Quote :

"Research Firm Cited by GOP Is Owned by Health Insurer By David S. Hilzenrath Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, July 22, 2009; 6:46 PM The political battle over health-care reform is waged largely with numbers, and few number-crunchers have shaped the debate as much as the Lewin Group, a consulting firm whose research has been widely cited by opponents of a public insurance option. To Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Republican whip, it is "the nonpartisan Lewin Group." To Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, it is an "independent research firm." To Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the second-ranking Republican on the pivotal Finance Committee, it is "well known as one of the most nonpartisan groups in the country." Generally left unsaid amid all the citations is that the Lewin Group is wholly owned by UnitedHealth Group, one of the nation's largest insurers. More specifically, the Lewin Group is part of Ingenix, a UnitedHealth subsidiary that was accused by the New York attorney general and the American Medical Association, a physician's group, of helping insurers shift medical expenses to consumers by distributing skewed data. Ingenix supplied its parent company and other insurers with data that allegedly understated the "usual and customary" doctor fees that insurers use to determine how much they will reimburse consumers for out-of-network care. In January, UnitedHealth agreed to a $50 million settlement with the New York attorney general and a $350 million settlement with the AMA, covering conduct going back as far as 1994. [...] Lewin produced one of the most widely cited statistics of the health care debate: That, under a particular version of a public option, the number of people with private, employer-sponsored coverage would decline by more than 100 million. Opponents of the public option have invoked the finding as proof that offering a government-run health plan would not just create competition for private insurers -- it would deprive people of their existing employer-sponsored coverage and lead to a government takeover of the health care system."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/22/AR2009072202216.html?referrer=digg


I hate poisoning the well as much as the next guy, but seriously-- even the raw data used by reform opponents is under question.

[Edited on July 24, 2009 at 7:51 AM. Reason : ]

7/24/2009 7:51:11 AM

I would lie, cheat, and steal in order to prevent the public insurance option.
(But no, that shouldn't be necessary, though...)

[Edited on July 24, 2009 at 8:09 AM. Reason : ]

7/24/2009 8:08:41 AM

man you guys you have no idea how much i hate the idea of extending health insurance to people who don't have it already!!!

~

7/24/2009 8:10:06 AM

i strongly dislike those less fortunate then me.

7/24/2009 9:39:49 AM

I think everyone would like for everyone to have insurance

its just theres a huge elephant in the room of figuring out how to pay for it all

Obviously we cant even get a straight answer on how much that will be, due to stacked data

Note: I wouldnt be suprised if democrats similarly sugar-coated their numbers so that they would reflect what they wanted

7/24/2009 10:11:09 AM

this is true

7/24/2009 10:13:36 AM

I've spent some time in Florida recently, and every 5 minutes there is a commercial by the "Conservatives for Patients' Rights" - http://www.conservativesforpatientsrights.com/
This group is especially despicable, blatantly spreading lies and misinformation. Even more infuriating is the founder of CPR and the guy who appears in most of the commercials is Richard Scott, who was the CEO of Columbia/HCA and was fired for intentionally overcharging and ripping off Medicaid some tens of millions of $.

I honestly have to wonder..... how many people sitting at home, watching commercials like this or listening to their Republican representatives and cheering on "fuck yeah, keep gov't out of healthcare!!!" don't actually have insurance themselves or are woefully underinsured through their crappy jobs. Or, for that matter, are on Medicare or Medicaid like so many poor rural or older people (i.e. the Republican base) are.

7/24/2009 11:05:11 AM

health care is not a right

7/24/2009 8:16:26 PM

neither is education

7/24/2009 8:33:59 PM

Nor is having roads to drive on.

7/24/2009 8:44:52 PM

or electricity and running water

7/24/2009 8:48:02 PM

yet everyone who pays taxes benefits ... except in health care .. did you forget?

7/24/2009 8:54:57 PM

^^
^^^
^^^^
^^^^^
These are all true. Is there a point?

Are some of you confusing the concept of rights with entitlements or privileges?
Rights are inalienable. They exist whether or not they are recognized or granted.
Most importantly, rights don't impose an implicit obligation upon any other person to provide them to us. If something must be provided to us at the expense of someone else in order for us to have it, then it may be an entitlement, a privilege, or an act of charity –- but it is not a “right”.

7/24/2009 8:57:04 PM

Id like to respond but I just had my tonsils taking out by my foot doctor bc it pays more than treating my feet.

Dirty data... hahah. What do you call the BS the president was saying at his presser?

7/24/2009 9:11:46 PM

most americans' right to free speech is at the expense of my sanity

[Edited on July 24, 2009 at 10:31 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2009 10:28:45 PM

i want everyone to have quality health care. i dont want to destroy a great system and replace it with an inferior socialized system.

7/24/2009 11:09:48 PM

Quote :

"i dont want to destroy a great system"

don't worry.

7/24/2009 11:23:11 PM

^^ that's basically the cruz of the "reform problem" - people don't realize how fucked up our current system is.

It's infuriating to see Democrats trying, at least, to do something, while the Republicans will barely admit there is a problem, and if they do, they claim only minor adjustments need to be made. It's nice to have a President who is finally willing to stand up and say, again and again, "Health care will sink this country unless something is done." Now, you may not like what he/they are doing, but you'd better get on board and try to do something constructive to get your ideas in, because something is going to get passed one way or another. The only question is, will it have zero Republican input, or will you at least offer some ideas to incorporate.

7/24/2009 11:49:27 PM

agentlion, I want to hear more about what you see on your television.

I've learned a little about the things out there that don't get aired in "big cities" like Raleigh or "blue states" like North Carolina.

People aren't stupid. They are tricked with propaganda, and they have us miss this trick in order to pit us against one another.

7/24/2009 11:53:23 PM

wtf does that even mean?

7/25/2009 12:07:10 AM

Quote :

"i dont want to destroy a great system and replace it with an inferior socialized system."

There is pretty much no socialized system in the other industrialized countries that is worse than ours. Even the ones with less services are a better value because the cost is half. It's like getting an engineering degree from havard versus getting an engineering degree from NCSU. Harvard may be better, but the return on investment of a harvard engineering degree is nowhere close to an NCSU one since NCSU is so cheap.

As agentlion said, even if the republicans don't want a "socialized" system, they are doing exactly jack shit to propose an alternative, comprehensive plan that will make healthcare a better value (lower cost per services) for a greater number of people.

I suppose it is common for the minority party to go catatonic and just whine and nag about shit, but with so much on the line, you would think republicans would want to keep themselves in the debate. This healthcare bill is probably going to be as landmark as social security was.

As with social security, you can easily imagine republicans decades from now bitching about the oppressive universal healthcare system and wondering where the republicans were when it was originally being passed. Those of us who are still alive can tell them that republicans were too busy trying to smear obama over the professor gates incident and figuring out ways to run sarah palin as president.

[Edited on July 25, 2009 at 12:21 AM. Reason : .]

7/25/2009 12:20:19 AM

Quote :

"agentlion, I want to hear more about what you see on your television."

I've recently been to small-town NorthWest Florida, but also to Orlando, in the past couple months, and they are non-stop with the Conservatives for Patients Rights commercials. I don't think it's necessarily a "we'll play this in rural areas only" thing - they seem to be covering all of Florida. I think it just depends on the state.

It's typical campaign-style videos - misleading, half-truths, scare-tactics or sometimes downright lies. Nothing new there. They proudly put them on their own site
http://www.conservativesforpatientsrights.com/videos.php

or some random ones I found on YouTube. The guy at the beginning of the commercial is the one who got fired as CEO from Columbia for bilking the government
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHer9bKn438
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbHh86HkBhk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPmuGqr_BH8

Here he is defending personal attacks on him. what a schmuck....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFMjPEIT7Aw

7/25/2009 1:01:33 AM

Quote :

" Now, you may not like what he/they are doing, but you'd better get on board and try to do something constructive to get your ideas in, because something is going to get passed one way or another. The only question is, will it have zero Republican input, or will you at least offer some ideas to incorporate"

The problem, of course, is that you and your kind offer opponents a Hobson's Choice: one way or another, it's going to be a de facto socialized system, it simply becomes a question of scope. Dancing around the question of the "public option" for a moment, this call for alternatives is entirely disingenuous - nobody pushing for universal healthcare! wants to hear ideas that don't call for somehow the government getting involved. You don't want to hear about ideas for decoupling the link between employers and health insurance, or moving toward a system of HSAs + catastrophic coverage.

In other words, it's a fig leaf. The Republicans are doing an incompetent job at providing a viable opposition, but let's face it - none of you is all that interested in hearing out an "alternative" plan that does not involve the government anyways. So let's drop the pretense, already.

7/25/2009 3:04:34 AM

^In other words, you don't think your argument is convincing, so you won't make it at all. Got it.

"Where were you when they passed universal healthcare?"
"I was keeping all my awesome alternative ideas on double secret probation!"

This is a textbook lesson on how to be a loser (not particularly surprising coming from a libertarian), but Republicans appear to be following this strategy perfectly.

We've come a long way from the contract with america, which did more to advance conservative ideals than anything in the last 20 years.

[Edited on July 25, 2009 at 3:56 AM. Reason : you also appear to be a mind reader, gotta keep that secret as well]

7/25/2009 3:55:12 AM

so is a Dem socialized system going to treat illegal aliens free too? cause you cant have a welfare state and open borders, because you will go broke. its like having a restaurant and letting everyone in off the street for free food....see how long you stay in business.

7/25/2009 6:24:21 AM

Quote :

"one way or another, it's going to be a de facto socialized system, it simply becomes a question of scope."

1) no it won't
2) as several people, from both parties have said now, "elections have consequences"

7/25/2009 8:42:31 AM

Quote :

"As agentlion said, even if the republicans don't want a "socialized" system, they are doing exactly jack shit to propose an alternative, comprehensive plan that will make healthcare a better value (lower cost per services) for a greater number of people. "

So I guess you've been asleep and missed all the talk about opening up competition among insurance companies, changing the tax code to remove the incentive for all health care to be employer sponsored, adding incentives to get doctors to do charity work, revamping the already existing systems which cover such large chunks of our population already, encouraging a switch from health care plans to health insurance plans, not using the weight of the government to beat doctors who are trying new forms of payment into submission (I'm looking at you NY State).

If you're not even going to listen to the other side of the argument, of course you're going to think no alternatives have been proposed.

7/25/2009 8:51:53 AM

Quote :

" There is pretty much no socialized system in the other industrialized countries that is worse than ours. "

Measuring performance is not easy given the laundry-list of exogenous variables (lifestyle, ect), but it is far from clear that other countries’ health systems are better than ours. Most notably, we lead the world in technological and drug development - which other countries benefit from.

Quote :

"Even the ones with less services are a better value because the cost is half."

Costs are lower because of rationing. That is not the best way to go about reducing costs.

Quote :

" As agentlion said, even if the republicans don't want a "socialized" system, they are doing exactly jack shit to propose an alternative, comprehensive plan that will make healthcare a better value (lower cost per services) for a greater number of people. "

Here are two that I know of:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277551107536875.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/GOPHealthPlan_061709.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Quote :

" as several people, from both parties have said now, "elections have consequences""

When it comes to failed welfare programs where blame is difficult to pinpoint, “election consequences” are often nonexistent. For example, we have known for a long time that Social Security and Medicare are insolvent, yet no one seems to be penalized for a lack of action. Additionally, Barney Frank’s role in expanding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, despite clear warnings of systemic risk, also shows that “election consequences” carry little weight where blame can be diffused.

[Edited on July 25, 2009 at 10:44 AM. Reason : .]

7/25/2009 10:38:44 AM

Quote :

"so is a Dem socialized system going to treat illegal aliens free too? "

Aren't we doing that under the current system and forcing everyone to pay via higher health care costs anyway?

Quote :

"Costs are lower because of rationing."

And yet health wise they are our equals or better? Seems like rationing is EXACTLY what this country needs.

[Edited on July 25, 2009 at 10:52 AM. Reason : .]

7/25/2009 10:51:28 AM

Quote :

"And yet health wise they are our equals or better? Seems like rationing is EXACTLY what this country needs."

It depends on how you define "health wise?" Measurements, such as life expectancy and infant mortality, are very inaccurate as they are heavily influenced by factors unrelated to a country's health-care delivery system.

There are also other elements your analysis excludes, such as the decrease in technological and drug development that would occur due to the decreased ability to bring developments to market. What is difficult to measure is how many fewer lives will be saved worldwide by new procedures, drugs or technological advances that never came to market. Too many take for granted what the U.S. has exported to the world over the last century. There are much, much better ways to reduce costs. Rationing is an unnecessary symptom of failed central planning.

[Edited on July 25, 2009 at 11:24 AM. Reason : .]

7/25/2009 11:23:27 AM

Quote :

"In other words, you don't think your argument is convincing, so you won't make it at all. Got it."

I think it's plenty convincing. I also know that from dealing with you assholes on this board, you don't really care about inconvenient things like "facts" or "reason." At this point, you've got a majority, and you're interested in jamming through whatever hare-brained plan you've come up with.

Again, let's be honest - you're not interested in hearing any plan which does not put government at the center of the action in some way, shape, or form. So why are we pretending otherwise?

Oh wait, I forgot - intellectual dishonesty is the only way liberals know how to operate. Duh.

[Edited on July 25, 2009 at 12:01 PM. Reason : .]

7/25/2009 11:59:52 AM

Quote :

"Again, let's be honest - you're not interested in hearing any plan which does not put government at the center of the action in some way, shape, or form."

Wrong. People are not interested in hearing any plan which does not allow every American to afford decent health care. The only plans put forth so far that convincingly do this have involved the government. If somebody else has an alternative, they need to actually put it in a fucking bill rather than bitching and moaning about OMG SOCIALISM.

7/25/2009 12:08:58 PM

Bullshit. Plenty of people have brought up ways to reduce the net cost of healthcare, from looking at things like for instance breaking the employer-favored tax treatment of plans in favor of individual plans, or better yet, things like HSAs + catastrophic coverage, which are both more affordable, more easily able to be provided by smaller employers, and job portable.

They've brought the point of addressing the "first-dollar" problem currently inherent in the third-party insurance model and how this creates unwanted incentives, including both avoiding preventative care as well as overconsumption of other kinds of care.

They've brought up looking at the cartelization of medical licensing to address shortages in medical personnel.

They've brought up examining the issue of tort reform on medical malpractice insurance premiums, and the spillover effects of defensive medicine.

And they've even brought up the idea of just giving those who still can't afford healthcare vouchers to go out and purchase their own care, rather than creating a whole new government plan.

Meanwhile, even your own highly vaunted plans currently under consideration don't cover everybody. Been paying attention to the news much lately? Probably not.

So really. Spare us the fucking bullshit already. Nobody here is convinced that you're "actively seeking alternatives" when you've got a one-track mind on government-provided plans and heavy-handed mandates on private plans. (And damn the unintended consequences!) Unless dishonesty really is the only way you know how to play the game.

7/25/2009 12:17:41 PM

you've really loaded a lot of your pre-conceived notions onto spookyjon.

7/25/2009 12:21:45 PM

Prove me wrong.

7/25/2009 12:23:18 PM

what? he asked for people to write a bill if they had a better plan.

7/25/2009 12:25:07 PM

And any idiot who actually understands how the process works knows exactly where that will go.

R Congressman: "HAI GAIS! I have a plan to expand access to healthcare for all Americans without fundamentally further entrenching the government in the healthcare industry! It's right here in this bill!"
D Committee Chair: "Okay, put it on that table."
R: "And then what?"
D: "And then we'll discuss releasing it from committee about half-past never. We've got a bill, go away."

Again. A little honesty is all I ask from the debate.

7/25/2009 12:29:44 PM

So the GOP is too lazy than to even put something to committee?

7/25/2009 2:08:59 PM

Don't ask me, I'm not exactly hailing them as a competent opposition.

But bills die in committee all the time. And chances are, a counter-bill would meet the same fate - or do you really, truly believe that at this point an opposing alternative from the Republicans would be met with serious consideration? Perhaps you really think "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" is a model of how American democracy functions? If so, you've got bigger problems.

7/25/2009 2:11:05 PM

I'd like to think the guys I elected to office to represent my interests would at least try.

Better to have tried and failed than never have tried at all.

7/25/2009 2:23:05 PM

Quote :

"Here are two that I know of: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277551107536875.html http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/GOPHealthPlan_061709.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody"

As per the links in my post above, there are bills from the GOP. The first link is a finished bill (H.R. 2520: Patients' Choice Act). The second link pertains to a bill that is currently being drafted.

[Edited on July 25, 2009 at 3:04 PM. Reason : .]

7/25/2009 3:02:29 PM

Quote :

"Plenty of people have brought up ways to reduce the net cost of healthcare, from looking at things like for instance breaking the employer-favored tax treatment of plans in favor of individual plans, or better yet, things like HSAs + catastrophic coverage, which are both more affordable, more easily able to be provided by smaller employers, and job portable. "

so, let's just be clear - you are in favor of decimating the existing insurance industry, correct?

7/25/2009 3:22:08 PM

How can anyone support huge waits, waits for diagnostics, waits for specialists, waits between diagnosis and treatment, inferior treatment, etc. If Canada's system is so wonderful why do severely ill people come south for life saving treatment.

7/25/2009 4:34:12 PM

So.... are you just listing random negative factors built into any and every health plan? How about - how can anyone support our current for-profit, anti-consumer, anti-patient, healthcare system?

If the US system is so wonderful why do severely ill people go to India for live saving treatment.

7/25/2009 4:58:52 PM

Quote :

"so, let's just be clear - you are in favor of decimating the existing insurance industry, correct?"

Is this supposed to be a loaded question, or what? No, really, what is the point of asking this question? I think the proposed policy is clear enough - whether or not this "decimates the existing insurance industry" shouldn't be the point at all (and if it is, it speaks volumes to your individual priorities). The question is whether it realigns incentives toward both controlling healthcare spending and to making healthcare more portable and more affordable.

[Edited on July 25, 2009 at 7:56 PM. Reason : .]

7/25/2009 7:53:44 PM

Quote :

"No, really, what is the point of asking this question? I think the proposed policy is clear enough - whether or not this "decimates the existing insurance industry" shouldn't be the point at all (and if it is, it speaks volumes to your individual priorities)"

The question doesn't have anything to do with my priorities. The Republican Part as a whole, though, (and increasingly the Dems as well) do not seem willing to do anything that will upset the precious health insurance cartel, which pays them so well (as most of your suggestions would do)

7/25/2009 9:22:44 PM

Like I said - I never claimed that they were acting in any way as a competent opposition.

Besides which though, I do believe there is still a market for catastrophic health coverage - the same way there's a market for auto insurance, homeowner's insurance, life insurance... Somehow, despite the fact that they are profoundly different in structure than the health insurance industry, they seem to do okay, for the most part.

7/25/2009 10:22:40 PM

^ I agree. But to arrive at such a situation, Congress would have to forcefully destroy the existing insurance companies, along with hundreds of thousands of jobs, but more importantly (for Congress, that is), millions of dollars in political support. Not gonna happen.

7/25/2009 10:57:31 PM

If your goal is to reduce costs and maintain or improve the quality, you need to move away from third party/govt health insurance for routine care, have tort reform, and let individuals get tax deductions for purchasing thier own insurance.

However, until you propose a system that gets people to exercise and watch what they eat, its not going to make much of a difference. The fastest growing epidemic in the US is diabetes. The leading causes of death in the states are all lifestyle issues. However, no one is addressing the real truth in controlling the costs. The people I see the most are the ones who pay nothing, medicaid, or very little, medicare, for their insurance or visits. One lady just shows up to get samples.. She doesnt care what it costs taxpayers. She needs a surgery on her lids she isnt willing to do, so she just stops by whenever the mood strikes her, all on the taxpayers tab.

7/26/2009 9:26:20 AM

Quote :

"The question doesn't have anything to do with my priorities. The Republican Part as a whole, though, (and increasingly the Dems as well) do not seem willing to do anything that will upset the precious health insurance cartel, which pays them so well (as most of your suggestions would do)"

And this is why I don't understand why so many people are behind the current proposals. They do nothing to actually change the underlying problems, instead, they just add a middle man gate keeper that taxes the people that pay for their own insurance, so that they can take those taxes and pay the insurance companies to insure the people that don't pay for their own insurance. So we're not reforming the system, so much as just forcefully giving the insurance companies new customers and doing it on someone else's dime.

If our politicians were truly serious about reforming the system, they would be proposing ideas that change the system, not ideas that add the government in the middle of the current system.

[Edited on July 26, 2009 at 1:24 PM. Reason : sdfg]

7/26/2009 1:23:34 PM