, is a socialist government, and has been so since before any of us was ever born.
Gen Sherman said...
~~~~~~~~~~
Indeed, on this Veteran's Day, thanx to all American veterans past and present for preserving our freedom!
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate...we can not consecrate...we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government: of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
~~~~~~~~~~~
It's far too easy to get carried away w/cable news ad nauseam minutia and forget the big picture! ~ We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
America, as always, hopefully, is a work in progress ...
There are a few questions that should always be asked before debating people about healthcare (such as Pat).
1) Do you have insurance? Is it Medicare?
2) What is your job title? Do you work for state or federal government?
3) Do you expect to never lose your job?
4) Do you have what most insurance companies would call a pre-existing condition?
The reason for #1 is many against universal healthcare seem to either already have Medicare or don't have nor want insurance (thinking, ironically, it is too expensive and they don't need it).
Reason for number 2 is often they work for sizeable companies (therefore more coverage options) and/or get paid very well so insurance payments don't represent as high a percentage of their salary as some. The second part about goverment is because they have many many options for coverage, so many that people's jaws would drop if they really knew and probably change the conversation on this subject.
Reason for number 3 they also suffer from a bizarre perspective that their current status quo will not change and they will remain happily employed into retirement. Getting and keeping insurance while unemployed is not only difficult but extremely expensive.
Question 4 rises from the odd idea that complaints such as "preexisting condition" is your own fault for getting sick.
So to start, for me 1) yes, not medicare 2) tech support, medium size company 3) course I could 4) yes. Long story short, I could lose my job, my current employer changes the insurance every year to whoever the lowest bidder is, my options are to either accept or not be insured as my pre-existing condition prevents me from getting insurance elsewhere. Thus the reasons why I support universal healthcare with public option (beyond it simply being the good "christian" moral choice).
But ask those questions of everyone and after they refuse to answer some or all, that information will likely arm you with everything you need to know on hteir motives for supporting or not supporting healthcare reform beyond fear of "socialism".
All right, I will bite.
Question #1) I have health insurance. It is not medicare.
Question #2) Visiting Assistant Professor
Question #3) I am currently working in Qatar ... I will definitely change jobs (I will come back to the US someday) ... It is definitely a possability that I could be between jobs someday.
Question #4) no
I do not like the current versions (senate or house) of the healthcare bill.
I might be willing to support the bills if
1) tort reform was added
2) public option was dropped
3) one of the insurance options was catastrophic insurance (with appropriate regulations)
4) Individuals were allowed to purchase (at full cost) the plans available to state workers (these plans are usually quite good). These plans should be part of the exchange
5) Workers were allowed to
a) buy plans (at full cost) on the exchange-the empoyer should give a voucher for whatever the employer plan costs the employer
b) keep their insurance from their old job at full cost. Again the
employer should give a voucher for the cost to the employer of the employer sponsered plan.
6) any revenue raising should be done by taxing insurance benefits
I'm trying to add stuff that benefits people with insurance (most people).
1) cbo says this will save a lot of money. I view this as a no-brainer
2) There are three versions of the public option that I know of.
a) strong version-
This version uses price controls. They make me nervous. It IS CHEAPER of course. If this is what you are after (using price controls to lower costs) why not have all plans in the exchange reimburse physicians at medicare rates (ie use price controls). It saves just as much money, and you avoid the whole govenment takover arguements?
b) weak version - government plan negotiates with providers. this plan actually matches the retoric (goverment plan competing with private insurance). I don' have an inherent problem with this idea. The cbo thinks it will do nothing (and I think so too), but why not? I might be wrong. If liberals could convince me they won't change it to plan a if plan b fails then I could get on board.
c) Schumer idea-plan charges the average rate of private insurance plans. What???? How is that going to drive down prices? Actually, this drove me away from supporting plan b). I can not think of a legitame reason for this plan unless you are going to change it to something else later.
3) I fully buy into the whole auto insurance comparison - I don't want to pay the medical expenses of someone who didn't get insurance. But- that comparison ends with catastrophic insurance. I don't see why I should force someone to get a plan that covers office visits. The plan does need to fully cover disasters though.
4) I was working for a state college in GA and my father was working for a private college about 30 minutes away. The cost of my state plan (full cost including employer contribution) was less than half my dads.
5) I believe it is unlikely that I will ever not have insurance for an extended period (though the safety net is worth something). What is likely to happen though is that I change jobs and have to change my insurance ... and maybe my doctor too. That sucks.
6) I don't like it either ... but the cbo says its one of the few things that helps bend the cost curve.
PAT
you are WRONG about my freedom to switch insurers.
Yes, technically I am free to switch BUT...
despite what you say, every insurer games the system surrently
while they will not refuse to offer coverage, they do the following:
because they have accessed my medical records & misinterpreted 'tests' as proof of prior medical conditions, every insurer jacks up the PREMIUMS into the stratosphere [assigning me as a high risk]
so technically I could purchase another policy BUT a premium in excess of $1000/month with huge up front deductible is not really a valid choice or FREE market option
next, they currently lock me out by making my health insurance not transportable - so I am required to game the system & retain health insurance in CA even though I live in FL [I am effectively forced to keep a bicoastal residence or go without coverage]. So once a year I trek to CA for a physical annual exam to maintain my bare minimum policy coverage [just in case]
last, you claim that they will 'waive' the pre-existing condition if no treatments in a prior 12-24 months.
while the insurers will say that is true, in FACT it is NOT ! besides jacking the rates through the roof should I switch carriers or policies, every one of the insurers target the historical info [even tests to rule out conditions] and bank it to use for future RECISION should anything even remotely similar occur in the future.
Yes the ugly truth is that they will take my premiums until I need coverage down the line - then use my medical history against me as an excuse to drop my coverage if I ever make a claim for cardiac or liver related
This happens every day - they claim you failed to disclose a condition or they just deny coverage/stall & refuse to reimburse or drop you or further jack your FREE market rates through the roof until you are forced to go away...
I have seen this happen over & over - and even the industry admits this is their business model. They have no desire to provide coverage to single or self-employed individuals later in life when the odds of having to actually pay out increase
so do not try to convince me that I am 'ree to switch'- it has proven to be impossible or too high of a risk to take given their propensity to deny coverage & jack rates with no effective.
apparently you have not paid attention to all the gaming & abuse of the health insurance system that favors maximizing the PROFIT for the executives & stockholders.
the shameful thing is that back in the day when Blue Cross was non-profit, their policies were rather reasonable - but Reagan & the 'free market' deregulator crowd poisoned the insurance system same as they did for utilities & financial sectors
so now they require the FEDs to bail 'em out of a jam... or we are all screwed endlessly
I am wondering if the cumulative "meh" by the health insurance stocks is a lack of fear of the bill, or a wait and see approach to the possibly dodgy chance of its passage through the house?
Persuter said...
The Health Benefits Advisory Committee, chaired by the Surgeon General, and partially appointed by the President and partially by the Comptroller General, is the sole body that can recommend a benefit standard for a qualified plan. The HHS secretary may ONLY decide whether or not to adopt a given recommended standard as a package.
Moreover, the HHS secretary MUST accept a benefit package from the committee before 18 months from the time the bill becomes law. As such, it is the HBAC that has "near dictatorial control" - they can literally enact any benefit standard they want (within the statute-defined limits) simply by proposing it and then refusing to propose any others.
Not quite. This is one of the myriad sneaky portions of the bill. Under Sec 224(a)(2), it appears that the Secretary may only accept or refuse the recommendations of the HBAC. However, under the following section (a)(3), if the HBAC does not propose universal government insurance standards to the Secretary's liking by the deadline,. the Secretary may impose his or her own standards by decree. Furthermore, under the following Section (b), the Secretary will establish all future standard changes by regulation.
In short, the HBAC is a public relations sham to make it appear that the government will not be deciding which insurance you may obtain.
r said...
BDP: "Socialism is the government directing the economy to redistribute wealth from citizens who create it to citizens preferred by the government."
By your definition, the United States federal government, as well as every State government in the country, and probably every tax-collecting government in the world, is a socialist government, and has been so since before any of us was ever born.
My definition has two elements - (1) government direction of the economy and (2) for the purpose of redistribution of wealth. A redistributive tax system only meets the second element and is not socialism.
Bart DePalma, you know no hummiliation?
So says one of the most prolific posters on this site for several years running...
Seriously? I realize I've had my moments, but outside of a couple of days recently, I've been pretty tame the last few months. I was much more active last year up through the election before I took a little hiatus. In any event, just look at the last 10-20 posts on this site. I guarantee you that my name shows up far less than people like Jacob, Persuter, Charles, Bart de Palma, shiloh, shrinkers, and probably a few more, but those were the first ones off the top of my head.
Blogger TFLive said...
"There are a few questions that should always be asked before debating people about healthcare (such as Pat)."
You're absolutely right, and the answers to such questions could be disturbing to say the least.
Having canvassed on health reform issues before, I have always been shocked by how many people opposed to changes are absolutely irrefutably convinced that neither they nor anyone they care about will ever lose their job or face recission (although this was before the economic meltdown).
If we want to convince people that reform is needed, we need to find a way to reverse this pathology.
First I agree that the stock market is not a reliable anything. Swings on the order of 1% in a day just can't be innovations to the expected discounted value of dividend flows.
Second, I wonder what investors are trying to forecast. Having just asserted they are irrational, I note it would be irrational to sell health insurance companies' shares if one expected health care reform to pass. The reform includes mandates forcing firms and individuals to buy their product.
I think investors are trying to forecast what kind of public option, if any, is included in the bill. A public option would reduce insurance company profits. The noted congressional events which have affected insurance company share prices are specifically related to the public option.
On the absurd assumption that the stock market is rational*, I would say it has concluded that any public option that might be included in the bill won't amount to much (that is will be level playing field not robust) and almost all danger for insurance companies has passed.
*Yes I know a market can't be either rational or irrational -- I said the assumption was absurd.
For those of you who support this bill but are outraged about the abortion provision, William Saletan nails you today:
http://www.slate.com/id/2235016/
Upshot? You don't get to be a cafeteria libertarian - the intrusive regulation cuts both ways. This is the system that Obama is creating, and it isn't just going to chew up the freedoms of the people you dislike.
You lefties might also benefit from the Boston Globe's exposee on the utter farce that is the stimulus bill. Check out Boston.com. Upshot there: the new jobs are lies, if not actual frauds. The bill has failed both as a job creator, and in that it was supposed to be honest, transparent, and efficient. Read it and weep.
In other news, Gallup has the GOP up four and Independents splitting for them by 12 points.
BDP wrote:
"My definition has two elements - (1) government direction of the economy "
What government does not "direct the economy" on some scale?
It may use tariffs to make imports less attractive and encourage domestic production - that is "direction" of the economy.
It may set labour standards - wage, age, hours - that directly affect which industries will be competitive, and certainly are binding upon anyone doing business in that country. That is "direction" of the economy.
Mere investment in infrastructure "directs" the economy. If there were no roads, for example, commerce would be affected. Where those roads go determines where commerce will take place.
Any government spending at least tries to "direct" the economy on some scale.
And of course, Central Banks, "direct" the economy by controlling the money supply.
Any government that exists or has ever existed has "directed" the economy in some fashion.
The mere fact that we are even looking at Health Insurance Company profitability illustrates a basic problem perfectly! Why are they even allowed to profit at all on healthcare? That is money sucked out of the healthcare dollar and that does not go to acutal healthcare at the very time that we are seeing healthcare costs spiral out of control. Provider income is stagnant or decreasing and insurance company profit is increasing...am the only one that sees this as a problem?
Todd Dugdale said...
BDP wrote: "My definition has two elements - (1) government direction of the economy "
What government does not "direct the economy" on some scale?
Once again, my definition has two elements and you are only addressing one. Direction of the economy without the redistribution of wealth from those citizens who create it to those citizens the government favors is not socialism.
*sigh*
OK Bart, name one government in the history of the world that has not directed its economy in some manner and has not redistributed wealth to citizens it favors in some manner.
Or is "socialism" just synonymous with "society" in your mind?
TFL,
In short
1) Do you have insurance? Is it Medicare?
Yes, No.
2) What is your job title? Do you work for state or federal government?
Don't work for the local, state, or federal system but for a University.
3) Do you expect to never lose your job?
I'm switching in about 2 years.
4) Do you have what most insurance companies would call a pre-existing condition?
Likely yes, not worried due to the law in CA.
My views run along side of Daniel's in general.
DCM,
You're very angry, and nothing I can say will likely change this. You could always support GOP efforts to make insurance transportable across state lines though. That would help your particular situation. Or you could become a "group of one" in Florida and get insurance guarenteed issue that can't charge you higher rates for preexisting conditions.
Not quite. This is one of the myriad sneaky portions of the bill. Under Sec 224(a)(2), it appears that the Secretary may only accept or refuse the recommendations of the HBAC. However, under the following section (a)(3), if the HBAC does not propose universal government insurance standards to the Secretary's liking by the deadline,. the Secretary may impose his or her own standards by decree.
I read that as saying the Secretary must accept one of the proposed benefit standards. I do not believe that says that he or she can just make up whatever standards she wants.
Furthermore, under the following Section (b), the Secretary will establish all future standard changes by regulation.
That CLEARLY says that the Secretary may only adopt proposed benefit standards changes from the HBAC, Bart! You're going right back to the same misleading comments. This is simply ridiculous.
OK Bart, name one government in the history of the world that has not directed its economy in some manner and has not redistributed wealth to citizens it favors in some manner.
Or is "socialism" just synonymous with "society" in your mind?
This whole "socialism vs. NOT socialism" argument gets played out every day on here (and likely elsewhere) ad nauseum.
That's why I have and will continue in the future to articulate my rebuke around the concept of statism rather than socialism. For a general overview, see below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism
Whether it takes a truly "socialist" form or retains a mostly "capitalist" outwardly form, we can all agree that statism exists in varying degrees around the world. Personally, I'd prefer there be a minimal amount of state-sponsored influences on my life, but I realize that's not so for everybody and they need to be coddled a little more than I do.
But to the broader point, whether or not anything Obama and Co. are doing falls under the technical definition of socialism, it's widely perceived (not by everybody, though) that his statist influence is increasing and that the government is encroaching on our lives moreso than before.
Frankly, it's more than I'm comfortable with and is approaching a tipping point; however, I realize we are still a long ways from the days of Communist China and the Soviet Union.
I just don't want to slide down a slippery slope to get there.
@Mule
Ah thanks for bringing in an actual cogent argument from the right. One that's full of holes maybe, but at least fairly logical.
Whatever you define it as (Statism like Socialism has a ring to it that's too suggestive of things like WWII Italy or the USSR), it's true that Obama has not done enough to work toward individual liberties.
This slide into "statism"--for lack of a better word--may have hit its nadir in the post-9/11 Bush era, but it's hard to ignore that Obama has done little to improve upon his predecessor in the area of individual rights.
Although the transparency of government has increased since January, it's not nearly enough.
And why do we still have the Patriot Act in full force? Or for that matter FISA (which Obama sadly supported)?
Why have we seen nothing done on gay rights, and little on civil rights in general?
It's great that we no longer torture people and (maybe) aren't operating secret illegal prisons, but what has been done to prevent another slide back into statism under a future neocon President?
Although we're clearly easing back from the "tipping point" in terms of encroaching on our lives, a slide back into the Bush era could easily happen again, and we're seeing little done to prevent it.
@Mule Rider
The question is why does Bart so insist on avoiding the far more reasonable word use that you propose? My guess is to avoid the people he aims to dupe noticing the similarity in names of "statism" "States" thus drawing attention to 10th ammendment, AKA "State's Rights" being as much a manifestation of statism, casting it what is so often it's use as an assult on individual rights and freedoms.
Bart is a dealer of propaganda and PR lies. These things matter to him. So he fabricates this bizzare definition of "socialism" for the duel purposes of avoiding the uncomfortable word "statism" and to try drag in a bunch of other strawmen and fallacious arguements.
@Jacob,
I find it intriguing that you immediately steer the conversation towards statism as it pertains to civil liberties while my inclination is to look first at statism as it pertains to economic liberties. Not that I don't have concerns about both applications, but it is probably telling of our respective mindsets by which one we seem to prioritize on the surface.
By the way, I do agree that during the Bush era, there were some uncomfortable encroachments on civil liberties that I hope will loosen over time.
Mule Rider,
You mention that we are a long ways from Communist China and the USSR, but also mention a desire to avoid a slippery slope to get there. What do you find similar about the current USA and pre-Communist China and USSR that leads you to believe that a slippery slope could lead us there?
wv: condom - first time I've gotten an actual word...
@Mule
You may feel that we are sliding into statism, but I would argue that considering the circumstances we are actually not.
After the Wall Street meltdown the Government has not nationalized any of the banks. Government is not making day to day decisions in the banking world. They are putting their foot down on pay compensations but only after waiting for Wall street to do the responsible thing. In fact the Obama administration has resisted a lot of calls from the Atlantic side to put draconian pay limits.
As to GM, what else should they have done ? In a period of 10% unemployment put a huge workforce out on the streets ? It is not an ideal solution but there was not much that could be done.
In education the administration is actually taking on the Teachers Union and are putting aside money for schools that have developed are developing innovative techniques.
In the United States the Government works through regulation and not taking direct control of the day to day working of institutions. And none of that has really changed.
Ange,
"Allowing" profits is bad? Last I checked, people are allowed to make money on the fruits of their labor. Sounds dangerously close to Marxism. Are we simply supposed to donate our work in the hopes that the government will give us money we? Who gets to decide who makes what? Oh yeah, the "czars."
Devalue our work product at your peril. You want cheap medicine, you'll get crappy medicine.
Some of you libs need to camouflage your socialist tendencies better.
Jacob said...
OK Bart, name one government in the history of the world that has not directed its economy in some manner and has not redistributed wealth to citizens it favors in some manner. Or is "socialism" just synonymous with "society" in your mind?
You appear to be playing word games again by separately applying both elements of my definition. The United States has previously directed the economy (ex. Nixon's wage an price controls) and separately redistributed wealth (ex. the progressive tax code). However, on their own these two acts are not socialism.
Until the Obama Administration, the United States has not engaged in a single act or a coordinated combination of acts whereby the government directed the economy to redistribute wealth from the citizens who created it to citizens the government prefers.
In the nationalizations of Chrysler and General Motors, the government seized ownership of the two companies from its secured bond holders and transferred that ownership to the UAW and itself.
There is also a fascinating new development in socialism over the past 15 years known generally as the blue green alliance. Under this scheme, the government redistributes wealth created by the fossil fuel industries via cap and tax and transfers it to create government subsidized and preferably union green jobs favored by the government. Rather than de facto state ownership as in the case of "government motors," the government is abusing a combination of its tax and police powers to accomplish the same socialists goals. The Obama Administration's combination of cap and tax and green jobs programs are the attempt to implement this evolution of socialism. Van Jones and the Apollo Alliance have been pushing this for years and Van Jones was appointed to implement the green jobs end of this approach.
mule:
"Statism" only covers the first element of socialism "direction of the economy" and does not fully describe socialism. The United States has engaged in statism by creating the TVA. But the goal and end result was not redistribution of wealth as is necessary to rise to the level of socialism.
"No Easy Way Out" for Democrats on Abortion
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29393.html
And I would bring up Reagan's regressive tax structures and directing the economy by slashing funds for infrastructure development, as well as gutting environmental programs that keep the planet healthy for the benefit of polluters, fossil-fuel extractors, and loggers.
This direction of the economy (read any government activity) redistributes wealth (and more importantly wealth-creating capacity) from the middle-class workers who create the wealth to the super-rich executives whom Reagan favored.
Your definition of socialism is perverse anyway, Bart, but it absolutely includes any government throughout history.
As other posters have suggested, if you don't want what you call "socialism," move to Somalia.
Back on topic: Is the Prognosis For Health Care Getting Better or Worse?
Sen. Reid has set November 16th as the first test vote to see whether 60 Senators want to even bring Obamacare to the floor for debate.
Assuming there is even a debate on the floor before adjournment in December, Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell and National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman John Cornyn have both warned Democrats that they will target any senators who support procedural votes on the bill. There will be plenty of delays, my favorite being NOT waiving the reading of the bill (twice ; )
Lehman,
I don't believe ange was referring to employee compensation), but instead to company profits. The suggestion is to have health insurance companies be not-for-profit. That way, premiums would only need to be comprised of expected loss costs, expenses (which includes compensation to the hard-working employees), and a catastrophe load. Most health insurance company employees don't see any of their company's profits, anyway. Shareholders do. At present, health insurance companies increase profits by raising premiums and reducing paid claims. But as non-profits, they would only need to be concerned with maintaining adequate reserves. Removing the incentive to increase premiums results in lower premiums. Removing the incentive to deny legitimate claims results in a better quality of care.
Chris:
What other industries are you willing for the government to declare non-profit? Housing, food, clothing, legal, automotive? Keep going, and we will become the Soviet Union.
Charles,
Nope, just health insurance. Do you really believe there's no difference between profit-seeking in the automotive industry and profit-seeking in the health insurance industry?
Just wanted to see where (or if) you would draw the line. We already had Obama taking over car companies (Ford is really the only evil profit-making corporation left). And, I would argue, for healthy Americans especially, that shelter, food, clothing and a car are MORE important than healthcare insurance they won't even use.
Some more info on Senate Rules. Those 43 Rules, and the thousands of precedents derived from those Rules, exercise an extraordinary and peculiar influence over that body. If need be, they can be used to delay, if not kill, harmful legislation.
Most of the time, of course, Senate rules and precedents are peripheral to the day-to-day functioning of the body, because both parties waive their requirements in order to speed up the Senate's functioning. In addition to reading the entire 1,100 page healthcare bill out loud, which would take days, Rule IV states that every morning the journal of the previous day's session — an accounting of all the action on the Senate floor — must also be read out loud. To expedite the already molasses-slow legislating process, both parties usually agree to waive the reading of the journal through a "unanimous consent agreement." Those agreements, by which all 100 senators agree to parameters for bringing a bill or nomination to the floor, are the backbone of an effective Senate. Usually the result of significant backroom bartering, the agreements often limit debate time or the number of amendments that can be offered for a piece of legislation. UCs, as they are known, have helped the chamber run smoothly since its formation.
Withholding unanimous consent, therefore, is the strongest weapon Senate Republicans have should they choose to use it against Obamacare. Refusing consent for picayune bits of business such as the reading of the daily journal would effectively grind the Senate to a dead stop, leaving members unable to introduce new legislation until one side blinks. Putting a "hold" on a bill is a common way to deny unanimous consent, and any senator can do that by informing his party leader of his opposition.
Rule VI offers the Republicans another potential stalling tactic. It states that anytime the chamber is in session, any senator can suggest the absence of a quorum, or a simple majority. The roll is then called, and if 51 of the 100 members are not on the floor, the senators who are present can stop further debate until enough of their colleagues arrive to constitute a majority. Because there are rarely more than a few senators on the floor at any one time, except during scheduled votes, repeated requests for a quorum could delay Obamacare for days or even weeks, as well as infuriate senators by forcing them to troop constantly to the floor and listen to all the reasons by it's such a bad idea.
I can't wait . . .
Assuming there is even a debate on the floor before adjournment in December, Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell and National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman John Cornyn have both warned Democrats that they will target any senators who support procedural votes on the bill.
I'm sure the 42 Democratic senators not up for re-election in 2010 are quaking in their liberal tasselled slippers.
Nope, just health insurance. Do you really believe there's no difference between profit-seeking in the automotive industry and profit-seeking in the health insurance industry?
I don't see a difference either. One certainly needs an automobile in order to be productive and healthy members of society. It's very difficult to get a good paying job and be able to pay taxes without a car.
A car is no good if you cannot afford to buy fuel. That should be provided by the government.
Food is obviously necessary for survival.
Everyone needs a roof over their heads.
In case of an emergency all citizens should be provided with a TV and cable or satelite so they can be instructed what to do by the government.
To ensure "the pursuit of happiness", a vacation at least once per year should be provided by the government.
I don't see where it ends either.
Withholding unanimous consent, therefore, is the strongest weapon Senate Republicans have should they choose to use it against Obamacare. Refusing consent for picayune bits of business such as the reading of the daily journal would effectively grind the Senate to a dead stop...
Rule VI offers the Republicans another potential stalling tactic...
Please make obstructionism a stated tactic of the Republican Party. I simply can't imagine how that wouldn't work out great for you. Everybody loves a party that deliberately grinds government business to a halt. Certainly worked out great for the Republican Party and Newt Gingrich in 1996 and 1998.
As Charles has pointed out, perhaps it is time to revise Senate rules, or dare I say, time to eliminate the body through a Constitutional Amendment.
Of course it's worth pointing out that Democrats will also be able to take the floor during a stall and provide arguments for fixing the health care system as well as countering Republican lies.
It doesn't have to be a "stated tactic." Guerrilla warfare rarely is. BTW: those 42 Democratic senators will stand for re-election or need something someday too.
Go ahead, Jacob, and see how long it takes to get any of the 13 smallest States to agree to give up their power in the U.S. Senate.
It doesn't have to be a "stated tactic." Guerrilla warfare rarely is.
Wow, Charles, coming up with some awesome ideas today. So the Republicans should insist on the reading of day-to-day journals in the Senate, and then deny they're deliberately delaying the process!
BTW: those 42 Democratic senators will stand for re-election or need something someday too.
Indeed. I'm anxious to see how 2012 turns out for you guys too. (Not that it'll matter since the world ends a few weeks after election day anyway.)
"We're not delaying the process, just making sure that the U.S. Senate follows the rules." Sounds just about right to me, and half the people watching C-SPAN2 won't know the difference.
Chris said...
Do you really believe there's no difference between profit-seeking in the automotive industry and profit-seeking in the health insurance industry?
Grog said...
I don't see a difference either. One certainly needs an automobile in order to be productive and healthy members of society. It's very difficult to get a good paying job and be able to pay taxes without a car.
A car is no good if you cannot afford to buy fuel. That should be provided by the government.
Food is obviously necessary for survival.
Everyone needs a roof over their heads.
In case of an emergency all citizens should be provided with a TV and cable or satelite so they can be instructed what to do by the government.
To ensure "the pursuit of happiness", a vacation at least once per year should be provided by the government.
I don't see where it ends either.
Grog,
I don't have a car. I use public transportation to get to and from work. But I do have a house (complete with a mortgage), food, a TV, and I take occasional vacations. And none of that has anything whatsoever to do with the difference between profit-seeking in the automotive industry and profit-seeking in the health insurance industry.
BDP asserts:
Socialism is the government directing the economy to redistribute wealth from citizens who create it to citizens preferred by the government.
(Though he later admits this is his own personal definition, not one generally recognized by other people.)
Interestingly the foundation of Sarah Palin's much celebrated popularity as governor was due to her one major act of policy: sharply increasing taxes on oil companies operating in Alaska, then mailing out a check for $1200 to every Alaskan citizen from the proceeds.
According to BDP she is one flaming socialist! Wow!
Actually if a Democrat did this the entire membership of the Republican Party, not just the tea bag crowd, would be banging the tables and shouting the "C" word ("Communist!").
Charles said...
"We're not delaying the process, just making sure that the U.S. Senate follows the rules. Sounds just about right to me, and half the people watching C-SPAN2 won't know the difference."
Yeah use stalling tactics to avoid fixing the health care system then whine that people are accusing you of stalling. Sounds about par for the GOP to me.
Dern librul media!
I wouldn't put money on changing the nature of the Senate either, but it's an idea that should be floated and examined. It might gain enough traction to scare Senators into limiting some of their power as the push for direct election did a century ago. Who knows?
"We're not delaying the process, just making sure that the U.S. Senate follows the rules." Sounds just about right to me, and half the people watching C-SPAN2 won't know the difference.
Man, the hits just keep on coming! Absolutely, Charles - a policy predicated on the ignorance and stupidity of the American people will surely work! I think you've found the road map to electoral success in 2010 for sure.
Grog and Lehman,
Seeking profit is not a bad thing by any stretch. I have no problem with drug companies or providers seeking profit from the fruits of their labors so to speak. You work harder, make a better widget...you should be able to make more money and I agree with the capitalism concept. Unregulated capitalism however, leads to what we saw with banking/housing crash and the unprecedented rise in medical care cost over the last 15 years. (provider incomes are stagnant or decreasing)
What I don't agree with however, is allowing a middleman (who adds absolutely nothing/zippo/nada/zilch to the functioning of the overall system) to suck money out for their own profit and shareholder dividends from a fixed/finite pie...i.e. money that goes to them is not money spent on actual medical care. If you are fine with subsidizing the care of the uninsured/under-insured with higher premiums for everyone else (because ERs can't turn people away and hospitals can't bleed a stone when bankrupt/poor patients don't pay), then I guess I'll never be able to convince you both.
In the meantime, I'll risk being called a "blanking liberal socialist" when I strongly advocate that we follow the European example (and even our own in years past) and make the health insurance industry NOT FOR PROFIT.
BTW...if you haven't figured it out yet, I'm a physician.
Persuter,
I actually enjoyed the GOP Government shutdown in 1996-1998. We had economic growth, reduction of the deficit, ect.
Divided government is great for actually getting reasonable things done, and real compromise.
Ange, you make a common mistake about blaming "unregulated capitalism" for the housing crash. There are a huge number of regulations affecting mortgage lending, and some of those regulations, especialy those requiring reduced lending standards to meet composition quotas, were essentially responsible.
Moreover, the presense of government-based competitors operating under lessened lending standards and unfettered access to low-cost capital regardless of risk, distorted the market.
Yes, there was market failure in the derivatives market, which were used to hide risk, but if not for the distortions in the regulated marketplace backed by presumed governemnt guarantees, the unregulated mistakes would have not had so much umbrella under which to operate.
By creating another similar pseudo-governmental, unaccountable entity in health care legislation, such a mistake as in housing would be repeated. That is why the legislation must and will be stopped, so such an entity cannot destroy the health care system.
As has already been said by others here, reading the bill is important.
Gross government waste or violations routinely come about when the bills are not read. Witness: Bush Bailout, Stimulus Package, Patriot Act.
I don't care what Party a person belongs to. If a lawmaker is going to vote in favor of the bill, that person has a moral and fiduciary responsibility to read and thoroughly analyze the bill. This applies to any bill, not just the healthcare bill.
Competent deliberation is not possible if no one has read the bill. Read it. Understand it. Have a fine-tuning debate about it. Make the healthcare or any bill as good as it can be.
We've already had enough slipshod laws passed over the last decade. Let's get some good ones passed now.
Jerrol LeBaron
Executive Director
Honor In Office
www.HonorInOffice.org
The whole framework of the debate is flawed. "Health" is not a commodity which can be delivered by government. The more government interferes with the patient physician relationship the more health care will become bureaucratically cruel, inefficient, compromised by interests other than those of the patient and likely lead to shorter lives
Paul
http://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/
The people this whole health insurance program will punish is not the 9% who currently buy insurance, but the greater percentage who prefer to self insure and pay their own bills. Now we have to purchase insurance through this exchange and are not allowed to just pay our bill when we go to a doctor. Or else we have to pay fines or apparently go to jail.
Conservatives are nuts to believe there is going to be a major swing in 2010. There is not any tangible evidence to support this conclusion. Will they pick up a few seats in both the House and Senate, most likely, but not guaranteed. Problem is, there is undoubtedly going to be more elections similar to NY-23. Republicans tried to spin their inner power struggle, saying the district was all about which was the "better" or "more" Conservative candidate, hoping to minimize votes for the Democratic candidate. Ultimately the Conservative vote was split and Conservatives/Republicans lost. Republicans have not seen the last of the Palin "Socially Conservative, Evangelicals." These people are are on a mission from God, with a unique agenda, and could give a rat's ass about the Republican Party. They see what they believe is an opportunity to pick up Republican seats, leading to a "New Conservative" majority in the Republican Party, dragging the party further to the Right so they can literally "force" their Socially Conservative agenda on the rest of America.
GROG said…
“I don’t see where it all ends either.”
That’s because—
♦ You have a GOP ax to grind
♦ You’re not very bright
Obi-Beeg:
If you really are looking for tangible evidence, take a look at the anti-incumbent polling, especially among independent voters, as cited on the new thread.
Charles:
Polling as of now means nothing. As stated many times before, polling a year before the presidential election would not have predicted Obama or McCain to be party nominees. But I will agree that there is some merit to the anti-incumbent sentiments. But the polls do not take into account the reality of the war going on within the GOP (possibly renamed DOA). A fractured Party looses elections. Happened to the Democrats in 2000, differences is only about 5% of Democrats were Nader enviornmentalists, a much greater percentage of the GOP identify with the "New Conservative" movement. Say what you will, I called NY-23 and a year from now you will be saying "shucks, Obi-Beeg is a Jedi master." Truthfully, you will most likely be hyping up the tiny number of seats you picked up, fantasizing about a Palin, Beck 2012 ticket.
You're silly. No really, I LOL every time I read your stuff. Fricking hilarious. Of course, unlike most other people that respond to you, I realize you don't really believe all the stuff you write, I mean c'mon, you would have to be an idiot!
@Higglytown:
You are not self-insured just because you like to pay in cash at the doctor's office. You are self-insured if you have made certain that you will be able to self-pay those medical bills which may arise in the future - including provision of adequate care for any dependents and accounting for the realistic costs of serious illness or injury.
If you can genuinely demonstrate that ability and really want to make that wager, I would agree that your self-insurance should be considered a qualifying plan (or whatever). I think it is obvious that only a very tiny fraction of the population meet those criteria.
If you have a so-called self-insurance plan which is not adequately backed then it is a scheme which leaves your fellow citizens holding the bag, in one way or another, when someone in your family suffers a catastrophe. You're essentially remaining uninsured to save money, and pushing the potentially high cost of that decision onto someone else. In that situation, it seems unreasonable to complain about being "punished" when you're required to contribute something.
PDM said...
"The whole framework of the debate is flawed. "Health" is not a commodity which can be delivered by government. The more government interferes with the patient physician relationship the more health care will become bureaucratically cruel, inefficient, compromised by interests other than those of the patient and likely lead to shorter lives..."
How about stopping at "health is not a commodity" or at least it shouldn't be. Sadly, this bill won't fix that larger problem.
As to your second point, I don't know what you mean by interfering with the patient-physician relationship (nor I think would anyone propose that), but every nation in which the government "interferes" in the patient-insurance company "relationship," the result is a longer lifespan.
Honestly if anyone had an interest in making health care in this country "bureaucratically cruel, inefficient, compromised by interests other than those of the patient," they would just leave the system the way it is.
@Jerrollebaron:
Yeah, my reaction to the whine, "boo hoo, it's 1000 pages" was, "just shut up and do your job."
On the other hand, I am also reminded by your post that legislators are not elected for their ability to parse legislative language. It is actually pretty reasonable for them to make decisions on the basis of information and analysis provided to them by trusted people who are at least as well equipped to understand the bill and its implications. Poring over every item just to say he or she did isn't necessarily a great use of a legislator's limited time.
This whole nonsense about "fellow citizens holding the bag" is nonsense. The only time fellow citizens hold the bag is when the government subsidizes benefits by taxing the rest of us. Every hospital and doctor I have had will work out a payment plan. My daughter has been in the hospital twice this year, and we are making payments. The presumption that "insurance" needs to be required is crazy. As a self employed business man, I do well to provide for my family. You reduce my income by a $20,000.00 a year "qualified plan" and we will be hurting. And since that is about as cheap as I can currently insure my family of five, I don't imagine it will get any easier. Of course there will be years where the rest of you subsidize my premiums under this bill, when I have sufficient depreciation on the practice and building to eliminate enough income. And even though I would prefer to pay my bills, I likely will accept the subsidies and have the rest of you pay for my family's health insurance. Its the only way I could handle it.
Ange,
Oddly I ama physician also. And I fail to see how A) the government can force people to buy health insurance and B) how the government being involved in any way reduces waste fraud and inefficiency and C) what that has to do with whether or not a Health insurance company has a profit motive.
Without a profit motive, a great deal of the impetus for growth and change is lost.
DO I wish we could scrap the whole idea of health "insurance" and go back to the practice of being paid for the work you do and conversely, paying for the services you use? Yes I do. But that is not what is at issue.
Health care is not some nebulous thing, as you well know. It is the work product of hard working, well-trained people who have gone through a great deal of school, and in most cases paid a great deal for it, in time, moeny and opportunity. Therefore, it has inherent value and therefore noone (and I do mean NOONE) has a right to have it free of charge or have because others pay for them.
I am sure you have great anecdotal evidence that health insurance companies are greedy bastards who LIVE to deny claims and jack up premiums. Then again, most people have health insurance and most people are happy with it. SO why, I ask you, should we scrap a system that most are part of and most are happy with, to help a relative few who don't or who aren't? Anecdotal evidence, as you know, is no evidence at all.
There is no massive crisis propelling this issue. There is no dire catastrophe going to befall us as a nation if this bill doesn't pass. 16 years ago, Bill CLinton stated in his state of the union address that health care reform was imperative a predicted dire consequences if it was not enacted. DIdn't happen.
"16 years ago, Bill CLinton stated in his state of the union address that health care reform was imperative a predicted dire consequences if it was not enacted. DIdn't happen."
Uhh, prices DID keep skyrocketing and a larger percentage of the population is in fact uninsured now; it might not be "dire" for absolutely everything, but to say that there is no crisis is laughable.
As someone who has struggled to maintain affordable coverage, I would be fine with scrapping the system and implementing a federally-managed insurance program like a single-payer system, but if there is resistance to that because enough people benefit from the current system, that's fine.
But within the system, why shouldn't we make improvements to make it more affordable and more accessible?
@Higglytown:
Payment plans are fine until the day when these medical debts that you are stacking up exceed your ability to keep up with them. You can't control when and if that will happen, and it isn't like it's an unrealistic scenario. This isn't like other cases of getting into too much debt, either: neither the buyer nor the seller of health care can realistically just decide to stop racking up those costs.
I'm not entirely happy with the proposed plan either, but I can see why you can't just shove that risk onto others at no cost to yourself.
LEHMAN
bet you attended a medical school FUNDED by taxpayers
and did a residency at a TAXPAYER supported hospital
and health care is NOT an open access/free market - it is an extremely limited access that richly rewards the few
plus, 'dire consequences' ??? what do you call all the failing hospitals & closed ERs/trauma centers ??? the private hospitals [which are still highly subsidized by the taxpayers] are mostly closing off their ERs & literally dumping the uninsureds at the public/county hospitals
FREE market ??? think again - it is a system that continues to close out access for many
now should people get free medical care ? an arguable point EXCEPT that is really not what we are up against here at this time.
first, anyone can potentially get free care at public expense in an ER - where costs cannot be reasonably contained + cruel & inhumane treatment [24 hour waits, etc]
so all [including AARP & AMA] agree it is better to spread the risk & attempt to control costs REASONABLY rather than continuing to allow costs to spiral & coverage to contract
why is your profession rapidly losing FREE market customers to MEDICAL TOURISM ???
look at those stats - talk about the inherent DIRE consequences of doing nothing
YOU & your self-centered 'it works for me/screw all of youse' brethren would rather OUT SOURCE even more of this country's employment
IF I need surgery, my insurer would actually encourage me to go overseas for a cheaper treatment
then if I get complications on my return, well I can go to the ER & dump the expenses on the taxpayer
SMART, but that is reality today & even worse tomorrow if we fail to at least try to CHANGE
no one is saying that medical employees will see their income cut or capped [ it would probably go up IF all the profits skimmed for insurance admin & exec payments are kept in the system where they belong.
all 1st world countries except the US have taken the PROFIT motive out of their HC - try the Swiss & german models where their private insurers are all now non-profits but have real competition at much better expenses.
you come off as one helluva selfish b#stard imho
shame
Post a Comment